Security firm blocks Kenya Ports Authority’s deal with rival companies

Economy

Security firm blocks Kenya Ports Authority’s deal with rival companies


Containers at the port of Mombasa. PICTURES | KÉVIN ODIT | NMG

BDgeneric_logo

Summary

  • The High Court has prevented the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) from entering into an agreement for the provision of security services at the port of Mombasa with ten security companies.
  • Judge John Mativo granted the order restraining KRA from entering into the agreement with ten companies, pending the determination of a petition filed by Newham Services International Ltd.

The High Court has prevented the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) from entering into an agreement for the provision of security services at the port of Mombasa with ten security companies.

Judge John Mativo granted the order restraining KRA from entering into the agreement with ten companies, pending the determination of a petition filed by Newham Services International Ltd.

The company says it has been providing the services since March 2018 to date, but KPA issued a tender for the provision of the services in January and its bid was rejected.

The company’s bid was rejected on the grounds that the tender documents submitted by the company did not clearly indicate sections and page numbers and that the company had not provided a complete set of accounts audited for the last three years between 2018 and 2020.

The company rushed to court to stop KPA from signing contracts with companies including Catch Security Links Ltd, Hatari Security Guards Ltd, Northwood Services Ltd, Total Security Surveillance Ltd and Bedrock Security Services Ltd.

The others are Sovit Security Solutions Ltd, Security Links Ltd, Access Security Links Ltd, Radar Ltd and Vickers Security Services Ltd.

“This leave is and is hereby granted to plaintiff x-parte to seek restraining orders and the operating orders as a stay of the contemplated conclusion…” the judge said.

The court also barred KPA from removing 18 guards from Neham Services, who currently provide the services at the port.

Newham Services said it was aggrieved by the KPA’s decision to reject its bid and filed an application for review of the decision before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board.

But despite challenging the rejection of its bid, the company said KPA was likely to sign contracts with said companies, defeating its case.

“The (KPA) response is likely to award awards to interested parties and contravene section 94 of the act as the appeal is pending hearing and decision,” said Mr. Saul Munoko, Director human resources and administration of Newham Services. declaration.

Laura J. Boyer