Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) has dismissed an appeal filed by Tunasco Insaat Anonim Sirketi against an award by Kenya Medical Supply Agency (Kemsa) for the tender  to supply, instal and commission a racking system on grounds that it lacked  merit.

A racking system is a material; handling storage aid system designed to store materials on pallets.

The Board made the order throwing out the  appeal dated June 18  filed by Tunasco that sought to nullify the award of the tender to China Railway No.10  on July 9

Kemsa had advertised the tender on April 14 and closed the same on May 12. After award of the tender, Tunasco filed an appeal on June 18 at the PPARB contesting disqualification of their tender.

PPARB heard the appeal and rendered its decision dismissing the appeal on the grounds that Tunasco provided manuals and brochures that contained technical specifications in a language that was not English and therefore Kemsa had no way of knowing whether the document provided complied with the technical specifications of the tender leading to disqualification of the tender.

“The Request for Review filed on June 18 2020 by the Applicant herein with respect to Tender No. KEMSA/CONST/01T4/20192020 for Supply, Installation.

Commissioning of Racking System and Associated Works, be and is hereby dismissed,” ruled the Board.

Tunasco was aggrieved that the Procuring Entity breached sections Public Procurement act and  Article 227 (1) of the Constitution by evaluating the applicants bid using a criterion and procedure that is not set out in the Tender Document.

The Applicant further contends in its statement in support of the request for review that the procuring entity issued Addendum  dated 30th April 2020 , which omitted the requirement for Manuals and Materials Certificates from the Tender Document and the criteria for evaluation.

According to the Applicant, the inclusion of any Manuals in the Applicants bid constituted an excess factor which ought not to have been taken into account during evaluation.

Kemsa averred that Addendum No.1 dated April 30 only removed the Manuals and Materials Certificates from the Mandatory preliminary examination requirements contained in Section Il of the tender document.

It contended that all bidders were required to include comprehensive Manuals and Materials Certificates in response to the Specifications and Bills of Quantities contained in the Tender Document.