Court clears CA’s Sh220m cyber-defence project tender

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

The High Court has cleared a Sh219.7 million tender by the Communications Authority of Kenya for a cybersecurity project meant to help train security teams, simulate cyberattacks and test their ability to detect and respond to threats.

The court dismissed Buffalo Productions Limited’s judicial review application, finding that the company was asking the court to re-evaluate technical findings already considered by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board.

The tender was for a cyber-range simulation platform, a program designed to provide simulated environments for cybersecurity training, testing and exercises.

The cyber-range platform will provide a controlled environment where cybersecurity teams can simulate attacks on virtual networks, test their defences and train to detect and respond to cyber incidents without exposing live systems to attack.

The project was procured alongside other CA technology investments, including digital-forensics laboratory tools, an ID-to-SIM card checking service and a network performance and quality-of-service analytics system.

The tender was specifically classified under cybersecurity and simulation services, with the CA identifying cybersecurity among its statutory responsibilities as the ICT sector regulator.

CA advertised the tender, initially setting March 11, 2026 as the closing date. The deadline was later extended to March 25 through an addendum.

The procurement attracted 10 bidders, according to the Review Board’s record. Three bids failed preliminary evaluation, leaving seven for technical assessment. All seven passed technical compliance, but six, including Buffalo, failed the subsequent technical-capacity stage.

Salaam Technologies was the only bidder to reach financial evaluation and was found responsive at Sh219.7 million, inclusive of applicable taxes and levies.

CA notified bidders of its intention to award the contract to Salaam on April 29. Buffalo challenged its disqualification before the Review Board on May 15, arguing that the procurement process was unfair and that requirements not contained in the tender document had been applied.

It also claimed that CA had failed to provide the tender-opening minutes required under procurement law.

The Board dismissed Buffalo’s request on June 5, prompting the company to move to the High Court in review proceedings filed in June.

The dispute centred partly on experience. Buffalo argued that it should have been allowed to rely on experience associated with ATC-NY, a partner it identified in its bid, to meet the mandatory requirement for eight years’ relevant experience.

The Review Board rejected that argument, finding Buffalo had submitted its bid as an independent bidder rather than as a joint venture. It concluded Buffalo could not “borrow” ATC-NY’s experience because ATC-NY was not a party to the bid.

The Board also considered Buffalo’s challenge over support charges. Buffalo challenged the tender’s provision requiring bidders to provide the first 10 hours of post-deployment support free of charge, after which additional support would be billed at USD292 (about Sh37,900) per hour.

The Board did not treat that charge as a valid ground for disqualification because the tender document did not prohibit additional support charges. Buffalo remained disqualified on other mandatory technical requirements.

In the High Court, Buffalo argued that the Review Board had relied on an incorrect finding that it had demonstrated only six years’ experience. It also argued that the tender document did not require a joint venture for reliance on partner experience.

Buffalo further complained that CA had failed to provide tender-opening minutes and that the Review Board had introduced criteria not contained in the tender documents.

The Review Board said it had considered the pleadings, submissions, confidential procurement records, Buffalo’s tender and procurement law.

CA Director-General David Mugonyi said Buffalo was found non-responsive at the technical-capacity stage and defended the Board’s role.

The winning bidder, Salaam Technologies, opposed the case, arguing that judicial review could not challenge technical findings.

In the judgment, the court distinguished an appeal, which challenges correctness, from judicial review, which examines whether the decision-making process was lawful and fair.

“Judicial review does not permit the court to re-evaluate evidence, re-assess factual findings or substitute its own view for that of a specialized statutory body,” the court said.

The court found Buffalo sought a different outcome on the same material considered by the Review Board.

“The ex-parte applicant’s case, at its core, amounts to a request for this court to re-evaluate the merits of the tender,” Justice William Musyoka said.

He found no evidence that the Review Board acted illegally, exceeded its powers, or denied Buffalo a fair hearing.

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.