On Dec 29, 2013 11:51 AM, "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke> wrote:
>
> But the same local firms that own the said infrastructure put in a bid that could not pass muster. Should CCK or the government for that matter also help them prepare bid documents?
>
> As I indicated earlier, even restricted tenders require interested firms to meet certain basic requirements/criteria. It is really unfortunate when local firms with the required technical capacity to provide advertised licensable services lose out to foreign companies on the basis of failure to put in a convincing technical/business proposal.
>
> I would not be surprised that the bid winners (foreign consortium ) may have used local consultants to prepare bids for them.
>
> You raise an important policy issue here. But local firms also need to raise their socks in meeting the basic requirements for government tenders.
>
2 simple questions are not being answered.
(I) Are Joint Ventures required between local and foreign firms, to develop local capacity?
(II) How do current procurement laws ensure local capacity is developed?
From a political point of view, we are aware campaign funds need to be raised or recovered by all or politicians.
How about from an ethical point of view? If we check this issue/greed, we reduce election related violence, where we kill for access/positions to auction public resources, while our villages/localities remain impoverished.
It is wisdom (the practice of good works) we lack, not human or physical resources.
> From: Kivuva
> Sent: Sunday, 29 December 2013 11:16 PM
> To: Ngigi Waithaka
> Cc: Consumer and Public Affairs; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital Migration Ruling
>
> On 29/12/2013, Ngigi Waithaka <ngigi@at.co.ke> wrote:
> > The fact that the tender was *open* is the question that is in play here
> > and is the short-sightedness I alluded to earlier in a prior post.
> >
> > We have firms with the right infrastructure (masts, generators, workers
> > etc) already in use in this country and before we ran off to procure
> > equivalent from China, we ought to have procured what is already available
> > locally.
> >
> > That is why the 2nd infrastrucure bid ought to have been local to protect
> > our already existing investments.
> >
> > Another reason, national interest should dictate that we shouldnt rely on
> > external parties for such critical infrastructure before we already have
> > one from amongst our own in place.
>
> ++1 Waithaka.
>
> >
> > But we now know someone didnt see it that way. There was no money to be
> > made using whats already there, best to buy everything new, since the 'cut'
> > is likewise larger.
> >
> > And how do you do that? Open Tender!
> >
> > Waithaka Ngigi
> >
> > Alliance Technologies
> > Nairobi, Kenya
> >
> > www.A1.io
> > On 29 Dec 2013 09:11, "Mutua, Muthusi" <Mutua@cck.go.ke> wrote:
> >
> >> SM Muraya, Kenyans firms were involved. There were even two different
> >> consortiums of the local media that participated.
> >>
> >> The only difference here is that the tender was open and not necessarily
> >> targeting local firms or local media for that matter.
> >>
> >> I don't know of any procurement law that excludes Kenyan firms but there
> >> are certain tenders may only target local firms. The signal distributor
> >> one
> >> was open to all and the records of the participation can attest to that.
> >>
> >> As I pointed out earlier, losing a tender bid is not tantamount to being
> >> denied a chance to participate. That's the case we are dealing with here!
> >>
> >>
> >> *From*: S.M. Muraya [mailto:murigi.muraya@gmail.com]
> >> *Sent*: Sunday, December 29, 2013 01:03 AM
> >> *To*: Mutua, Muthusi
> >> *Cc*: Consumer and Public Affairs; kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <
> >> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> >> *Subject*: Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital
> >> Migration Ruling
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Mutua, Muthusi <Mutua@cck.go.ke> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are particular tenders, even in Kenya, that are subject to
> >>> demonstration of a certain percentage of local participation. This
> >>> cannot,
> >>> however, be used across the board even for services that don't require
> >>> this
> >>> kind of treatment.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not sure when and by whom was it decided, certain critical services in
> >> Kenya do not have to involve Kenyan firms.
> >>
> >> Do we develop local capacity through procurement laws which ensure
> >> foreign firms manage our critical local/distribution infrastructure?
> >>
> >> Note Euro vs China Policy:
> >> http://www.slideshare.net/IPRChina/technology-transfer-to-china-guidance-for-business-4312244
> >>
> >> Does Kenyan procurement/policy require foreign firms to engage in joint
> >> (technical) ventures with firms majority owned by Kenyans?
> >>
> >> Suspect... Mobitelea was a case of politically "correct" ghosts getting
> >> a 5% cut in a Telco. Was it a Kenyan firm with even a small track record
> >> of
> >> telco/service provision in Kenya, with evidence it was committed to
> >> developing local talent and capabilities?
> >>
> >> As we argue through, what's the definition of local media? Is it one
> >>> local player, two or three of them separately or together? Must these
> >>> entities also be separately 100% Kenyan in equity? Is KBC a local media?
> >>>
> >>> The media/content which enters the Kenyan home/office may originate
> >> from MARS, but the "last mile" infrastructure/frequency through which the
> >> digital content enters the home/office, is licensed/managed in Kenya.
> >>
> >> In the finance sector is shareholding by any one individual or entity
> >> not limited to 24.99%. Kenyans should own over 50% of the firms managing
> >> signal distribution.
> >>
> >> Let's also appreciate that unless anyone has been denied the chance to
> >>> participate in a tender, a loss of the bid doesn't amount to being
> >>> barred
> >>> from the process.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If being required to have prior engagements in multiple million dollar
> >> contracts is not being barred from the tendering process, then you are
> >> correct.
> >>
> >>
> >>> As it is, Tanzania has already gone digital. Does anyone know the
> >>> ownership of their signal distributor? Its interesting to know that. US
> >>> examples are ok but we need to put them into context. Local and regional
> >>> examples may even be more relevant to our situation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *From*: Ngigi Waithaka [mailto:ngigi@at.co.ke]
> >>> *Sent*: Saturday, December 28, 2013 09:01 AM
> >>> *To*: Watila Alex <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> *Cc*: Consumer and Public Affairs; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <
> >>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> >>> *Subject*: Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital
> >>> Migration Ruling
> >>>
> >>> Doing some unrelated research and came across this story here
> >>> http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/p8.htm
> >>>
> >>> Key point
> >>> "...*However, BAE withdrew from the competition in October 2002,
> >>> recognizing the political reality that its failure to locate and team
> >>> with
> >>> a US-based production partner made the bid unrealistic. *
> >>>
> >>> *..." *
> >>> Relevance, for those advocating that national interest does not matter
> >>> in
> >>> *critical procurement* and backing for local firms, even a large
> >>> conglomerate as BAE with all the backing from Downling Street can't win
> >>> a
> >>> large defense contract in the US against US firms.
> >>>
> >>> Another interesting read here
> >>>
> >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/02/28/how-boeing-won-the-tanker-war/
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Watila Alex <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> finally accessed the task force report at
> >>>> www.cck.go.ke/about/downloads/
> >>>> *migration*_*digital*_tv.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> the report made the flowing observations & recommendations on the
> >>>> digital signal distribution
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - The signal distributors will provide services to broadcasters on
> >>>> an equitable, reasonable, non-preferential and non-discriminatory
> >>>> basis. - *note the distinction between broadcaster &** signal
> >>>> distributor*. *i was unable to find any obligation placed on
> >>>> broadcasters to avail their content to all the signal distributors.
> >>>> the
> >>>> three broadcasters could decide to only provide their content to
> >>>> their
> >>>> signal distribution company. *
> >>>> - The functions of a signal distributor were previously carried out
> >>>> by the broadcasters and a number of challenges come into focus since
> >>>> the
> >>>> existing broadcasters have already made significant investments in
> >>>> infrastructure. There has to be a mechanism to ensure that this
> >>>> investment
> >>>> is not wasted.- *this has been the argument of the three
> >>>> broadcasters.*
> >>>> - The high set-up costs will limit the number of signal
> >>>> distributors. Furthermore, signal distribution services may not
> >>>> penetrate
> >>>> to areas that are not commercially viable. - *limitation of signal
> >>>> distributors seems to have been based on cost of set-up and not the
> >>>> spectrum. according to the three broadcasters, they are able to
> >>>> upgrade
> >>>> their infrastructure to distribute digital signals at a cost that is
> >>>> affordable to them*
> >>>> - In order to reduce the cost of migration, the existing designated
> >>>> transmitting analogue sites and infrastructure will be used for
> >>>> digital
> >>>> transmission. - *this has been the argument of the three
> >>>> broadcasters.*
> >>>> - Based on the government decision to licence KBC as a signal
> >>>> distributor, KBC shall form an independent company to run the signal
> >>>> distribution services in order to avoid conflict of interests or
> >>>> cross
> >>>> subsidies. - *Signet? shouldn't it have been a locally owned
> >>>> company. not sure how Chinese ownership came in*
> >>>> - The current broadcasters will be allowed to form an independent
> >>>> company to run the signal distribution services in order to utilize
> >>>> their
> >>>> existing infrastructure. This company should be independent to avoid
> >>>> conflict of interests or cross subsidies. This company will be given
> >>>> the
> >>>> first preference to a signal distribution licence. * this seems not
> >>>> to have happened as recommended. would have prevented the current
> >>>> acrimony*
> >>>> - Existing broadcasters who own infrastructure will negotiate
> >>>> commercial terms with the licensed signal distribution provider for
> >>>> transfer of ownership of the infrastructure.* the three broadcasters
> >>>> seem unwilling to pursue this as a means of recovering their "40
> >>>> billion
> >>>> kes" investment *
> >>>> - A time limit be set after which broadcasters will not be allowed
> >>>> to operate unlicensed signal distribution services - *seems the
> >>>> three broadcasters have a grace period to distribute digitally*.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/27/2013 11:18 AM, Watila Alex wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> does anyone have a copy of the digital migration task force report
> >>>> that the media houses are referring to in today's appeal?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on
> >>>> Android<http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------
> >>>> *From: *Watila Alex <awatila@yahoo.co.uk> <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>;
> >>>> *To: *Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke> <Wambua@cck.go.ke>;
> >>>> *Cc: *Consumer and Public Affairs <CPA@cck.go.ke> <CPA@cck.go.ke>;
> >>>> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> >>>> <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke><kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>;
> >>>>
> >>>> *Subject: *Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital
> >>>> Migration Ruling
> >>>> *Sent: *Thu, Dec 26, 2013 6:59:06 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> why was the number of signal distributors limited to two?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on
> >>>> Android<http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------
> >>>> *From: *Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke> <Wambua@cck.go.ke>;
> >>>> *To: *<awatila@yahoo.co.uk> <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>;
> >>>> *Cc: *Consumer and Public Affairs <CPA@cck.go.ke> <CPA@cck.go.ke>;
> >>>> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> >>>> <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke><kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>;
> >>>>
> >>>> *Subject: *Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital
> >>>> Migration Ruling
> >>>> *Sent: *Thu, Dec 26, 2013 6:43:55 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> kictanet mailing list
> >>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
> >>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >>>>
> >>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> >>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngigi%40at.co.ke
> >>>>
> >>>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> >>>> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> >>>> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> >>>> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and
> >>>> development.
> >>>>
> >>>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> >>>> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and
> >>>> bandwidth,
> >>>> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy,
> >>>> do
> >>>> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Regards,*
> >>>
> >>> *Wait**haka Ngigi*
> >>> Chief Executive Officer | Alliance Technologies | MCK Nairobi Synod
> >>> Building
> >>> T + 254 (0) 20 2333 471 |Office Mobile: +254 786 28 28 28 | M + 254 737
> >>> 811 000
> >>> www.at.co.ke
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> kictanet mailing list
> >>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
> >>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >>>
> >>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> >>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/murigi.muraya%40gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> >>> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> >>> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> >>> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and
> >>> development.
> >>>
> >>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> >>> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and
> >>> bandwidth,
> >>> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy,
> >>> do
> >>> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> kictanet mailing list
> >> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
> >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >>
> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngigi%40at.co.ke
> >>
> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> >> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> >> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> >> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and
> >> development.
> >>
> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and
> >> bandwidth,
> >> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> >> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> twitter.com/lordmwesh
> kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/murigi.muraya%40gmail.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.