A firm whose financial advice allegedly informed the Ministry of Health's decision to acquire expensive medical kits has protested to the Senate over a damning report.
In a letter poking holes on the report by the Senate ad hoc committee that investigated the multibillion-shilling Medical Equipment Service programme, PKF Kenya exonerated itself from any wrongdoing.
“As acknowledged by the committee…., PFK were not responsible for and it did not issue any advice to the Ministry of Health with regards to the suitability of MES and neither did PKF recommend MES,” managing director David Kabeberi's letter says.
According to the ad hoc committee report on the MES programme, a consortium of PKF Kenya and Spa Infosuv East Africa conducted a value for money assessment (VfM) and advised that the government would spend less money by adopting the MES leasing model as opposed to direct purchase.
A VfM report was prepared in a record three days although the contract gave the consortium 45 days to do the work.
“The OAG [Office of Auditor General] further noted the financial advisory services provided by PKF Kenya had guided the decision by MoH to opt for the MES model rather than outright purchase of equipment,” the committee report states.
“This position was in accordance with the testimonies given by the MoH and Mr James Macharia who all testified that the value for money assessment conducted by PKF had informed the decision by the MoH to opt for a MES procurement [leasing] model rather than outright purchase.”
But in the letter to the Senate seen by the Star, Kabeberi denies advising the Ministry of Health to take the expensive MES route instead of directly purchasing the equipment.
He says that by the time MoH engaged PKF Kenya, the Ministry had not only already decided to use the MES procurement model, but MES bids for the equipment had already been advertised, received and evaluated up to the technical stage.
Further, Kabeberi disputed the report findings that PFK prepared and issued its VfM report within three days of signing the contract.
“PFK did not issue any report in the quoted period of three days. We believe that the dates in the report are incorrect because our value for money report was actually issued on November 17, 2014, and not October 17, 2014 which was 35 days after the contract date and within the planned 44 days as envisaged in the contract,” the letter says.
According to the business consultants, they did not play any role in the preparation of the tender for supplies which had been issued well before PFK was contracted.
“The RFP issued by MoH clearly stipulated the evaluation criteria to be applied and set out the requirements and pricing to be in lots,” Kabeberi said.
Further, “we can confirm that we did make a market price surveillance for all the items in the tender for the purposes …. We did not issue nor were we required to issue a report on the market price surveillance.”
- mwaniki fm
