Business

Department defends tender

2019-01-06 16:52

In our December 23 issue, City Press published an article titled “R434m tender for 'unqualified company'”. It concerns the awarding of a multimillion-rand tender by the Gauteng human settlements department to a company that allegedly did not meet qualifying standards.

Following this report, the department has finally come out and said that the company, Mokgolokwane Civils, did qualify for the contract, valued at R464 726 356, for the building of 4 000 housing units in Palm Ridge on the East Rand.

According to one of its directors, Puleng Madisha, the department corroborated the company’s claim that it was graded as a potentially emerging contractor.

City Press reported information from the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) that it was not graded as such.

The department did not reply to questions on the matter and only responded to City Press after the article was published.

Read: R434m tender for 'unqualified company' 

Department spokesperson Keith Khoza said: “No other company has been awarded a contract for the catalytic project in the same period and financial year, except for Mega Projects. No award has been made to the company in the past two years. The contract for the construction of 2 869 units expires on March 31, with the balance awaiting confirmation of service stands by the municipality.”

CIDB spokesperson Rami Moorosi said Mokgolokwane Civils’ grading was an eight, meaning it could qualify for a contract worth up to R130 million – and, at most, 20% more.

“The maximum tender value for grade eight is R130 million, but the regulation allows for the client to reasonably exceed the maximum value tender range by about 20%,” Moorosi said.

The department now faces the possibility of being dragged to court after one of the companies that was part of the same panel of contractors, A-Z Building Services, raised the issue of the alleged irregularity.

Lawyers representing A-Z Building Services wrote to the department requesting records relating to the contract, saying this was for the “purpose of a potential judicial review”.

Read more on:

tenders
Read News24’s Comments Policy

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
0 comments
Add your comment
Comment 0 characters remaining

May 19 2019