But this was not the last they were heard of.  They re-appeared after prequalification as part of another consortium.  Even worse, an additional bidder was added after the close of prequalification.  So much for equal treatment and integrity of the process.  However, it should be noted that there were bidders without such issues. 

As previously stated, Kenya is facing an energy cost and supply crisis – so the process moved on.  Three bidders were approved by the Ministry’s technical evaluation committee as being technically responsive to the request for proposal.  

However, during the financial evaluation process, the lowest bidder, having been found technically sound, has been disqualified, incredibly on non-material technical grounds. How does a financial evaluation revoke a technical approval on technical grounds? That is the question someone at the National Treasury’s Public Private Partnerships Committee (PPPC) established under Sec. of the Public Private Partnerships Act, 2013. 

The favourable treatment given to the highest bidder is even more intriguing given the make-up of the consortium was changed from that pre-qualified to the eventual consortium who submitted a bid.  

How does a Ministry without absolutely no experience of coal-fired power generation in country with less than 2,000 MW of total generating capacity question the technical competence of, for example, one of the supposedly disqualified bidders whose own generating capacity as an individual company is over 90,000 MW? 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh