Good People, All that the people want to know is that the elections were peaceful, Credible, Free and Fair. The people of Kenya played their part by conducting themselves peacefully, and I say, Congratulation for that........... Now this, was the IEBC credible enough and did they understand the constitutional requirement as detailed how the process should clearly go about the proceedure ??? What if it failed, then what next ???.....People want to know so they know that the election was credible, free and fair........ Was this it.......that equipments procured did not work and the batteries lasted for few minutes and not more that one hour and died.....??? Procurement illegal??? That IEBC favoured company supplier who did not qualify who should have been disqualified and the company who procurred failed capacity and these were the findings of the tribunal......is that it??? That the Law did not permit what happened at Bomas ?? That the participating lawyers MUST prepare themselves adequately for the challenge ahead and to prove themselves effectively to perform the surgical with precision and engage sufficiently........ I hope all eyes are watching this......Please see the classic videos to get educated vy Ndumbi......No sleeping, calculate and do your maths tonight....... Judy Miriga Diaspora Spokesperson Executive Director Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc., and Special Coordinator Representative for Pan Africa in Maryland, Virginia and DC KTN Prime full news bulletin 18.03.2013 Published on Mar 18, 2013 Watch KTN Streaming LIVE from Kenya 24/7 on http://www.ktnkenya.tv KTN Livewire Episode 5: Election Audit Published on Mar 14, 2013 KTN Livewire Episode 5: Election Audit. Watch KTN Streaming LIVE from Kenya 24/7 on http://www.ktnkenya.tv Thanks Charles and Ndubi for being objective in your analysis about the recent general elections. Being honest and object helps Kenyans watching and yearning to understand the challenges of the outcome of these elections. Minutes reveal how IEBC bought faulty gadgets GLANCE FACTSFace Technology provided a proto-type device, which lacked a spare power back-up for 12 hours SHARE THIS STORYUpdated Sunday, March 24 2013 at 00:00 GMT+3
By Moses Michira and Paul Wafula NAIROBI, KENYA: The electoral commission, which conducted the March 4 General Election, bought faulty voter identification gadgets without testing their technical capability. Face Technology, the South African firm that supplied the equipment also known as poll books, won the tender before a technical evaluation was conducted among the five prequalified bidders. A review of the tendering procedure by the public procurement regulator found out the tender to supply poll books was awarded to the South African firm, which participated in the Anglo Leasing scandal, on September 29 last year, three weeks before the technical evaluation among the shortlisted bidders. This major procurement breach ensured firms that were to later demonstrate their capabilities for the task, like America's Avante and France's Safran Morpho were left out. The public procurement regulator, however, found out IEBC had actually made its decision to award the tender to Face Technology more than three weeks before the October 22 demonstration of technical capabilities. Minutes from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC and presented by Avante to the regulator indicated that the tender was actually awarded on September 29. "…bidder number 3 M/S Face Technology be considered for the award of the contract at a total cost of Sh1.397724925 ($16651139.13)," reads part of the official information from IEBC's September 29 meeting. The regulator says since a decision had been made, the exercise of proof of concept was meaningless because Face Technology, whose devise had failed, had been shockingly declared the winner. The revelation now provides the critical answers to the billion-dollar question, what exactly went wrong in the voter identification during the last General Election conducted by IEBC Chairman Issack Hassan? The public procurement regulator fell short of cancelling IEBC's tender, only allowing it to proceed in the greater public interest considering the time left, on its December 3, last year, terse ruling. IEBC's defence was that Face Technology had the lowest quote at Sh1.39 billion disregarding its inability to produce the required equipment, compared to Safran Morpho's Sh1.6 billion and Avante's Sh2.1 billion. Questionable tendering Hassan's motivation in awarding the tender to Face Technology was questioned by the regulator who established an uneven playing ground in the procurement process. Face Technology had presented a prototype that never worked at the tendering stage, but the IEBC inexplicably offered the firm another chance to demonstrate its technical capability. A meeting between IEBC and the three prequalified bidders held on October 10, last year indicated Safran Morpho declined to parade its prototype, while Face Technology's equipment fell short of the requirements in the tender document. "(Avante's prototype) can satisfactorily meet the specifications provided in the tender document for voter identification device," further reads the report. "( Face Technology) did not demonstrate a prototype that met the proof of concept requirements as stipulated in the tender document." IEBC invited Face Technology and Safran Morpho in a subsequent demonstration, leaving out Avante, which had demonstrated its technical capacity, in a meeting held on October 22. Minutes of the meeting show Face Technology presented a different device from that submitted during the close of the tender, a major procurement breach, which the IEBC turned a blind eye to. During the evaluation, Face Technology provided a prototype device, which lacked a spare power back-up of 12 hours that was marked as critical. It also did not have an original battery attached to the laptops that would last for 12hours. The device it supplied at this stage did not meet the requirement that its start-up and recovery time would last less than 30 seconds. This means the prototype of Face Technology was taking longer to start than required. None of the companies that qualified for the second round of evaluation also provided gadgets that had unique identification numbers assigned by the manufacturers. Lack of this detail exposes the gadgets to difficulties in tracing the user and location in case they are used to hack into the system. The Board accuses the IEBC of being cosy with Face Technology and finding small excuses with the other companies to disqualify them. "It (IEBC) appears to have adopted in the processing of this tender, a scheme of nit-picking, when it came to the tenders of the bidders it did not favour, and one of cosiness when it came with the successful bidder (Face Technologies)," a report, critical of the process, reads in part. The revelations come at a time when it emerged the electronic voting and transmission system could have been attacked at least twice before it finally crashed at 8pm on Election Day. IEBC used time as excuse to hand contractSHARE THIS STORYUpdated Saturday, March 23 2013 at 00:00 GMT+3 By Paul Wafula NAIROBI; KENYA: Face Technologies was given a second chance to submit a working prototype of the poll-books used in the voter identification system that collapsed on the Election Day. This was after the first gadgets the South African firm showed electoral officials failed to meet many of the tender requirements. A report by the Public Procurement Oversight Authority's administrative review board found troubling issues with the way the purchase of the devices was conducted. Contrary to the terms of their tender document, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission officials gave Face Technologies and SafranMorpho a second opportunity to demonstrate their devices. This opportunity was not given to other applicants. Bidders were supposed to submit a prototype of a working device and describe it in the submission of their tender applications. Face Technologies failed to demonstrate a working prototype on October 10, last year, later arguing that it received IEBC's communications late. Safran Morpho did not turn up, also claiming short notice. Only Avante Technologies made acceptable presentations to the evaluation committee within the tight timeline. "(Face Technologies) made a presentation of a prototype that did not meet the requirements stipulated in the tender document," the 60-page PPOA report reads. "(It) stated that it had received communication late and was unable to prepare for the presentation and provide the relevant prototype." At a second presentation, the South African firm presented a different device from the one it had submitted with its tender document. This time, the pollbook worked satisfactorily and the firm went on to financial evaluation. "It is evident from these facts that the procuring entity (IEBC) was bent on awarding the tender to Face Technologies, come what may," the report finds. "This conclusion is buttressed by (IEBC's) decision not to disqualify (Face Technologies) when it submitted its tender without factoring (details about pricing) specified in Clause 2.9.2 of the tender document." Despite the far-reaching findings, the PPOA review board was unable to cancel the tender on grounds that it was just two and a half months to the election and such a decision "would not be in the interest of the nation". On Tuesday, Face Technologies confirmed that their poll-books were given a clean bill of health by the Kenya Bureau of Standards. The South African company, which won the contract to supply 35,000 electronic voter identification devices (Evids), says it cannot be blamed for a failure by election officers to use the gadgets properly. "The Evids were assembled in China with components from USA and China," Mr Ian Minty, the firm's tender office executive manager told The Standard On Saturday in an email interview from South Africa. "The Evids were tested upon manufacturing in the factory by the Kenya Bureau of Standards before issuance of the required certificates of conformity. They were also tested before and during training. No failures were reported." Face argues that the failure of some operators to follow correct log in procedures, incorrect operating procedures or failure to properly charge the three batteries supplied per device before voting began, does not constitute technical failure of the devices themselves. "We have not been supplied with any devices that allegedly failed to conduct tests or verify the allegations. All devices used in the repeat elections of March 18 (in several wards where ballot printing errors were found) operated flawlessly, using the same technology," Mr Minty added. According to the contract, Face Technologies was to supply, deliver, install, configure, train, test and commission the devices to be used by election officials. The voters' data used on these devices was provided by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). Face Technologies is one in a list of companies involved in supplying goods or services in electronic identification and tallying systems that suffered embarrassing failures on voting day. The failures are the subject of petitions at the Supreme Court over the outcome of the presidential election. CORD leader Raila Odinga, who is challenging President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta's election, is using the failure of the identification system as part of his petition. However, IEBC has argued that going manual at the tallying stage was never against the law, but rather what the law required. Last week, the French embassy in Nairobi moved to distance its Government from the failure on grounds that it was only involved in voter registration. "The poll-books contained data collected during the biometric voter registration (BVR) process, but difficulties in connecting users to that data were a function of the EVIS equipment, not of the BVR data contained within them and also available through the manual register," the French envoys said in a statement on Friday. "None of the equipment in the Canadian-supplied BVR system was used on voting day." They added that given the very short timelines, there was a challenge finding enough handheld devices. A number of the poll books were substituted with laptops attached to fingerprint readers. On its part, the Election Observation Group said in about eight per cent of the 33,400 streams poll-books were either missing or malfunctioning as at 11.30am on Election Day. By 8.30pm, 55.1 per cent of the polling streams observed that electronic poll books had failed to function properly. Three different technologies were employed in the election. The first was the biometric voter registration process, which was successfully done. The next phase was the poll-book. This refers to equipment used on the voting day to biometrically identify voters at polling stations. This was the beginning of trouble after some laptops failed and others lost power. There were also cases where election staff forgot passwords or were unable to log into the system. The third was a tallying system that relied on specially configured mobile handsets. These, too, fell foul to various challenges just days after the poll, with less than half of the national tally reported. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling next week on whether these challenges had any bearing on the validity of the final outcome announced by IEBC. |
Jobs in Africa - www.wejobs.blogspot.com
International Jobs - www.jobsunited.blogspot.com
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wanabidii" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment