The Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) has been ordered to revive a cancelled tender worth $2.27 million (Sh292.9 million) for the inspection of its 450-kilometre multi-product pipeline from Mombasa to Nairobi, turning the spotlight on its procurement team.
The directive follows a ruling by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB), which declared the termination unlawful and procedurally flawed.
The Board found that the State-owned company failed to justify its claims of "material governance issues" and neglected mandatory procedural steps.
The tender, advertised in September 2025, sought In-Line Inspection (ILI) services for Line 5 of the pipeline. According to tender documents, the 20-inch diameter pipeline was to undergo inspection using a high-resolution intelligent Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) and Geometry tool to assess its full circumferential condition.
Before inspection, the pipeline was to undergo aggressive cleaning to remove embedded deleterious material that could compromise data integrity.
The collected data would then be analysed, with detailed reports submitted to the client through the project engineer.
Eleven firms bid for the tender, with Strategic Corporate Consultants Limited emerging as the lowest evaluated bidder at $2.27 million (inclusive of taxes). All other bids were disqualified at the preliminary evaluation stage.
An initial professional opinion endorsed the award in November, but Managing Director Joe Sang rejected it in December, citing inconsistencies in subcontracting clauses that allegedly compromised the tender's integrity.
An addendum later recommended a repeat tender, and a second professional opinion in January proposed termination.
KPC subsequently informed bidders of the termination, citing potential inconsistencies between Clause 4.4 of the Instructions to Tenderers and Mandatory Requirement No. 13 on subcontracting.
This triggered the legal tussle. Strategic Corporate Consultants Limited challenged the termination before the Board, arguing that no inconsistencies existed and that its bid had already been declared the lowest evaluated.
The firm also noted that KPC had issued clarifications before bid closure and could not retroactively invalidate the process.
KPC maintained that the conflicting provisions created ambiguity, making a lawful award impossible and necessitating termination for fairness and transparency.
However, the Board dismissed these claims, ruling that a "wholesome reading" of the clauses showed they were complementary rather than contradictory.
It found that Clause 4.4 permitted non-bidding firms to subcontract for multiple bids, while Mandatory Requirement No.13 restricted multiple engagements only where the main contractor was foreign.
