Latest news with #R1.57bn
The Citizen
a day ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Public Protector flags irregularities in R22m Lesseyton Stadium, questions 'emergency'
The construction of the Lesseyton Sports Field exceeded the approved R18.7 million budget. Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka has found evidence of mismanagement in the construction of the controversial Lesseyton Sports Field in Komani, Eastern Cape. In a report released on Wednesday following an investigation into allegations of maladministration and improper conduct, Gcaleka highlighted serious procurement issues involving the Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality. The sports facility, unveiled in October 2021, drew widespread public criticism due to its poor quality and the high cost associated with its construction. A forensic investigation conducted by a law firm had revealed that the contract for building the stadium — awarded to construction company Thalami Civils — was irregular. Public Protector investigation over Lesseyton Sports Field tender On Wednesday, Gcaleka found that procurement irregularities in the awarding of the R22.7 million tender had been substantiated. She pointed out that one key issue was that the project exceeded the R18.7 million budget approved by the Eastern Cape Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) in the 2017-18 financial year. 'The awarded tender exceeded the budgeted amount by over R4.7 million, and there is no evidence that the municipality approached the municipal council for additional funding as required by Section 19(1) of the Municipal Finance Management Act,' Gcaleka said. ALOS READ: Sanral taking its time to investigate R1.57bn tender award Additional procedural issues were also found during the tender process. Gcaleka highlighted inconsistencies in the contract's advertisement, revealing that it had two different closing dates and was not published on three publicly accessible platforms, as required by the municipal supply chain management policy. 'The tender advertisement period was shortened from 30 days to 14 days, and the reasons provided was that the construction of Lesseyton Sports Field was an emergency. 'The municipality's definition of emergency in this regard is found not to be in line with the definition in terms of regulation 22(2) of the municipal supply chain management policy,' she remarked. Bid evaluation process questioned The Public Protector's investigation uncovered irregularities in the bid evaluation process, including evidence that two separate evaluations took place. 'The first process resulted in bidder 1 being the preferred bidder, whereas the second process utilised a different formula provided by the BAC [bid adjudicating committee] and culminated in Thalami Civil, which was the fourth.' Gcaleka questioned the rationale provided by the Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality for bypassing the top-scoring bidder. READ MORE: DA demands full AGSA report on R400m driving licence tender The municipality had justified not awarding the tender to the highest scoring bidder by claiming the bidder had recently been awarded a similar contract. 'The reasons provided by the BAC did not amount to, I quote, 'objective criterion', and [were] not supported by any legal or rational authority. 'Moreover, this reason was not part of the evaluation criteria in terms of the specification or determined by the BEC [bid evaluation committee].' Lack of oversight on Lesseyton Sports Field project The Public Protector concluded that the appointment of Thalami Civils contravened section 2(1)(e) and (f) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA), which mandates awarding contracts to the highest-scoring bidder unless objective criteria justify otherwise. 'The allegations that there were irregularities in the management of the contract and a lack of proper oversight on the Lesseyton Sports Field construction project by the local and provincial governments, resulting in no value for money, are substantiated,' Gcaleka added. NOW READ: Macpherson not deterred by 'political pressure or death threats' over R800m oxygen tender
The Citizen
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Urgent application to stop ship tender ‘tailored' for the incumbent
Competing bidder JS Maritime Partners cries foul over tender conditions it says are designed to shut it out. The tender states that bidders with older rather than newer facilities and premises will be favoured. Picture: SA Agulhas II): South African National Antarctic Programme Marine management company JS Maritime Partners has filed an urgent application in the Cape High Court to stop the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) from awarding a tender for the management of the state-owned SA Agulhas II and Algoa vessels on the grounds that it is tailor-made for the incumbent, Amsol. The DFFE says it will oppose the application. Captain Stefan Bulow, CEO of JS Maritime, states: 'We have brought this application on an urgent basis because we believe the tender is tailor-made for the incumbent and designed to eliminate competing bids.' The bid closed on 23 May. ALSO READ: 'New site for tender fraud': EFF wary of SA's new petrol company Necessary information A tender briefing was held on 23 April in Cape Town with several bidders in attendance – among them JS Maritime Partners and Amsol. During the tender briefing, Bulow asked for information that only the incumbent operator would know, such as the insurance claims history and historical true spend on the ship, but says while the department has responded, the answers given are unsatisfactory and illogical. JS Maritime, an international shipping company based in Cape Town, has teamed up with HF Offshore, together operating 22 vessels, and with the local Khoisan Consortium to bid for ship management and consulting contracts in SA. 'All we are asking for is a level playing field,' says Bulow. 'From the way the tender is designed, it is clear that there can only be one outcome, and that is to the benefit of Amsol. We have asked the DFFE for answers to a number of questions that are vital to our ability to submit a comprehensive and accurate tender, but the requests were declined on the basis that bidders must estimate and provide assumptions, which is illogical. 'So, unfortunately, we have to take this matter to court and seek an urgent interdict to stop the tender going ahead as it is currently structured.' ALSO READ: Sanral suspends R1.57bn contract award pending an investigation The information it requested from the DFFE: The insurance claims history of the SA Agulahs II and the Algoa, which is essential in determining insurance premiums; The current insured values of the two vessels and their tonnage specifications; The historical costs of operating the vessels, which only Amsol would know; Clarification on the meaning of various cost codes in the tender documents; Daily charter rates, number of charters, and crew size; Fuel rates; and Costs for drydocking and maintenance. 'The current service provider, Amsol, has access to all such information,' Julio Sieni of Dirk Kotze Attorneys for JS Maritime wrote to the DFFE. 'Were this not the case, it would be unable to perform. Thus, not to share this information with other potential bidders would be grossly irregular and blatantly unfair and would fall foul of all legislation pertaining to this type of tender process.' The lack of response for specific information from the DFFE to questions is troubling, says Bulow. ALSO READ: SCA finds defence department's R60 million tender invalid and unlawful No response for Moneyweb either Moneyweb approached Amsol for comment and was referred to the DFFE. The DFFE promised to reply to Moneyweb's questions a week ago but had not done so at the time of publication. What is clear, however, is that it intends opposing JS Maritime's application. Other irregularities There are a number of other irregularities in the tender document highlighted by JS Maritime. For example, the requirement that the tenderer must have had the required facilities and premises for more than eight years in order to achieve maximum points. This is illogical, says Bulow, and seems to have been inserted to benefit the incumbent rather than someone else with more suitable and modern premises that are not eight years old. Sieni says the failure of the DFFE to provide the requested information to complete the tender application – information that is crucial to completing the tender document – and its silence on the request to extend the tender closing date, leaves it with no option but to approach the Western Cape High Court for an urgent interdict. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
