Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 40782,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/40782/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 271,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Kimunya",
    "speaker_title": "The Minister for Transport",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. In fact, it is a matter we had raised ourselves in the Ministry, as I clearly indicated in my Statement. Indeed, the hon. Member is right. There are only two methods of procurement – the quality based method and the quality, time and costs based method. A decision had been taken to use the quality based method. What happens under that method is that the firm that meets the technical criteria is the only one which goes to the next step, which is discussion or consideration of its financial status. The practice is that you ask the winner of the tender if they accept the terms of the negotiations. If they do so, you do not proceed to the next one. You return the second envelop un-opened. As of now, we have no idea as to what the second tenderer quoted, or would have quoted, because the rules say that once the first one accepts, you do not go to tenderer number two. It is a very poor method of doing things. Ideally, this method should be used, as the hon. Member says, where the fees are the sole determinants, because then you do not expect any variations. The only competition is on the quality as in the hiring of lawyers, where there is a fee scale, et cetera . Unfortunately, in this case, that is the method that was used, and we have to live with the consequences of that decision and use that method. It was thought to have been the best method for this contract because of its complexity and nature. Unfortunately, we have no idea as to what happened. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, due to the issues that were raised about the cost of this consultancy, I took it upon myself, with my consultancy background, to look at all the concerns I was getting from different quarters. In reviewing the contract, I looked at some of those rates. Although they were not necessarily required, I picked out some inconsistencies. Based on that exercise, I would like to report to this House that we were able to negotiate a reduction of Kshs1 billion on the contract sum. I expected congratulations and accolades for that achievement. The reduction was not necessarily supposed to be given by the consultants but we managed to do it and agreed to make progress."
}