Sh200m is no small change, get to the bottom of this deal

Kenyans are entitled to know why they should pay Sh200 million more for the construction of a multi-billion shilling office block to house offices for members of the National Assembly and the Senate when completed in three years’ time.

It is not in question that the National Assembly members need extra space to work as many of them currently have offices scattered across the city of Nairobi. Worse, many of the members without offices within the Central Business District have difficulties meeting their constituents when they visit them in the nation’s capital.

What is in question is the manner in which the tender was awarded to China Jiangxi International despite its bid being Sh200 million higher than the one offered by its Chinese counterpart, China Wu Yi. The reason put forward that the disqualified bidder was involved in litigation over a unrelated issue does not hold any water. Had the amount involved been a mere few thousands of shillings, perhaps, the matter could have been laid to rest without much ado.

Credible arguments

But the amounts involved are huge. Indeed, it was only recently that the National Social Security Fund board members were under scrutiny for awarding a Sh6.7 billion contract to the same company to build the 39-storey Hazina Trade Centre. There have been credible arguments that the cost was highly exaggerated compared to similar buildings that are going up in Nairobi.

It would be interesting to learn why the members of the Tender Evaluation Committee ignored a plea by one of its members to consider China Wu Yi’s litigation a minor deviation which cannot affect the performance of the contractors and, therefore, not sufficient to disqualify any bidder.

But, perhaps, even more interesting would be an explanation from the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPAR) why it has allowed the award to stand after the winning company challenged the tender committee decision to re-tender the contract.

The expectation was that the PPAR would have raised the red flag as soon as it learnt the contract had been awarded to the second highest bidder. Or is that not its role?