Staff reporter
Bloemfontein – The scandal around the R269 million road maintenance tender awarded to New Beginning Project only to be terminated and awarded to Tau Pele Construction is proving be like an onion, the more layers you peel, the more it stinks as the department failures to perform due diligence are laid bare.
With focus mainly on a political head who is likely to say I did not sign any papers, what were the roles of the accounting officer and chief operating officer in this tender?
STEPUPSANEWS is possession of a letter from T. Mabilo, chairperson of Bid Adjudication Committee to Mojalefa Monyane, acting Director Legal Services asking for legal advise.
The letter with subject: REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION ON SPECIAL MAINTANCE OF PRIMARY ROAD P37/1 BETWEEN TWEESPRUIT AND EXCELSIOR FOR 44,00KM (PR&TBID14/2022/23), reads:
“The Bid Adjudication Committee seek legal opinion on the following matters raised during the deliberations in the BAC meeting.
The issues led to bidders being disqualified and we request a legal opinion to empower our decision-making.”
Mabilo then asks Monyane about Standard Bidding Documents.
“It is a condition of a bid that taxes of successful bidder must be in order or satisfactory, arrangements have been made with SARS to meet the bidder’s tax obligation
- Any SBD form duly signed but not fully complete (sections of SBD not complete)
- Any SBD form not duly signed and completed but also not applicable to the supplier.”
In his response Monyane said.
“The conditions of the bid are peremptory, therefore any omission to give information renders the bid not complying. The bidders must complete the section where the tender want information.
This information is crucial as leaving blank has its own dangers as it clear how it will assist the Department to evaluate the tender.
As stated, that ‘completed and duly signed’ are peremptory therefore failure adhere to the said instructions rendered the bid incomplete therefore the bid is not responsive to the instructions.”
Mabilo further asked Monyane about SBD 3.1 and Tax Clearance
“Only firm prices will be acceptable. No-firm prices (including prices subject rates of exchanges variations) will not be considered.
1.The SBD 3.1 do not have the signature section for a bidder to complete and sign.
2. Bidders did not complete SBD3.1”
In his response Monyane said.
“Where there is no signature section for the bidder to complete and sign no bidder must be penalized as there is no instruction to do so (SBD 3.1)
Where there SBD3.1 requires to be completed and the bidder fails to do so then it challenges the peremptory principle which the department want the bidder to furnish or supply the information for it to evaluate on.”
With questions on who penned the last signature and if due diligence was conducted, it remains to be seen if any action will taken.
Where were administrators?
This requires all tenders awarded in the past two years to be investigated including the pothole patching tender awarded to Central University of Technology. The Auditor General has already made a finding on the CUT tender.
If the Hawks are indeed investigating this case, they must ask for minutes of the meeting between Joyce Mathae, Dr Masego Tshabalala and twenty five (25) contractors who were asked to stand one-by-one like children in school to introduce themselves before the were threatened that their contracts would be terminated if they do not plough back.
At the time, Hilary Mophethe, spokesperson for the department confirmed the meeting did happen.
So the minutes should be available, but can bet right now, those minutes have disappeared just like deployment committee minutes sought by Democratic Alliance.
Mojalefa Monyane, acting Director Legal Services said he will respond via Communication Directorate if his legal opinion was adhered to or not.
This is developing story.
If you have news or tips please email us at news@stepupsanews.co.za or WhatsApp 0685000246
2 thoughts on “Failure adhere to the said instructions rendered the bid incomplete” Legal Opinion on R269 million tender”