Tshwane CCTV deal queried

Questionable circumstances accompanied the tender process that culminated in the multimillion-rand deal for the Tshwane CCTV network being awarded to Morubisi Technologies for the second time. A second bid evaluation committee, which included the Tshwane Metro Police Department executive director Console Tleane, was appointed midway to see the process through to the end. The committee, chaired by Phillip Sivhada, was made up of Ndivhuwo Lithole, Frans Manganye and Morutse Mphahlele. It was appointed while the mandate of its predecessor had not yet lapsed. Arguing that due process had not been followed, the new committee overturned the earlier decision in terms of which Siyenza Holdings had been awarded the tender. Siyenza had been picked by the original committee’s chairman Johan Kok, Velli Nwandule, Jethro Seleka, Peter Mabunda and Charity Motloung.

Both committees had three metro police department representatives, and one apiece from the city’s legal services and supply chain management departments. The three-year contract is for the upgrading and maintenance of the system’s current infrastructure and expansion. Morubisi and Siyenza were up against Bona Electronic Solutions, Siyangena Technologies, Moribula Investment Solutions and EOH Holdings Limited. The contract has a value of almost R210 million, made up of about R76m for infrastructure and R42m for maintenance and operations in the first year. The maintenance and operation section of the deal increases by 5.7 percent a year to R44m and R47m during the second and third years.

Supply chain management regulations require that final technical proposals and pricing be invited for two-phased tender bidding processes. The first stage was to shortlist companies so that only those with the requisite capabilities could proceed to the next stage. In stage two, the process shifted to technical capabilities and price; the company with good capabilities and cheapest price must get the deal. However, the first committee indicated there was no scoring required at the second phase because it had already been done in the first phase. During deliberations, it was noted that Morubisi did not quote on the contract profit, while the others did. The bidder was nonetheless allowed to compete. The first bid evaluation committee, at its meeting on September 16 last year, resolved to recommend Siyenza as the winning bidder. A few days later, the executive acquisition committee raised concerns that the report was incomplete in that no scoring had been done at the second phase. It referred the report back for cleaning up, particularly the issue of scoring in phase two.

At about that time, Kok wrote to the office of the city manager, saying “…after due consideration it is advised that Tleane be added to the committee”. The Pretoria News could not establish under whose instruction Kok was acting. This request was originally refused as additional members could only be added by their departments if incumbents were unavailable, in terms of the law. Tleane explained that after it emerged that processes were not being adequately followed as prescribed by the law, he was added to the committee. However, he said the problems - which he could not disclose - persisted. “Essentially, the problem with the first committee was that it sought to recommend a company from the six that were shortlisted without satisfying the provisions of the regulations; to calculate the scores for stage two,” he said. “Instead, the committee resolved ‘there is no scoring required at this stage because it has already been done in the first stage of the tender’, but then it recommended one of the six companies. This was clearly against municipal supply chain management regulations.”

Despite advice, the first committee presented its report to the acquisition unit recommending a company from the six. This was rejected because no scoring was done. Having failed to resolve the matter on more than two occasions, it was recommended the committee be reconstituted. Tleane said the new committee took the bids as they were, and without changing anything, added the prices, which indicated Morubisi as the best bidder. Siyenza, the company recommended by the first committee, came out at number five, he added. The process conducted by the second committee was thus fair and in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law, Tleane said. He questioned why the first committee could have resolved to award the contract without complying with all the regulations and implied this may have been done to influence the process. Other officials who served on the first committee refused to comment, but during an investigation by the Pretoria News, two of them made accusations that the second team had been brought in to manipulate the tender process. The bidding companies did not want to comment.