A company has sued the Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Productions Institute (KVVPI) for delaying their award for supply, installation and commissioning of laboratory equipment.
Leeds Equipment and Systems Limited claims that KVVPI have refused to comply with Public Procurement Review Boards Decision.
In their application filed in court, they claim that the decision by the institute is occasioning astronomical losses to them.
They want the court to compel the institute to continue with the tendering process as the continued delay is in breach of their legitimate expectation.
Leeds wants KVVPI to complete the procurement process and award them with award letter and contract.
“Since March 16, 2018, when the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board annulled their decision by KVVPI to terminate the tender based on insufficient budgetary allocation, they have refused to complete the tendering process,” reads court documents.
Through their lawyer Dennis Sang, the company says KVVPI were expressly ordered by the PPARB to issue a letter of award in terms of specification which orders them to continue to defy.
The director of Leeds Geoffrey Koech says that the procuring entity KVVPI in an email on February 2018 notified them of the termination of the tender proceedings due to insufficient budgetary provision.
Leeds Equipment and Systems Limited filed a request for review at the Public Procurement Administration review Board, having been dissatisfied with the reason given by the procuring entity.
The decision by KVVPI to terminate their tender proceedings was annulled by the board and they were directed to issue a letter of award for the supply, installation and commissioning of Laboratory Equipment Lot 4 to Leeds Equipment and Systems Limited within 14 days from March 16, 2018.
KVVPI did not award the tender to Leeds as directed by the board and opted to appeal the decision at the High Court. The High Court dismissed their application.
However, KVVPI accounting officer has acted and is continuing to act in excess of her powers in refusing to carry out her aforesaid statutory obligations and to complete the tendering process, the firm says.
“The position taken by the institute to deny the issuance of the tender to our company despite the public procurement review Board decision amounts to discrimination aimed at locking us out from being awarded the tender which I believe goes against the rule of natural justice and is contrary to the constitutional dictates of procurement principles,” the company claims.
