By The Weekly Vision Team
Barely a month after the Public Procurement Administrative Board cancelled a multi-million-dollar tender awarded to Spenomatic Kenya Ltd by East Africa Portland Cement; Judge Jirus Nyagah on February 1st upheld the Board’s decision and dismissed an application by EAPC Ltd.
The application by EAPC Ltd dated December 18, 2023, prayed for an order of certiorari to quash the entire decision and orders of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board made on December 1, 2023, under the Request for Review Application No. 94/2023 in regards to Request for Proposal No. EAPCPLC/RFP/009/202 for Design, Supply, Installation, and Commissioning of a Grid-Tied Solar PV Plant.”
According to the application, EAPC Ltd. invited eligible bidders to make applications for the development of what they described as “captive solar generation.” This was through an expression of interest (EOI) advertised in a daily newspaper on November 18, 2022. As of November 25, 2022, which was the closing date for submission of the applications, thirteen proposals had been received and were subsequently opened in the presence of bidders’ representatives in accordance with Section 120 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
Also Read
http://East African Portland Cement Company Forced To Cancel Multi-Million Shillings Fraudulently Awarded Tender For Solar PV Plant
http://Spenomatic Kenya Ltd. Suffers Blow As PPARB Cancels EAPC Tender For The Second Time
After the procuring entity’s evaluation, the following bidders were found to have qualified: Central Electrical International, Spenomatic Kenya Limited, Voltalia Kenya Services Limited, Imexolutions Limited, Ofgen Energy Solutions Simplified, and Ric Energy. Subsequently, upon preliminary evaluation, three bids were determined to be responsive. They were Central Electrical International, Spenomatic Kenya Limited, and Ofgen Energy Solutions Simplified.
At the technical evaluation, the bidders’ scores were as follows: Central Electrical International (77.8%), Spenomatic Kenya Limited (86.7%), and Ofgen Energy Solutions Simplified (66.4%).
The minimum technical score was 80%, and, therefore, Central Electrical International and Ofgen Energy Solutions Simplified were determined to have fallen short of the threshold. Spenomatic Kenya Limited was the only bidder that proceeded to the financial evaluation stage. It was ultimately adjudged to be the successful bidder and was, therefore, awarded the tender.
Being aggrieved by the award, Central Electricals International lodged a request for review before the respondent in application no. 65 of 2023. After hearing the parties, the Public Procurement Administrative Board made the following orders: That letter of notification of award issued to the 1st interested party dated September 11, 2023, with respect to RFP No. EAPCPLC/RFP/009/2023 for the design, supply, installation, and commissioning of grid-tied solar PV plants, is hereby nullified and set aside.
Following this decision, the procuring entity readmitted the first interested party’s tender together with all other tenders that were determined responsive at the preliminary evaluation stage for evaluation at the technical proposal stage. The scores were as follows: Central Electrical International (62.24%), Spenomatic Kenya Limited (88.76%), and Ofgen Energy Solutions Simplified (53.06%).
For the second time, Central Electrical International and Ofgen Energy Solutions Simplified fell short of the minimum score of 80%. Spenomatic Kenya Limited proceeded to the financial evaluation stage and was eventually awarded the tender.
Central Electrical International was not satisfied with the award and, therefore, for the second time, lodged a request for review challenging the award. Central Electrical International was also aggrieved that the respondent’s decision was not consistent with its prior findings or directions in application no. 65 of 2023 and, in particular, with respect to the respondent’s direction to the procuring entity not to prorate the marks given to the respective bidders. The judge in his ruling noted, “From the foregoing, and in view of the orders issued by the board in the decision dated October 16, 2023, in request review no. 65 of 2023, it is our considered view that the respondents failed to score the applicant accordingly as provided for in the tender document where the applicant had met the stipulated requirements, noting that the scoring provided was for maximum marks that a tenderer could score and did not limit issuance of scores below the set maximum scores.”
