An independent review of the purchase of the voter identification gadgets last December found that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission was “bent on awarding the tender to Face Technologies, come what may”.
Instead of disqualifying the firm for not meeting mandatory requirements, IEBC “went out of its way to accommodate the bidder”. This included pricing the company’s items for itself and allowing them to present a different device at a second demonstration after failing at the first ‘proof of concept’ showing.
“It is most unusual for a procuring entity to be (this) magnanimous in interpreting its tender document, especially in favour of bidders,” found the administrative review board of the Public Procurement Oversight Authority. At least three review applications were brought by losing bidders protesting IEBC’s obvious bias. Despite finding “a pattern of partiality offensive to our procurement laws” the PPOA’s review board reluctantly allowed the award to Face Technologies to stand. It concluded that with just two and a half months left to the election, stopping the tender for voter identification devices or ordering a re-evaluation would not be in the public interest.
Small excuses
Ironically, Face Technologies was 10 years ago apparently cheated out of a major security contract in a similarly controversial tender. The Standard On Saturday has learnt that the firm participated in a tender to replace the country’s passport printing system.
The South African firm was knocked out at the technical evaluation stage and the contract awarded to Anglo Leasing and Finance Ltd, a company that did not even take part in the tender. Dr Wilson Sitonik, then head of the Directorate of IT Services, was later charged in court for abuse of office over the matter.
“Wilson Kipsang Sitonik on May 2003 at Treasury Building within Nairobi City arbitrarily rejected the award of the contract to Face Technologies, contrary to the Technical Evaluation Report of February 6, 2003, a matter prejudicial to the Government of the Republic of Kenya,” the charge sheet read in part. Sitonik, who was charged alongside former Treasury Permanent Secretary Joseph Magari, was later acquitted for lack of evidence.
The revelation that the IEBC favoured one bidder to supply 35,000 electronic voter identification devices (Evids) is set to raise questions following the challenges it had with them during the election. These challenges, among other issues, are the subject of petitions before the Supreme Court. A hard hitting PPOA report accuses the IEBC of being cosy with Face Technologies and finding excuses to disqualify other companies.
“(IEBC) appears to have adopted… a scheme of nit-picking when it came to the tenders of bidders it did not favour, and one of cosiness when it came to the successful bidder ( Face Technologies),” the report reads. During the first evaluation, Face Technologies provided a prototype device that lacked a spare 12-hour power back-up that was marked as critical in the tender requirements. It also did not have an original battery attached to the laptops that could last 12 hours. The device it supplied at this stage also did not meet the requirement of a start-up andrecovery time of less than 30 seconds.
They blamed this on IEBC’s last-minute communication (which saw another bidder fail to show up) and were allowed to provide a second demo.
Face Technologies also failed to meet the tender conditions in quoting its price. The firm quoted Sh1.39 billion ($16.6 million) for the 35,000 devices, but did not include customs duties, port clearance charges, transport charges and taxes payable as required in the tender instructions. The PPOA review board found that this omission should have seen Face Technologies disqualified.
“The clause uses the expression ‘shall’, making it clear that the procuring entity wanted the prices to be inclusive of all items stated therein,” the report reads. “It is very strange that the procuring entity, having given these clear instructions, ignored them in evaluating the submission by the successful bidder, and has now disowned them in these proceedings.”
Avante International Technologies, one of the bidders that contested the award, had quoted a sum of Sh2.1 billion, inclusive of all the taxes. Two other aggrieved bidders – Smartmatic International and Lithotech Exports – also complained to PPOA. IEBC advertised a tender for the supply, delivery, installation, configuration, training, testing and commissioning of the electronic voter identification devices on June 1, last year. The tender closed on June 14 of last year, attracting 15 bids from, among others, Equip Agencies, Computer Foundation, ICT Globe, Technobrain, HairElectrical Appliances, Richardson and David and Business Connection. Others were SafranMorpho, On Track Innovations, Africa Infrastructure Development and Tata Africa Holding.
Evaluations by a ten-man committee chaired by Mr Mohamed O Hassan found 10 bids “non-responsive” at the preliminary stage. Two were knocked off, leaving Face Technologies, SafranMorpho and Avante to proceed to the final stage, the financial evaluation, which saw Face Technologies emerge the winner for putting in the cheapest bid.
The PPOA review board meeting that heard petitions from Avante, Lithotech and Smartmatic was held on December 3, last year, just three months before the General Election. Board members present for the meeting included PM Gachoka (chairman), Akich Okola, Christine Ogut, Joshua Wambua, Sospeter Kioko and Loise Ruhiu. IEBC and Africa Infrastructure Ltd (interested parties) were present by invitation along with the three firms applying for review. Others in attendance were Nathan Soita, Philemon Chemoyo, David Esuron, and Judy Maina from the Secretariat.
- The Standard
.jpg)
