Notice any foul smell in police radio tender to ZTE?

The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board has lived up to expectations when it upheld the cancellation of the controversial Sh9 billion police radio tender awarded to ZTE, a Chinese company.

The board’s decision was informed by the revelation that the prices quoted were not only two times above the market rates, but the taxpayers would also have to fork out Sh1 billion every year to meet maintenance costs.

The result was that the tender price was increased by 106 per cent. This brings into question the integrity of the Interior Ministry’s tender committee that awarded the contract even after two of the three original companies that bid were knocked out at the technical stage. This was contrary to the rules and regulations governing Government tendering which stipulate that in such incidences, the tender should be declared unresponsive and floated afresh.

The tenderer had quoted eye-popping prices for items whose cost could have been easily cross-checked in the open market. ZTE’s price for a HP desktop computer, for example, was Sh324,000 against the market price of Sh103,000; HP printers at Sh832,000 against a market rate of Sh43,000 and routers at Sh168,000 against Sh51,000.

Perhaps, in recognition of just how out of this world their quotations were, ZTE and the ministerial tender committee agreed to the insertion of a provision that required the payment of 90 per cent of the contract sum once as the equipment arrived in Kenya, even before the devices were installed, tested and commissioned.

The bidder had also proposed 90 per cent payment of the price as soon as the shipment lands in Mombasa, contrary to the phased schedule of project implementation.

The fact that the National Police Service rejected the proposed equipment because it could not work with the existing police communication system might provide the answer. The sheer lack of accountability, transparency and simple rules of governance revealed in this sorry saga should send the Government back to the drawing board to determine how public contracts are awarded, and the sanctions to automatically impose on those who flout the rules. As it is, the taxpayers are paying huge amounts of money for deliberate mistakes made by such officers in cahoots with unscrupulous business people. At the very least, those involved in the awarding of the tender should be fired.

Additionally, Government should invite independent professional firms to audit the various mega-project awards given over the recent past.

Even in instances where the public might not get back funds already paid out irregularly, the audit would reveal the individuals and companies involved in questionable practices, and blacklist them to ensure they do not participate in future contracts.