The Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) has received approval from the procurement disputes tribunal to purchase and install electronic security check systems worth Sh254 million, in a programme that seeks to boost protection for people and assets.
This is after dismissing a challenge from an unsuccessful bidder, who sought nullification of the KAA's decision to award the contract to Securex Agencies (K) Limited and KGT Kenya Limited.
The two companies have been contracted to supply, deliver, install, and commission security screening equipment – 2D x-ray machines and walk-through metal detectors.
The issuance of the tender follows the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) to dismiss a complaint lodged by one of the unsuccessful bidders, Achelis Kenya Limited, seeking cancellation of the tender.
Achelis alleged that it was unfairly knocked out at the preliminary tender evaluation stage and that its bid price was Sh7 million lower than that of Securex. Its lawyers stated that, in the interest of safeguarding public funds, it would have been prudent for the KAA to declare the bid submitted by Achelis as the lowest evaluated bid and award it the contract.
However, the Board upheld KAA’s decision, noting Achelis failed to submit mandatory manufacturer authorisations for both scanner types as required in the tender documents.
"The applicant only partially complied with mandatory requirement No.12, in that it submitted a manufacturer’s authorisation for the X-ray baggage scanners but failed to submit a similar authorisation for the walk-through metal detectors. Accordingly, the Board finds that the procuring entity (KAA) cannot be faulted in the manner it exercised its discretion in evaluating the applicant’s bid," said the PPARB panel chaired by Ms Alice Oeri.
Upon the Board reviewing the scope of works outlined in the tender document to determine whether such partial compliance was permissible, it found that the tenderers were required to provide manufacturer’s authorisations for both items.
"Consequently, the applicant’s failure to provide authorisation for the walk-through metal detectors rendered its bid non-compliant with the mandatory requirement," said the panel.
In relation to pricing, the Board stated that the quoted bid price is only one of several factors considered during the evaluation process, and it is assessed at the final stage of that process.
"It is for this reason that the successful bidder is referred to as the ‘lowest evaluated bidder’, and not merely the ‘lowest bidder’," it ruled.
The Board also dismissed the company's request to be supplied with confidential documents from KAA related to the subject tender.
It said this was contrary to the provisions of the Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act, as the application was filed after submission of the request for review of the procurement process.
"The Board finds that the applicant erred in directing its request for documents to the Board, which is not the primary custodian of such documents. Moreover, the applicant’s decision to wait until the documents had been submitted to the Board pursuant to Section 67(3)(e) of the Act, and then proceed to request access to them, was irregular," said the Board.
This is because the Board lacks the mandate to disclose such documents. It was ruled that it would have been proper for the company to request the documents from the KAA before filing the request for review.
"Seeking access to the documents after filing the request for review appears to amount to a fishing expedition," said the panel consisting of Ms. Oeri, Alexander Musau, and Stanslaus Kimani.
