Tender Turmoil
In the wake of last month’s story on housing, comes the news concerning the real reason why the provision of low-cost housing in the Overstrand is so appallingly slow.
At the beginning of 2007, the Municipality put out to tender a R600,000,000.00 contract for a “Turnkey Developer” to build low-cost housing in the Overstrand. Sixteen tender applications were received with only five regarded as bona fide, inclusive of M5, ASLA and Blue Whale Property CC.
The Housing Manager at the time, Mr Bobby von During, employed the services of consulting firm ICE Group, to make a recommendation as to whom the tender should be awarded. The evaluating of tenders involves a prescribed points system with the company scoring the highest points being the winner. The outcome of this process was that M5 was evaluated as the most suitable company. However, the evaluation process did not end there. All the documentation went on to an Evaluation Committee, who concurred with ICE in recommending M5 as the turnkey developer. The documentation then went on to the Adjudicating Committee, who once again recommended M5.
On the 20th of April 2007, M5 were notified of their appointment and the two other remaining companies were notified of their right to appeal this decision within 21 days. Blue Whale lodged an appeal, as did ASLA, but ASLA’s appeal was not received within the legislated time period. Blue Whale’s appeal then sat with the Municipality for some nine months without any progress.
Astoundingly, in February 2008, a decision was made by the then Acting Municipal Manager, Mr Coenie Groenewald, to change the scoring of the tender documents and award the tender to ASLA. Naturally, M5, who had originally won the tender, sued Groenewald and the Municipality in the Cape High Court. It emerged during court proceedings that the Overstrand Municipality did not even have a Supply Chain Management Policy as is prescribed by law.
M5 prevailed in the case and the tender reverted back to them. In his ruling, Judge le Grange stated, ‘The contention that Groenewald was in law obliged to, upon discovering an alleged scoring error whilst considering Blue Whale’s appeal, make a decision on the correct scoring and re-allocate the tender to Asla, is misconceived. Groenewald, in my view, erred and committed a serious misdirection to re-allocate the tender to Asla.’
More astoundingly, despite the recommendation of Mr Werner Zybrands, who had by then been appointed as the Municipal Manager, the Municipality decided to appeal the High Court’s ruling. The matter was then retried by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the 12th of March 2010. This court upheld the High Court’s decision and the Municipality was ordered to pay all of M5‘s costs. The Monitor requested from the Municipality the final cost of the two court cases, but to date this information has not been forthcoming.
In light of this situation, the Monitor posed the following questions to Mr Fanie Krige, Communications Manager of the Overstrand Municipality:
- What events led to Mr Coennie Groenewald reversing a tender decision after it was approved by the tender Adjudication Committee?
- When M5 sued Mr Groenewald and the Municipality, who took the decision to defend the matter?
- When the case was lost in the High Court, who made the decision to appeal the decision?
- What was the final cost of both the court cases including the costs of the applicant?
- Where did this money come from?
- Given that the Municipality was in the wrong, how is the Municipality planning to reimburse the Overstrand ratepayers for this wasteful expenditure?
- How was it that Mr Groenewald was appointed Municipal manager, even though he wasted a significant amount of public funds and set back the housing planning in the Overstrand by some 2 years?
In response to these questions the Monitor was invited to the Municipal offices to read through the transcripts of the court cases as well as the confidential Legal Council’s brief. Unfortunately, these documents shed no light on the questions posed. In fact, this episode simply raised the additional question as to why these documents were not part of the public record.
Of serious concern is the fact that the present Municipal Manager was appointed to his position even though he was found by two courts to have committed serious errors in exercising his responsibilities. Also, his position commands a salary that warrants a level of discretion beyond that displayed in this matter where ratepayers are left with massive legal costs and a housing plan in tatters.
The Monitor will keep it’s readers updated should the Municipality decide to answer the questions stated in this article.
Source: Whale Coast FM