- Some of the companies were less than one year, with some lacking requisite experience to do works or supply the goods or services.
- In her report, Gathungu cited a contract worth Sh247.64 million awarded for procurement of works, goods and services.
Image: STEPHEN ASTARIKO
Auditor general Nancy Gathungu has exposed Sh825 million irregular procurements in Wajir.
Gathungu exposed the rot in her latest report, 2019-20 financial year, in what could once again put the Northeastern county in the limelight.
The report also reveals more than Sh1.5 billion unaccounted expenditures by the county officers.
In the report tabled in Senate, Gathungu exposed how the county government violated procurement laws, dished out tenders to select companies and exaggerated prices.
The county officials, the report shows, split contracts to avoid open tendering in an apparent plot to favour certain firms.
Some of the companies were less than one year, with some lacking requisite experience to do works or supply the goods or services.
In her report, Gathungu cited a contract worth Sh247.64 million awarded for procurement of works, goods and services.
The county, in a bid to defeat the open process, split the contracts by structuring it in a manner to ensure the procurement falls within the request for quotation threshold ‘in order to defeat competition for the contracts.’
“It was not noted that works of similar nature within the same project locality were split and awarded to different contractors and in some instances to the same contractor,” the report reads.
In yet another case, the county procured medical equipment worth Sh29.87 million through request for quotations.
“However, contracts for the medical equipment were split to defeat use of open tender as a choice or procurement.
In addition, “verification of the prices charged for some of the items revealed that the prices were highly inflated compared to the prevailing market prices.”
Gathungu also flagged the expenditure of Sh105.25 million on procurement of Covid-19 items.
She termed the procurement as irregular after the audit established that the county breached several provisions of the procurement laws.
The county employed direct procurement in the acquisition of the items.
The auditor said the budget for the items was vague as it did not contain specific details of the items.
In addition, two of the companies awarded the contract were less than one year old while one was one year and three months.
“This was a clear indication that the suppliers had no qualification and experience to supply the stores,” the auditor states.
In addition, “examination of the valuation minutes revealed that three companies were given a score of 10 out of 10 for past experience.
“However, a review of their company profiles shows the bidders had not done similar works before, yet were given maximum scores by the evaluation committee.”
Further, the tenders were awarded to private firms despite the law restricting the counties to strictly procure the medical items from Kenya Medical Supplies Authority.
Gathungu also flagged payment of legal fees amounting to Sh21.13 million which she termed as irregular.
Records provided showed that out of the Sh21.13 million, Sh17.69 million was paid to one company.
“This therefore implies that most of the legal cases were handled by one firm although there were 20 law firms pre-qualified. It was noted that the firm was established in 2016 under a different business name,” the report states.
Gathungu also raised concerns with the procurement of relief emergency food to help residents’ battered by drought.
The county entered into a framework for the supplies of the items with four companies contrary to law.
Further, the number of household’s beneficiaries and distribution schedules showing the date and specific venue where food was distributed, IDs of beneficiaries and quantity of food were not provided for audit.
“In addition, there was no evidence that the Finance executive sought the approval from the county assembly after making payments from the emergency funds as required by section 114 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012.
(Edited by Bilha Makokha)