Parliament in Sh2.5bn CCTV tender row with Israeli firm

Procurement board declares the termination null and void

In Summary

• The Israeli company sought a review of the decision by Parliament to terminate the tender process for non-responsiveness and inadequate budget

• The procurement board nullified and set aside termination letters Parliament issued to the bidders.

Parliament Buildings in Nairobi.
Parliament Buildings in Nairobi.
Image: FILE

Parliament is embroiled in a multibillion-shilling security management system tender row with an Israeli company.

Magal Security Systems Ltd sought a review of the decision by Parliament to terminate the tender process for non-responsiveness and inadequate budget.

The company was among the five that bid for the tender. The others are joint ventures led by Glosec Solutions, Megason Electronics, Top Sky Line Engineering System Ltd and a joint venture led by Octopus Systems Limited.

Octopus Systems Limited was found responsive and proceeded to the detailed technical evaluation stage.

The tender evaluation committee recommended that it be awarded the tender at Sh3,471,493,479 inclusive of all taxes.

It was to upgrade the security equipmentCCTV camerasand its components at main Parliament site and all office buildings in the parliamentary square.

This was to include Juvenile Court Building, Red Cross Building, Imani House, County House, Protection House, Ukulima House, Harambee House, Continental House, the new office block and County Hall.

The Integrated Security Management System was to be extended to other properties Parliament may acquire in future.

However, the Parliamentary Service Commission and Parliament Joint Services terminated the entire tender process.

It cited lack of funds – having a provision of Sh2.45 billion, and a due diligence report which disqualified Octopus.

In a second professional opinion, Parliament’s chief procurement officer concluded that the tenderer was found non-responsive at the due diligence stage.

He advised the PSC director general to approve termination due to inadequate budgetary provision and that all tenders were non-responsive.

Magal moved to the board seeking a reversal of the decision and an order declaring Parliament to have failed to evaluate applicants’ bid at the preliminary stage.

Glosec also lodged a request for review seeking an order to set aside the termination and for competitive negotiations with the responsive bidder.

Top Sky Line Engineering System Limited was an interested party in the matter which the board has since ruled in their favour.

The review board nullified and set aside termination letters that Parliament issued to the bidders.

It directed Parliament to admit Magal and Glosec at the technical evaluation stage and re-evaluate their bids.

PPRAB further asked that the PSC proceeds with the procurement to its logical conclusion.

“Having noted the magnitude of the project in the subject tender, the board finds that it is not in the public interest for the subject tender to be delayed any further,” the ruling states.

"The project should not be delayed any further as this would lead to wastage of public resources already allocated to the said project as early as financial 2017-18.”

Following the approval of the first professional opinion, the board said the decision was sufficient evidence that PSC was willing to proceed with the procurement despite noting that the lowest price was above its budgetary provision.

“The procuring entity only got an excuse to terminate the subject tender after a due diligence exercise conducted on the lowest evaluated tenderer had a negative outcome.”

The board further ruled that there was no sufficient justification for termination, PSC having used public resources for prequalification, invitation in the restricted tendering, evaluation of tenders and due diligence.

“The procuring entity has not exhausted all the options available to it such as competitive negotiations, if need be, and therefore the termination does not meet the threshold set in the law,” the board said.

It ruled that Magal and Glosec’s respective tenders were wrongfully or unfairly found non-responsive.

“This would warrant a re-evaluation at the technical evaluation stage...the said termination is null and void. The companies ought to have proceeded to the technical evaluation stage.”


- mwaniki fm