The High Court has dismissed a petition by a Chinese firm seeking to suspend a multibillion-shilling tender by the Kenya Bureau of Standards (Kebs) for the pre-inspection of goods destined for the Kenyan market.
The court ruled that World Standardisation, Certification and Testing Group (Shenzen) Co. Ltd had failed to prove that the due diligence conducted by the Kebs evaluation committee was flawed.
The court further said the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, which subsequently dismissed the firm’s request for review, properly analysed the evidence, applied the correct legal principles, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion.
Shenzen had previously won the Pre-export Verification of Conformity (PVoC) contract on May 9, 2022, covering the inspection of motor vehicles, spare parts, and other equipment to ensure compliance with Kenyan standards.
It was, however, disqualified from the 2025-2028 tender. In a letter dated September 23, 2025, Kebs accused the firm of repeatedly breaching its contract, allegedly compromising public safety.
Although Kebs said the firm met the minimum prequalification requirements, issues were noted during the due diligence process.
Shenzen had last year successfully petitioned the court to compel Kebs to conduct fresh due diligence on its qualifications and integrity.
And according to the court, having accepted the remedy, the firm cannot be seen to challenge the composition of the committee it embraced and subjected itself to, just because it lost.
‘Having accepted the benefit of the Board’s decision directing a fresh due diligence, the Applicant cannot now seek to prevent the very exercise it successfully sought,’ said the court.
The court said the firm’s argument that an evaluation committee whose membership is drawn from the staff of a procuring entity cannot preside over a complaint raised against the same procuring entity was misplaced.
The court said the evaluation committee was not adjudicating a dispute between the firm and Kebs but was performing a statutory function of verifying its qualifications and integrity as required by law.
The company then challenged the disqualification, and the procurement watchdog found that it had not been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations relied on by the evaluation committee.
The board directed Kebs to conduct fresh due diligence. This was done, after which the firm was again disqualified.
The Chinese firm challenged the second disqualification before the board, but the request was dismissed in February. Kebs was directed to conclude the prequalification exercise while excluding the applicant’s bid. The firm then appealed to the High Court.
Kebs had invited bids for the tender earlier this year, attracting 19 firms, including the Chinese company. Nine bids were disqualified at the preliminary stage for being non-responsive.
The remaining 10 firms met all mandatory requirements and advanced to the technical evaluation stage. All were recommended for prequalification, subject to due diligence.
The board was told that Kebs’ head of procurement had reviewed the entire process and supported the decision not to prequalify the Chinese firm.
The company challenged the decision, saying Kebs failed to provide evidence of the alleged breaches. It argued that the claims arose from an ongoing contract that is already the subject of a court case.
The firm said its disqualification would result in financial losses and reputational damage, despite meeting all technical, eligibility and financial requirements.
It also faulted the board, arguing that instead of addressing the matter before it, it went on a tangent by effectively adopting the position of the evaluation committee and seeking to re-evaluate the tender.