The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) has dismissed an application for review of a Sh1.46 billion tender for the provision of comprehensive medical cover for staff of the Nairobi County government.
The tender was awarded to Jubilee Health Insurance but Star Discover Insurance Ltd challenged the process arguing that the devolved unit placed prohibitive and restrictive requirements that ended up discriminating against other players.
The company claimed that the provisions of the tender document were skewed and tailor-made for a particular tenderer, thus eliminating competition and fairness among bidders.
It asked the board to nullify the contract that the county may have entered into with Jubilee.
The review board chaired by Ms Njeri Onyango, however, dismissed the application stating that the firm’s tender was evaluated in accordance with provisions of the tender document, the procurement law and the Constitution.
“From the foregoing, it is clear to the board that the applicant’s (Star Discover) tender was non-responsive as it did not meet the requirements under mandatory requirements No. 1, 4, 5, and 16 of clause A,” the board ruled.
Nairobi advertised the tender for staff for the year 2023-24 on May 11, this year and six tenderers submitted their bids.
They included First Assurance, Jubilee, Madison General Insurance, Trident Insurance Company Ltd, Star Discover Insurance Ltd and GA Insurance.
At the end of the evaluation at this stage, three tenders were knocked out as they were determined to be non-responsive including the bid by Star Discover Insurance Ltd.
The evaluation committee at the end of the process recommended Jubilee Insurance for the tender being the lowest evaluated price, and the firm was invited for negotiations on several issues captured in the evaluation report.
Star Discover Insurance Ltd through its director Rufus Marundu Maina challenged the award arguing that the tender document was discriminatory.
One of the complaints was that the county restricted the tender to underwriters only locking out brokers.
The board was informed that the firm failed to demonstrate how it suffered or was likely to suffer any prejudice since it was not a broker.
The board said the company chose to participate in the tendering process and only decided to challenge it after its tender was found non-responsive.
“We have studied the applicant’s original tender submitted to the board as part of the confidential documents pursuant to Section 67(3)(e) of the Act in respect to the subject tender and note the following with respect to the applicant’s compliance with the requirements under mandatory requirements,” said the board.
While knocking out the company’s bid, the committee noted that a tenderer did not provide a valid tax compliance.
