Gov’t accused of interfering in disputed P300m Mogo road tender
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday December 8, 2025 06:00
Following a dispute launched by ZTK Joint Venture (JV) consisting of Zak Construction (Pty) Ltd and Tong-Ke (Pty) Ltd, appealing their disqualification from the tender for having cancelled on the tender document, the Public Procurement Tribunal ordered that both the technical and financial evaluation of the tender be re-evaluated by another procuring entity.
Just when ZTK thought they would have another chance at the tender, the Mogoditshane Thamaga District Council (MTDC) and the initial bid winners, Evolution Engineers/ Mason Group JV, appealed to the High Court. The tender was awarded for around P300 million.
ZTK had taken issue with being excluded before the financial stage of evaluation for having cancelled the tender document. They approached the tribunal challenging the decision, only for the tribunal to look deeper into the tender, uncovering what seemed like multiple irregularities, that the Mogoditshane Thamaga Council Secretary, Nokuthula Mhlanga, and her Deputy, Kenosi Montsheki, could not respond to questions cordially, often giving contradicting explanations.
The dispute is in relation to tender M-TDC/TR/CMS/034/2024- 2025 on the design and construction of 25-kilometre Mogoditshane Internal roads with associated storm water drainage system and solar street lighting was approved under the Economic Recovery Transformation Programme (ERTP) during the 2021/2022 financial year. Evolution Engineers/ Mason Group JV, who were the second respondents in the case, had been identified as the best bidders and had yet to be awarded the tender.
The tribunal found that ZTK acted in accordance with the instruction by indicating that the Bitumen 60/70 Pen and 80/ 100 Pen were no longer available in the market. “Notably, MTDC did not dispute the unavailability of the said bitumen. Instead, it was the Evolution Engineers/ Mason Group JV that challenged this assertion without providing any supporting evidence to refute ZTK JV’s claim or MTDC’s answer. Conversely, ZTK JV substantiated its position both in its bid submission and in its appeal, furnishing evidence of the product’s non-availability in the market,” he said. The tribunal would, however, not grant ZTK JV their wish to have the tender awarded to them or damages equivalent to their claim.
MTDC and Evolution Engineers/ Mason Group JV are now appealing the entire judgment of the tribunal. They argue that the tribunal erred in and misdirected itself in law, particularly by indicating that the specified Bitumen 60/70 and 80/ 100 were no longer available in the market, and that ZTK JV had acted in accordance with the Procuring Entity’s instruction.
Now with the matter dragging, Deputy Permanent Secretary Development, Mpho Morapedi, has written to the Council Secretary, stating that the project has been plagued by procurement delays for over two years. Morapedi states that despite the publication of the potential successful bidder’s award notice in December 2024, implementation is currently stalled by a legal dispute.
“The resulting lack of infrastructure is critically affecting service delivery and hindering economic activity due to severe congestion and poor conditions. Furthermore, the delays are significantly impacting community welfare,” he lamented.
Further, in light of what he terms chronic delays, and the anticipated project extension following the High Court hearing, Morapedi said they urgently request the Council Secretary’s office to “Immediately provide legal justification on the feasibility of cancelling the current tender process; and advice on initiating an alternative procurement model, to fast- track the completion of this critical infrastructure development,” he stated.
Responding to a questionnaire from this publication, Chief Public Relations Officer at the Ministry, Chandapiwa Baputak,i said the request was made as part of the Ministry’s ongoing efforts to ensure that major projects such as the Mogoditshane Internal Roads initiative are implemented in the most efficient and beneficial manner for the public.
“The Ministry believed it was important to explore whether any alternative procurement approaches, within the confines of the law, could potentially enhance the delivery and overall value of the project,” she said.
Baputaki also said the Ministry fully respects the independence of Procurement Entities as set out in the Public Procurement Act. She said the intention behind the communication was not to direct or influence any procurement decision, but rather to seek clarity on available options. “The Ministry remains committed to maintaining the integrity and autonomy of the procurement process,” she said.
She said the Ministry recognise and respects that the matter is before the courts, and that they are careful to avoid engaging in any actions that could be perceived as influencing or undermining judicial proceedings. “Any internal assessments or requests for information are purely administrative and are handled with full regard to ongoing legal processes and advice,” she said.
Quizzed whether the Ministry had done its own legal justification on the feasibility of cancelling the tender that is before courts, Baputaki said the Ministry seeks legal guidance from its internal legal advisors and, where necessary, from the Attorney General’s Chambers on matters with potential legal implications. At present, she said, there has been no decision to cancel the tender, but that the Ministry has sought to understand what options are available within the law. She said any future steps would be informed by comprehensive legal advice and in accordance with due process.
On what alternative procurement model they had in mind, Baputaki said at this stage, the Ministry has not recommended or endorsed any particular alternative model. “The intention was simply to allow for an assessment of what procurement approaches may be permissible and suitable under the Public Procurement Act. Any option considered would have to meet the requirements of fairness, transparency, and compliance with PPRA’s guidance,” she said.
On allegations that some senior Ministry officials could be looking to influence the direct award of the tender to a preferred company, Baputaki said the Ministry is not aware of any such conduct and has not received any substantiated reports to that effect. “Procurement decisions are governed by established procedures and oversight mechanisms that prevent any individual from unilaterally influencing tender outcomes. The Ministry remains committed to ensuring that all procurement activities are conducted fairly and transparently,” she said.
She further said the Ministry reiterates its commitment to upholding the principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability in all procurement processes. “MLGTA values the roles played by PPRA, the courts, and other oversight bodies, and will continue to cooperate fully with all relevant institutions to ensure that the Mogoditshane Internal Roads Project proceeds in a lawful and orderly manner that benefits the public,” she said.
As per the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority operations manual, Procuring Entities (PEs) are advised to prioritise the open domestic bidding process as the primary method for acquiring works, services, and supplies. “By broadly advertising procurement opportunities and adhering to established procedural guidelines, PEs can foster a competitive bidding environment, securing the best possible offers and enhancing efficiency and accountability in the use of public funds. This also promotes local supplier participation, supporting and stimulating the national economy. Any alternative method of procurement will require approval from the AO or delegated Officer,” they state.
PEs are also to select restricted domestic bidding when the required works, services, or supplies are available from a limited number of providers or when exceptional circumstances demand it.
The manual states that PEs should use the direct procurement method when specific conditions require a sole supplier approach without competition. “This method is appropriate in (i) emergencies, (ii) when only one supplier is available, (iii) when compatibility with existing works is needed, or (iv) when continuity of service is essential. Justification and written approval from the AO are mandatory before proceeding. Approved contractors' names should be published, except in sensitive or classified cases. An Invitation to Tender or other tender must be issued to the approved bidder. The tender must be evaluated to determine responsiveness and VfM. Where a bidder fails to meet tender requirements, an award should not be made. This ensures the direct procurement method is used appropriately, maintaining transparency, accountability, and VfM,” they state.