Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 522704,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/522704/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 112,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. G.W. Omondi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1169,
        "legal_name": "George Washinton Mallan Omondi",
        "slug": "george-washinton-mallan-omondi"
    },
    "content": "discrimination. It entrenches the affirmative action which the previous law did not take into account. It also promotes the local industries which were not taken care of in the previous Act. In addition, Clause 60(4), which should actually be 60(5) because it is a typo, adequately addresses the issue of tender securities. One of the biggest problems has been requiring new entrants in the business world to come up with tender securities, margins and so on. Clause 60(4) now addresses that matter. The disadvantaged are now exempted and are not expected to provide those securities. I have talked about the disadvantaged groups, including the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). At the county level, this is now taken care of by Clause 33(f). The establishment of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority and the Board under Clause 8(1) provides checks and balances and will control corruption which has been rampant. Under Clause 27(1), the functions assigned to them are a move in the right direction. This, as I said, will check corruption and abuse of office which was not adequately catered for in the old Act. In the same vein, Clause 27(2) goes a long way to address the issue of corrupt deals which have been rampant. One of the biggest problems has been over-buying and overstocking at exorbitant prices. Under this Bill, we now have controls being provided for under Clauses 52(3), 53(2), 53(3) and 53(4). Finally, Clause 54(1) (b), as is currently worded, should be amended. The Clause states thus:- “The person is not insolvent, in receivership, bankrupt or in the process of being wound up and is not the subject of legal proceedings relating to foregoing.” I do not think the mere fact that somebody has been taken to court and is being sued for purposes of being wound up or to be put under receivership should be excluded from tendering. I am going to bring an amendment to cut out the requirement that somebody who has been sued should be debarred from participating in tendering. With those few amendments, I support the Bill."
}