The electoral agency has suffered a setback after a procurement tribunal ordered it to review and amend its tender for supply and maintenance of the Integrated Elections Management System (IEMS) ahead of the 2027 General Election.
In a detailed decision rendered by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) directed the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to correct, clarify and amend various sections of the tender document before publishing a fresh version and inviting bidders to submit new bids.
“The Respondents are hereby directed to review and make the necessary corrections, clarifications and/or amendments to the Tender Document in accordance with the findings of the Board contained in this Decision,” the Board chaired by Vice Chairperson Alice Oeri
The decision affects Tender No. IEBC/OIT/01/2026-2027, which covers the supply, delivery, installation, testing, commissioning, support and maintenance of the IEMS, including hardware equipment and accessories.
The tender had been scheduled to close on September 1, but the procurement process was automatically suspended after Galadirel Investments Limited filed a request for review before the Board on August 14.
The Board found several deficiencies in the tender document, particularly provisions governing the technical evaluation of bids.
The tribunal found that IEBC had failed to clearly set out how bidders would be scored under several technical evaluation criteria.
It singled out the technical evaluation criteria on pages 34 to 36 of the tender document, saying bidders could not determine in advance how their scores would be calculated within the point ranges provided.
“The Tender Document does not indicate the score attributable to each of these attributes, nor does it provide a scale or objective benchmarks for distinguishing, for example, a score of two per cent (2%) from seven per cent (7%) or ten per cent (10%),” the Board ruled.
It added: “tenderers cannot ascertain in advance how the evaluator will translate the extent or combination of the stated attributes into a particular score.”
The Board said the ambiguity was significant because the technical evaluation carried a total of 100 points and bidders were required to attain a minimum score to proceed.
It therefore found that a bidder’s ability to qualify could potentially depend on criteria whose scoring methodology had not been objectively disclosed.
The tribunal also questioned the use of both a “Max Score” column and a separate “Compliance (Y/N)” parameter in the evaluation criteria.
According to the Board, the tender did not make it sufficiently clear whether a bidder marked “Yes” for compliance would automatically receive the maximum score or would merely qualify for further assessment.
The tribunal also faulted IEBC over a mandatory preliminary requirement requiring bidders to provide a “certified copy of tax compliance/exemption certificate or equivalent.”
It found the words “or equivalent” created uncertainty, particularly because the tender was an open international procurement involving prospective foreign bidders.
The Board further found ambiguity in Clause 8 of the tender document, which referred to both post-qualification and non-post-qualification without clearly stating which procurement method would apply.
However, the tribunal rejected some of Galadirel’s complaints.
It dismissed the company’s claim that IEBC had unlawfully imposed a 20 per cent performance security, finding that the Special Conditions of Contract actually prescribed a 10 per cent security, which was consistent with Section 142 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
The Board also rejected the challenge against the Sh30 million tender security, ruling that Galadirel had not demonstrated that the amount exceeded the statutory two per cent ceiling based on the value of the tender.
IEBC had also asked the tribunal to dismiss the case, arguing that Galadirel should first have sought clarification from the Commission under Section 75 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
The Board rejected the argument and held that it had jurisdiction to determine the dispute under Section 167(1).
However, it cautioned bidders against treating the statutory clarification process under Section 75 “as an optional procedural formality.”
However, the Board did not uphold Galadriel’s allegation that the tender had been tailored to favour Miru Systems.
In its final orders, the tribunal allowed Galadirel’s request for review in part and directed IEBC to undertake the necessary corrections, clarifications and amendments identified in the decision.
After making the changes, IEBC has been ordered to publish a new and compliant tender document and give prospective bidders time to consider the amendments and prepare their bids.
The Board specified that the period given to bidders must not be less than seven days.
“Upon undertaking the review and making the necessary corrections and/or amendments, the Respondents shall issue and publish a new and compliant Tender Document and accord prospective tenderers such period as may be prescribed by law, provided that such period shall not be less than seven (7) days to consider the amendments and prepare and submit their tenders,” the Board said.
The Board further gave IEBC permission to seek technical assistance from the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and ordered that a copy of the decision be placed before the Authority’s Director-General.
