Wednesday, February 01, 2006
TENDER FOR KENYA NAVY SHIP
A lot has been said about the purchase of the Kenya Navy ship which has cast aspersions on the way this tender was handled. The armed forces have developed a culture of silence about their operations and expenses as if they are not budgeted from the public funds. The era of transparency and accountability calls for all institutions of the government to open themselves to public scrutiny.
The company awarded the contract is Astilleros Gondan SA of Figueros on the Bay of Biscay in Spain. It is an old company (est.1925 current location) best known for building of small fishing boats. It has been selling small fishing vessels to such African countries like Senegal, Gabon, Liberia and Angola since 1978.
The biggest job it has ever handled is the building of the 3807 ton Cloud II, a 96 passenger three mast luxury sailing ship completed in 2000 for a German company. It has a draught of 5.03 meters and a maximum speed of 14 knots. The other big jobs are two cargo vessels for Spain each displacing 2469 tons completed in 2001. There is no record of the company having manufactured any vessel for any navy anywhere in the world. The closest are the two 622 ton search and rescue vessels for the Indonesian police in 2002. These are not very impressive statistics for a company building a fighting ship for the Kenya Navy.
The company was not a registered Defense Equipment Supplier by Spanish Ministry of Defense and Spanish Ministry of Industry as defense equipment supplier and exporter before September 2005! This was two years after the signing of the contract with the Kenyan authorities. The mentioned registration allowed the company to offer, fit on board its constructions and export defense equipment according to Spanish regulations.
Questions that arise include how did the navy decide to deal with this company when it was not even licensed in its own country for such a job? How was it evaluated and pre qualified? Is the navy buying a fishing vessel which is the specialty of this company? The technical specifications for fishing vessels are different from those of a fighting ship. There is no record of this company having ever made any naval ship. Why is the Kenya navy the guinea pig for this company? As I have argued elsewhere there is something wrong with our procurement system. Four billion shillings is not small change, and when it is channeled through processes that are unclear for purchase of goods that are suspect, the pain is excruciating. Hence the demand that this contract be laid on the table, together with those other competitors who lost in the bidding. That way we might at least be mollified and our pain placated.
Charles Wairia
The company awarded the contract is Astilleros Gondan SA of Figueros on the Bay of Biscay in Spain. It is an old company (est.1925 current location) best known for building of small fishing boats. It has been selling small fishing vessels to such African countries like Senegal, Gabon, Liberia and Angola since 1978.
The biggest job it has ever handled is the building of the 3807 ton Cloud II, a 96 passenger three mast luxury sailing ship completed in 2000 for a German company. It has a draught of 5.03 meters and a maximum speed of 14 knots. The other big jobs are two cargo vessels for Spain each displacing 2469 tons completed in 2001. There is no record of the company having manufactured any vessel for any navy anywhere in the world. The closest are the two 622 ton search and rescue vessels for the Indonesian police in 2002. These are not very impressive statistics for a company building a fighting ship for the Kenya Navy.
The company was not a registered Defense Equipment Supplier by Spanish Ministry of Defense and Spanish Ministry of Industry as defense equipment supplier and exporter before September 2005! This was two years after the signing of the contract with the Kenyan authorities. The mentioned registration allowed the company to offer, fit on board its constructions and export defense equipment according to Spanish regulations.
Questions that arise include how did the navy decide to deal with this company when it was not even licensed in its own country for such a job? How was it evaluated and pre qualified? Is the navy buying a fishing vessel which is the specialty of this company? The technical specifications for fishing vessels are different from those of a fighting ship. There is no record of this company having ever made any naval ship. Why is the Kenya navy the guinea pig for this company? As I have argued elsewhere there is something wrong with our procurement system. Four billion shillings is not small change, and when it is channeled through processes that are unclear for purchase of goods that are suspect, the pain is excruciating. Hence the demand that this contract be laid on the table, together with those other competitors who lost in the bidding. That way we might at least be mollified and our pain placated.
Charles Wairia
