An Sh800 million consultancy contract meant to support the expansion of the Kenya Water Institute has come under sharp scrutiny in Parliament after lawmakers questioned the cost, the payment process and the lack of a fixed contract value, setting the stage for a closer review of how the public funds are being spent.
The Public Investments Committee on Commercial Affairs and Energy raised concerns over the consultancy agreement while examining audit queries at the institution, with members demanding documents to justify the amount set aside for the project. The committee, chaired by Pokot South MP David Pkosing, also questioned why the contract was signed without indicating a definite total sum.
Lawmakers heard that the consultant has so far been paid Sh330 million, although the contract remains active. The committee was informed that an initial payment of Sh100 million was reportedly released without the necessary approvals before another Sh230 million was paid, bringing the total amount disbursed to Sh330 million.
Members directed the Kenya Water Institute (Kewi) to provide the consultancy contract, a detailed breakdown of the work expected at every campus and an explanation of how the Sh800 million consultancy fee was calculated.
“How do you allocate Sh800 million to a consultant? For what kind of work?” Pkosing asked during the meeting.
Kewi chief executive Leiro Letangule told the committee that the consultant had been engaged to prepare a master plan that would guide the institution's infrastructure development.
“It has civil and architectural designs. It was envisioned that we have a Kewi campus in all the 47 county governments,” Letangule said.
He explained that the consultancy covers plans to expand and upgrade existing campuses while also laying the groundwork for establishing Kewi facilities across all 47 counties.
Letangule further told the committee that construction at the Nairobi campus is already underway, with one of the buildings currently about 40 per cent complete.
Despite the explanation, members of the committee maintained that the consultancy fee appeared too high and insisted on seeing the exact scope of work planned under the contract before any further spending is approved.
“Can we see a list of what was to be done in each county?” Pkosing asked.
The committee chairman said lawmakers needed to examine the agreement thoroughly to determine whether it offers value for public money.
“We must look at this contract. There are serious questions. How do we sign a contract without a sum? What’s your safety net?” the chairman asked.
An official appearing before the committee explained that the consultancy also includes redesigning several buildings at Kewi campuses. The official said the consultancy charges were calculated as a percentage of the projected construction costs rather than being based on a fixed amount.
Letangule defended the payment model, saying the consultancy fee was arrived at using a formula applied by the State Department for Public Works when determining consultancy charges for government infrastructure projects.
The committee is now expected to review the contract and supporting documents before making its findings on the consultancy expenditure.