Nairobi-based security firm KK (Kenya Kazi) and its Canadian parent company GardaWorld, in a joint venture known as Aegis-KK/Garda World Federal Africa (GWFA) comprising Aegis Defense Services, Garda World Federal Services, and Kenya Kazi Ltd, have filed a lawsuit against the United States government.
The lawsuit alleges that the President Biden administration has excluded them from the lucrative Sh5.1 billion contract for Nairobi embassy security. They are protesting what they characterize as an unfair evaluation, which resulted in the US State Department awarding the contract to a joint venture involving their Kenyan rival, G4S Kenya.
The plaintiff is urging the US Court of Federal Claims to nullify the G4S deal and assert that the US government’s assessment of proposals in response to the request for proposals was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to applicable law and regulation.”
Aegis-KK/Garda World Federal Africa (GWFA) additionally seek an order compelling the US government to instruct the State Department to reevaluate proposals based on the original tender conditions and “conduct a new lowest-price, technically acceptable determination after such reevaluations.”
“Issue a permanent injunction to enjoin the performance of the contract awarded to G4S; and award GWFA and further relief as the court may deem just and proper, including, without limitation, bid and proposal costs,” says Kenya Kazi and its Canadian backer.
“G4S Offered Low Wages”
Kenya Kazi(KK) contends that G4S secured the contract despite offering low wages in the $32.3 million (Sh5.1 billion deal).
“G4S’s proposed price demonstrates that it proposed inadequately low and unrealistic wages for LGF (Local Guard Force) personnel in its compensation plan, and, in particular, wages less than those outlined in the ToU, in direct violation of the RFP’s requirement that the ToU set the baseline for all bidders,” says KK in the court papers.
“As demonstrated by G4S’s low price, the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and otherwise not in accordance with the law when it failed to reasonably consider whether G4S’s compensation plan was reasonable and realistic for the work being performed or would impair (G4S’s) ability to attract and retain competent employees as it was required to do under the RFP’s evaluation criteria.”
KK argues that if the US State Department had conducted a reasonable evaluation of G4S’s proposal, considering the correct prices, it would have deemed G4S’s proposal as non-compliant with the compensation plan requirements.
In such a scenario, KK asserts that its proposal should have been chosen for the award. “As such, GWFA has been prejudiced by the agency’s arbitrary and capricious actions,” it says.
The US Court has certified the matter as urgent for hearing.
