The procurement watchdog has put Housing and Urban Development Charles Principal Secretary Charles Hinga on the spot for allegedly meddling in a Sh1.93 billion tender for an affordable housing project in Machakos.
The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority’s (PPRA) Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB)—which hears and determines appeals concerning public tenders— has found that the PS usurped the powers of the tenders’ evaluation committee by terminating a tender and purporting to conduct due diligence checks on one of the bidders.
The tender review board in a June 3, 2025, sitting, found that Mr Hinga “unfairly, unlawfully and illegally” disqualified Keddy and has ordered the process of the tender to proceed to a conclusion.
The tender evaluation committee of the State Department for Housing and Urban Development had recommended Keddy Enterprises for the award for its Sh1.93 billion bid.
“The first respondent (Mr Hinga) is hereby ordered to proceed with and ensure the procurement process with respect to tender...proceeds to its lawful and logical conclusion within 30 days of this decision taking into consideration the board’s findings herein, including ...recommendation of award of the subject tender,” reads the board’s order in part.
The tender relates to the construction of 819 housing units under the first phase of the Machakos New City Affordable Housing Programme.
The tender attracted 14 bidders but only two—Padaa Enterprises and Keddy Enterprises— proceeded to the technical evaluation stage after the rest were deemed non-responsive during the initial assessment. In tenders, a non-responsive bid refers to one that fails to meet the essential requirements set out in the tender documents.
Record by the Business Registration Services, the official custodian of a list of all companies in Kenya, shows Padaa is owned by Abdirizak Mohamed Nur while Evangeline Kiende Njeru owns Keddy.
The PPARB’s document shows the evaluation committee and two experts advised and recommended that Keddy be awarded the tender, but Mr Hinga overruled them twice and ended the tender through a memo to the bidders, without unsubstantiated reason.
The PPRA board quotes Mr Hinga’s letter to the evaluation committee as follows: “Ms Keddy faked documents in Konza. This is a discredited bidder that should be blacklisted.”
However, the PPRAB notes that it has no sight of how Mr Hinga came to such a conclusion or documentation informing his decision and reasons for rejecting the second professional opinion.
Mr Hinga then proceeded to send out letters on March 30, 2025, informing all bidders that the tender had been cancelled for being non-responsive. He did not write to the PPRA to explain specific reasons for the termination as is required in the procurement laws.
Head of supply chain management John Maina, who gave the first expert advice backing the award of the tender to Keddy, told PPRA that when the committee sought reasons from Mr Hinga on why he termed the tenders, the PS said he was “not comfortable with the manner in which the results of the evaluation process” went.
The board’s document said internal correspondence between Mr Hinga and the procurement boss shows the PS wondered why the tender had not been awarded to Padaa.
“We note that vide internal memo dated 26th March 2025, the Head Supply Chain Management, Mr John Maina forwarded to the 1st respondent (Mr Hinga) letters of notification for termination of the procurement process for the subject tender dated 26th March 2025 for being non-responsive and sought for his concurrence and signature,” notes the board.
“On the said memo, the board notes correspondence between the 1st respondent and the Head Supply Chain Management where the 1st respondent questions why the tender was being terminated since he thought it was awarded to Padaa, and in response, Mr Maina indicated that they had discussed and agreed to terminate as the validity period was over after the initial extension and Padaa was awarded the Mavoko contract. Further, it was indicated in the said memo on April 4, 2025, that the professional opinion was still recommending the applicant (Keddy) for the award.”
In rejecting the first recommendation from the evaluation committee to award the tender to Keddy, Mr Hinga, through a February 4, 2025 memo, directed the committee to refer to a Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) report on the firm and “evaluate next qualified bidder,” in this case, Padaa. He also ordered the committee to re-evaluate all bids noting “minor deviations especially on not stamping special form.”
Mr Hinga’s directive forced the committee to extend the tender’s validity period for 30 days. However, upon review, the committee found that Keddy had a tax compliance certificate up to July 2025 and that the past tax dispute it had with KRA was still pending before a tribunal. Therefore, it still picked Keddy.
However, the board’s document shows Mr Hinga was dissatisfied with the finding and even wrote a letter to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission CEO on March 27, 2025, asking him to investigate Keddy. On the same day, he dispatched another letter to Equity Bank Kenya's boss asking how the lender issued a Sh3 billion line of credit “to a company that has only credit lines of only Sh180 million.”
The letters were in addition to one he had written to the KRA in mid-December last year asking about Keddy’s tax compliance status. KRA had responded to Mr Hinga on January 10, 2025, indicating that Keddy had filed all returns as of January 2, 2025, amid an ongoing tax dispute on previous tax assessments.
The board concluded that Mr Hinga usurped the role of the evaluation committee by purporting to carry out due diligence and rejecting the committee’s evaluation report.
“The 1st respondent (Mr Hinga) does not have any powers to declare the applicant’s (Keddy) tender non-responsive as this is a role reserved for the evaluation committee,” reads the PPRA board review in part.
PPRA board added that if indeed Mr Hinga was privy to detrimental information that would inhibit the award of the tender to Keddy, he would have brought it to the attention of the committee instead of rejecting the bid and then proceeding to look for the information.
