GDRT welcomes High Court judgment in appointing Vaal River City contractor
The court also found that the questioned first and third certificates of completion submitted by the Ditshimega Projects and Training (PTY) LTD were in fact relevant
SEDIBENG. – The Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (GDRT) has welcomed the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court on a review application brought by losing bidders to interdict the awarding and finalisation of the tender.
The tender is for the construction of the Vaal River City interchange in Vanderbijlpark, which was issued to Ditshimega Projects and Training (PTY) LTD was awarded the tender. In a statement the GDRT said that applicants, Mapitsi Civil Works (PTY) LTD and MECSA Construction (PTY)LTD, had sought interdictory orders to stop it from finalising, signing as well as implementing the formal awarding agreement with the awarded party.
The court found that disregarding internal dispute resolution procedures and overlooking and disregarding prescribed procedures can have consequences for bidders. It also agreed the applicants’ failure to comply with prescribed procedures was their own doing and cannot be blamed on the GDRT.
They had sought remedy, contending that the Department’s decision to award the tender to Ditshimega Projects and Training (PTY) LTD in circumstances where the latter had not complied with mandatory requirements.
The applicants viewed this as a deviation from the published conditions.
The GDRT said that the applicants had alleged the certificates of completion submitted by the second respondent were uncertified, (and) not for a project that was relevant and similar to the tender project.
In April 2023, the Department published an invitation to bid for a tender for the construction of the Vaal River City interchange (K174/R42). The invitation contained terms and conditions, the fulfillment of which would qualify a bidder to be awarded the tender.
“Conditions stipulated the Department would apply a 90/10 preference point system in terms of Preferential Procurement Regulations of 2017. This meant that those bidders who did not meet prerequisites and criteria would be disqualified and not be considered in the further stages of the evaluation process.
“It also determined how functionality would be scored and a threshold necessary for further consideration in the process. This assessment would include the company’s experience in road rehabilitation or construction category. It further indicated the bidder with the highest number of points will be recommended for awarding of the tender,” the GDRT said.
The Department further indicated there was an internal dispute resolution mechanism that any bidder was made aware of before the assessment. This mechanism enables aggrieved or dissatisfied bidders with a procedural aspect in the evaluation process to file a notice of intention to appeal.
“Accordingly, the Department’s bid evaluation committee assessed a total of twenty-three (23) bids. This was reduced to five (05) when the rest were disqualified for failure to meet prerequisites. One was later disqualified owing to failure to comply with further mandatory requirements. In its analysis, the court found the applicants’ launching of the urgent application was an unwarranted deviation from prescribed procedure to challenge the decision of the Department.”
The court noted that the applicants brought the application without first using internal dispute resolution procedures, unwarrantedly overlooked, and disregarded a prescribed procedure.
The court also found that the questioned first and third certificates of completion submitted by the Ditshimega Projects and Training (PTY) LTD were in fact relevant and similar to the tender project and, therefore, compliant with the tender specifications. This was confirmed by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB).
