The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board the entire procurement, directing Kenya...
Kenya Power is in the spotlight after the public procurement watchdog found irregularities in a Sh1.86 billion tender for enlisting 2,810 private security guards.
The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) nullified the entire tender after it identified several flaws in the procurement process, such as conflicting rules on the number of guards, splitting zones despite a requirement to award them in full, unexplained changes to winning bids, and using due diligence to eliminate bidders at the preliminary stage.
The dispute arose from a tender advertised by Kenya Power on February 27, 2026, for guarding services under two categories – Class A and Class B.
The tender attracted 70 bids, and its rules required each security zone to be awarded to one bidder while limiting every company to 200 guards, even though a region described as Stima Zone required 245 guards.
For Class A, Ismax Security Ltd, Lavington Security Ltd, Spyeagle Security Services Ltd and Sumich Solutions Ltd were proposed as successful bidders and recommended for 715 guards cumulatively, and a combined price of Sh677 million for the two-year contract.
Ismax was allocated 206 guards, Lavington (200 guards), Spyeagle (200), and Sumich 109 guards. Class B involved 15 firms covering 2,095 guards at Sh1.18 billion.
Riley Falcon Security Ltd, whose bid was rejected in Class A because its prices were deemed “not competitive”, challenged the decision before the Board.
The Board’s decision reveals that Kenya Power’s General Manager for Supply Chain and Logistics had recommended terminating the procurement on June 9.
He said the process had raised “material governance concerns” and recommended that the procurement be terminated. His review raised concerns over the evaluation process, including the way the tender’s award requirements were applied and how the procurement process was conducted.
But on June 11, the company Accounting Officer rejected the recommendation, approved the Evaluation Committee’s proposed awards and directed that the concerns be recorded as “lessons learnt” for future tenders.
Riley Falcon then sought review, arguing that Kenya Power had rejected its bid because its prices were “not competitive”, although that phrase was not a disclosed evaluation criterion or accompanied by a benchmark.
Kenya Power defended the decision, saying Riley Falcon had passed preliminary and technical evaluation but lost at the financial stage because its prices were higher than those of successful bidders.
The utility said the tender used the Lowest Evaluated Cost Selection method and could not lawfully recommend a higher-priced bidder.
Kenya Power also defended awarding 206 guards to Ismax Security Ltd, arguing that the 200-guard limit had to be read together with the requirement that entire zones be awarded to one contractor.
However, the Board found the tender created an impossible choice.
The rules required each zone to be awarded in full, while also limiting a bidder to 200 guards. Yet Stima Zone alone required 245 guards.
The PPARB said complying with the 200-guard limit would require splitting the zone, while awarding it in full would breach the limit.
“This inconsistency was inherent in the Tender Document itself,” the Board said, finding that the competing requirements created uncertainty over how the evaluation should be conducted.
Western Region was shared between Sumich Solutions Ltd and Lavington Security Ltd, while Nairobi Region was shared between Ismax and Spyeagle Security Services Ltd.
This breached the requirement that zones be awarded in full, according to the Board. Ismax was also recommended for 206 guards despite the stated 200-guard ceiling.
The Board further found that Ismax’s original Nairobi price was Sh9 million, including VAT, but the Evaluation Report recommended Sh7.5 million without explaining how the lower figure was calculated.
The Board also considered Riley Falcon’s conflict-of-interest allegation involving Sumich’s majority shareholder and director, Jackline Lanoi.
Riley produced a company record showing Saruni held 800 of Sumich’s 1,000 shares, or 80 per cent, and alleged she was a serving National Police Service Chief Inspector.
The Board rejected the allegation because Riley produced no appointment letter, employment record or official evidence confirming her alleged public-officer status.
“A finding of breach of Section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act cannot be founded on conjecture or unverified allegations,” the Board said.
The Board found wider procurement failures. It said the preliminary evaluation, financial evaluation and due diligence had not complied with various sections of the procurement law.
“The defect originates from the Tender Document itself and is therefore incapable of being remedied through a re-evaluation,” the Board said.
It nullified the June 12 award notifications and the entire procurement, directing Kenya Power to begin afresh after reviewing the tender document.
