Vehicles handed over to the National Police Service in 2018. [Photo Courtesy]
Public Procurement Administration Review Board has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to determine the appeal by vehicle dealer CMC Motors Group over Sh12 billion police tender row.
The Friday ruling means that the parties will now have to wait until January 2020 when the High Court gives a verdict on the matter.
During this period, the procurement entity in the Ministry of Interior is barred from signing any contract with any bidder until the matter is concluded.
On Thursday, the Board started by considering whether it has jurisdiction to hear the matter based on section 167 of the Act but found that the Application was filed out of time.
The Board washed hands of the matter without considering the substantive seven grounds advanced by the applicant CMC challenging the tender and therefore did not make any orders.
The board’s decision to strike out the application by the motor assembler means that the stay orders obtained in the High Court stands until next year.
The vehicle manufacturer moved to the tribunal challenging the process in awarding tender no MICNG/SDI/004/2019-2020.
For More of This and Other Stories, Grab Your Copy of the Standard Newspaper.
In the suit, CMC challenged the contract that it does not meet the threshold of the A.
In the application, CMC requested the review board to cancel the tender for the leasing of motor vehicles from local assemblies and also declare it illegal.
“ That an order be issued declaring all the actions undertaken by and on behalf of the Respondent including but not limited to advertising, inviting, receiving, evaluating bids awarding and or signing of contracts arising from tender no MICNG/SDI/004/2019-2020 for leasing of motor vehicles phase from assemblers is null and void and the same be cancelled.“
The CMC through lawyer Migos Ogamba, says the procuring entity flouted procurement regulations on seven grounds.
He says procurement entity breached section 60(1), (2) and (3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015 (PPAD).
“The procuring entity prepared specific requirements relating to items under procurement that did not allow fair and open competition among those who may wish to participate in the procurement proceedings”
In the suit, CMC faults Interior ministry for contravening section 60(4) of the PPAD Act, in that the technical requirements referred to a particular producer or service provider or specific country of origin.
“The procuring entity’s technical requirements only invite bidders who are local assemblers which to participate in the procurement process “
Migos Ogamba told the review board that the interior ministry breached sections 53(10) of the PPAD Act,2015 on the model of rendering.
“The procuring entity’s procurement plan for the leasing of Motor vehicles throughout the different phases has been through open tender and it is only now that the procuring entity has used a restricted method of tendering.“
In their grievances, the CMC said Interior ministry failed to prepare a tender document that contain scientific information that would allow fairness, equitability, transparency, cost-effectiveness and competition among those who wished to participate in the procurement process, contrary to section 58(2) of the PPAD Act.
With the two players embroiled in the bitter war over the tender, stalemate will ensue until when high court rules under justice John Mativo.
Do not miss out on the latest news. Join the Standard Digital Telegram channel HERE.
Related Topics
Public Procurement Administration Review BoardCMC Motors Grouppolice tender row
