MPs hold key to Safaricom bid

Parliament is now the last hurdle to the security surveillance contract after the procurement authority said the award to Safaricom was valid.

Ms Jane Njoroge, the deputy director-general at the Public Procurement Oversight Authority (PPOA), told Parliament’s National Security and Administration Committee the validity was assessed based on documents submitted by the Interior ministry.

But MPs Ababu Namwamba (Budalang’i, ODM), Humphrey Njuguna (Gatanga, Narc) and Bernard Shinali (Ikolomani, UDF) disagreed, saying direct procurement was not justified, and there was no urgency because crime and terrorism have been in Kenya for a long time.

MP James Bett (Kesses, URP) however, differed with his colleagues and asked them to clear the deal, arguing it had been proven that the Interior ministry tried to get the system installed via an open, and then a restricted tender, without success.

This sparked an argument, with his fellow MPs accusing him of taking sides even before they made a collective decision.

Ms Njoroge traced the procurement process from March 24, the day the National Police Service requested authority to use direct procurement, to May 15, the day Safaricom accepted the contract.

“Based on the procurement records made available to us, we opine that the procuring entity observed due process in selection of the company to undertake the project,” she said.

The authority had also been asked to give a verdict on whether the ministry was within the law in procuring the contract directly instead of subjecting it to competitive bidding.

The justification for the direct procurement was that Kenya is experiencing an upsurge in crimes such as terrorism, robbery with violence, carjacking, car thefts and kidnapping.

These, the ministry argued, were beginning to adversely affect the economy, especially tourism and investment. (VIDEO: Safaricom security tender to be audited)

“It is our considered opinion that the justification given by the procuring entity (ministry) for choice of method lies within the circumstances envisaged under Section Three of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act.

“It is noted that the circumstances that prompted the procuring entity to use the procuring method are urgent and unforeseeable,” she added.

She was among officers who had accompanied Interior ministry PS Mutea Iringo to the third meeting with the committee to respond to queries arising from previous meetings.

Ms Njoroge said because the ministry had consulted officers in the Information Communication Technology Authority, the Communications Authority of Kenya, the intelligence service and the Public Works ministry, PPOA was confident there was value for money.

“There is absolutely no way you can tell this committee that the security situation in this country was not foreseeable. This is actually an insult to the intelligence of this committee,” said Mr Namwamba.

TERROR ATTACKS

He said the project was first mooted in 2006 and the Interior ministry advertised for expressions of interest in 2012, meaning the “urgency” cited by PPOA could not be the case.

He accused PPOA of defending breach of the law and said the authority should have been more “thorough and demanding” in reviewing the award.

But Mr Iringo said that while terror attacks had occurred in Kenya since 1998, “the problem has been getting worse”.

“You say it is foreseeable and has been happening but we can’t continue waiting,” he said.