State Presidency slammed for failure to ‘support’ tender award
Innocent Selatlhwa | Wednesday February 4, 2026 09:13
Though the ministry, through the Botswana Defence Force, had rightfully awarded a tender for the supply of camouflage fabric for the BDF to Dot Investments (Pty) Ltd, they gave contradictory answers before the tribunal.
Merafhe Segwai of Gescin (Pty) Ltd approached the tribunal aggrieved by the ministry’s decision to dismiss his complaint following the award of the tender to Dot Investments. The complaint related to the financial evaluation, specifically Gescin’s contention that the 15% price preference applicable to youth-owned companies was wrongly applied to Dot Investments’ financial bid, as its proprietor had by the time of award attained the age of 36 and therefore no longer fell within the youth bracket.
In response, the ministry represented by Ookeditse Adam, Omphitlhetse Tlhobogang, Philemon Lefiri, and Ontifile Gabegwe said the award was proper because Dot Investments met the eligibility criteria for the youth preference at the time of bid submission, which is the relevant point for assessing entitlement. Further, they said Dot Investments cannot be prejudiced by delays in the evaluation process.
Otlaadisa Tlotlego, the Director of Dot Investments, said his company was eligible for the 15% youth preference at the time of bid submission within the original tender validity period, and that subsequent delays cannot be attributable to it, and his age at the time of award does not affect its entitlement.
The Tribunal, led by Judge President Kabelo Lebotse, found that indeed Tlotlego was beyond 36 years at evaluation. However, the evaluation report indicates that, from the financial evaluation, the preference category applied for Dot Investments was not youth, but rather employment.
“Examination of the Dot Investments bid shows that it had ticked three categories on the returnable document, namely Youth, Rural Setting, and Employment. Under a rural setting, the returnable document indicated that Dot Investments is based in Molepolole, and under employment, it indicated that the company employs a total of five employees, three of whom are women and five of whom are youth,” the Tribunal states.
The Tribunal found that Dot Investments was therefore eligible for employment in a rural setting. On this basis, the tribunal found that Dot Investments was rightly entitled to the application of the 15% price preference margin under the categories for which eligibility was demonstrated.
The Tribunal states that during the hearing, it became apparent that none of the parties was aware that Dot Investments had not, in fact benefitted under the youth category. “The applicant and second respondent (Gescin and Dot Investments) are excusable in this regard, as they were not privy to the evaluation process and were not furnished with the evaluation report. The same, however, cannot be said of the first respondent (the ministry).
The Tribunal said it is difficult to reconcile the ministry’s submissions before the tribunal that Dot Investments was properly evaluated under the youth category, with its own records, which demonstrate otherwise. This inconsistency, they state, underscores the casual manner in which the ministry conducted both the complaint process before the Accounting Officer and this case before the Tribunal. The conduct of the ministry calls for serious censure. Had the ministry attended the complaint process with care and skill expected of a procuring entity, it would have picked this issue, and the case would most likely never have reached the Tribunal,” they wrote.
Ordinarily, having found that the applicant’s contention that the second respondent unduly benefited under the youth category is without merit, the Tribunal would have dismissed the claim outright. However, having noted the casual manner in which the ministry conducted the case, the Tribunal found it called for a departure from the normal route.
“The applicant was put out of pocket by the ministry’s conduct and ended up filing a case without merit before the Tribunal, which the Tribunal is constrained to dismiss,” they state.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of Gescin’s claim, for the Tribunal, it was a typical case where it would be unjust for the ministry to escape the consequences of its conduct, and it ought to restore Gescin to its financial position before the case.
“The interests of fairness and justice therefore require that the applicant be restored, as far as is reasonably possible, to the financial position it occupied prior to the institution of these proceedings,” they state.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Gescin. Further, they ordered the ministry to pay Gescin the sum of P39,000, being the complaint and lodging fees paid to the Tribunal. The ministry was further ordered to pay Gescin's costs.