| dc.description.abstract | The existence of a review body in public procurement provides an important platform for bidders
to have recourse against wrongful decisions of procuring entities. It generally gives the bidders
an opportunity to enforce compliance with the law and also promotes the function of correcting
legal violations in procurement. However, the efficacy of the review process is dependent on
whether the body is independent, impartial, cost-effective, accessible and anchored in a firm
legal framework. Since its establishment under the Public Procurement and Disposal Act, 2005,
PPARB has contributed positively in the development of case law on public procurement and
exposed the misdeeds of public officers to public scrutiny. Nonetheless, in carrying out its
mandate, PPARB has faced several challenges that have marred its effectiveness in carrying out
its mandate provided under section 93 of the Act. These challenges include lack of institutional
and financial independence, lack of impartiality, and inadequacies in the legal and regulatory
framework. For instance, the Act has not been aligned with the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 to
reflect on the public procurement principles provided under Article 227. In addition, the process
of appointment and removal of members of PPARB is premised under the Public Procurement
and Disposal Regulations, 2006, and not the Act. The Minister has powers to make the
Regulations and may amend or repeal them at will to tamper with the composition of the Board.
In light of this, this study appraises the effectiveness of PPARB in adjudicating public
procurement disputes in Kenya. It seeks to unpack the extent to which PPARB exercises its
mandate in ensuring that procuring entities comply with the Act and the Regulations made
there under. | en_US |
