BGI under fire over multi tenders awarded to one consultancy
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday May 25, 2026 06:00
Documents obtained by this newspaper paint a disturbing picture of how public funds were allegedly channelled to Dreambond (Pty) Ltd, trading as Geothax Consulting, through direct appointments, irregular contract variations, and outright circumvention of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) regulations. At the heart of the scandal is allegedly a tightly knit group of senior BGI officials, including the Accounting Officer, Cisco Mashabila, who stand accused of having steered lucrative contracts away from some qualifying bidders and dismantled internal checks to favour a company with not so much experience in some of the works carried out.
The paper trail begins in early 2024, when BGI floated a restricted tender for consultancy services to review and develop its business and operating models. Only two firms were invited: Innolead Consulting Pty Ltd and Geothax. The estimated project budget was allegedly P3 million, a figure known only to management and the evaluation team.
Innolead, which had previously done some work for the institute, submitted a bid of P2,991,326.94 VAT inclusive. Geothax’s bid came in at P7,206,798.00, more than double the alleged budget. Despite the vast price difference, unsubstantiated rumours of an information leak against Innolead began circulating among senior management.
The documents reveal that Mashabila and his executive committee claimed Innolead’s price was suspiciously close to the confidential budget, implying someone inside BGI had tipped them off. But with no evidence, a newly formed procurement oversight team refused to act on the allegation. Undeterred, BGI management allegedly wrote a letter of regret to Innolead, claiming the firm had not quoted in line with the terms of reference. They then invoked a disclaimer clause allowing BGI not to award to the lowest bidder.
Geothax was handed the contract. A source close to the process said the suggestion of a leak was “deliberately planted to influence the outcome”. Within months, the consultancy review was complete, and Geothax submitted a report packed with ambitious recommendations, including a target of processing over 1,000 samples a day at BGI’s laboratories, when the existing team was managing just 30. When lab staff questioned the feasibility, they were allegedly removed from the project. Geothax was then rebranded as BGI’s “Business Partner”.
A separate tender for the safe removal of asbestos roofing at BGI’s Selebi-Phikwe Labs, which formerly belonged to BCL, reveals how management allegedly shut down a perfectly valid process to accommodate Geothax again. Tender No. BGI/DSD/1804/2025 was initially a direct appointment to Champs Botswana (Pty) Ltd, a fully citizen-owned company licensed by the Department of Waste Management to handle hazardous materials in mining areas.
Records show Champs Botswana was evaluated on 14th May 2025 and deemed compliant. A contract was drafted. Then, without any recorded reason, the Accounting Officer halted the award. Weeks turned into months. By the end of 2025, the procurement team was instructed to write a “no award” letter to Champs Botswana, stating that BGI had chosen to use its “Business Partner” instead.
That business partner was Geothax. The asbestos removal work, which had its own budget, was ultimately folded into Geothax’s growing portfolio through a series of allegedly irregular “reimbursements”.
In May 2025, an invitation to tender was sent directly to Geothax to implement the very business model it had helped design. The evaluation team, on which a procurement officer served as secretary, awarded the contract on 3rd June 2025 at a staggering P20,873,345.00, more than triple the original P6 million budget.
The evaluation committee allegedly flagged that many of the items quoted were already covered in the first review tender. They recommended negotiations. After a closed-door session, the figure was trimmed to P15,504,775.00. But even before work began, Geothax reportedly requested a 25% variation, an extra P3,876,193.75, claiming the Selebi-Phikwe labs were not in a usable state. The variation was approved.
In December 2025, Mashabila allegedly signed a letter instructing Geothax to carry out further refurbishment and asbestos removal without any tender process, promising to reimburse the firm P7,682,220.26 VAT inclusive. On 22 December, an emergency meeting was allegedly called in the Finance Manager’s office. Procurement officers were instructed to create a purchase order for Geothax and to provide supporting reasons to justify bypassing procurement rules. They allegedly refused, pointing out that PPRA regulations require a waiver from the Minister of Finance for such irregular procurements, which was never sought.
Two days later, on Christmas Eve, another officer (names withheld) was recalled from leave. The said officer allegedly raised a purchase order – PO22-0001530 – despite there being no invitation to tender, no minute supporting the requisition, and no ministerial waiver. The same day, half the amount was allegedly paid. Geothax also received its regular monthly payment of P1,227,461.37 for the business model implementation that month.
A furious exchange of emails ensued in February 2026, when one officer was instructed to pay the balance of P3,709,939.67. The officer allegedly protested in writing, copying their superiors and the oversight office, arguing the award was illegal. The Finance Manager fired back, saying, “They are instructing you to pay as a hierarchy of the organisation, and you should state whether or not you are going to pay”. Faced with what the officer later described as “work intimidation and bullying”, they complied.
We are clean- BGI
Responding to questions from this publication, BGI Chief Executive Officer Cisco Mashabila denied any wrongdoing. He said they did a diagnosis of projects at BGI in 2021 and realised then that a two-year project would take more than 10 years and cost four times the budget. “We therefore looked at our processes and defined a project method that will deliver projects within time, quality and budget (triple constraints – cost, time, quality). All BGI projects are national strategic projects that require us to deliver timely, within budget, and of high quality. All projects have been delivered within time, budget, scope and governance and are of national imperative,” he said.
Mashabila said all projects are conceptualised, initiated, executed and managed by the Project Management Office (PMO). He said the PMO reports all projects to the PSC, made up of technically competent leadership, which is appointed to the committee with terms of reference. “All procurement issues are initiated by the Procurement function, which recommends them to the oversight function for adjudication. This demonstrates clear separation of duties as per the PPRA Act (2021). The Accounting Officer comes at the tail end of any procurement as per the PPRA Act. All project progress updates are shared with the Board and the Ministry quarterly and monthly, respectively,” he said.
On allegations that Innolead Consulting was disqualified from the business model review tender when its bid of P2.99 million was within budget, while Geothax’s bid of P7.2 million was more than double the P3 million estimate, Mashabila said the company did not meet requirements.
“Innolead Consulting was not disqualified from the business model review tender. However, their financial proposal was not compliant with the tendering requirements as the bidder excluded some of the critical requirements stipulated in the terms of reference of the Invitation To Tender (ITT) at the Proposed price of P2.99 Million, with implications that should these items be included, the final prices would escalate,” he said.
Mashabila said Innolead was followed up with a request to clarify their financial proposal, and they formally responded, acknowledging that they had omitted some of the ITT and ToR deliverables in their scope of work and initial financial proposal.
He said the evaluation method was a quality-cost-based selection method that emphasised technical compliance (assess quality first, then costs). “Following the normal waiting period of 10 days after debriefing, Innolead did not raise any concerns even to date, and the tender was then subsequently awarded. BGI is currently engaged with Innolead on different tenders and under harmonious relations,” Mashabila said.
Mashabila denied that the Executives had ever raised an issue regarding the leakage of confidential information, stating that there was therefore no need to open a formal investigation.
Quizzed on why a letter of regret sent to Innolead was citing non-compliance with the terms of reference, when the evaluation committee had already recommended awarding them the tender, he said “the evaluation committee recommended awarding Innolead the tender, however, upon thorough examination by the adjudication committee, the committee noted that Innolead was non-compliant since the bidder did not include some of the critical items as stated in the terms of reference and the tender and the bidder duly engaged,” he said.
Quizzed on the Champs Botswana withdrawn tender award for asbestos removal, Mashabila said as part of project governance and Project Steering Committee (PSC) decision, Champs Botswana was single-sourced for the removal of asbestos at the BCL Labs on a direct procurement basis, as they had previously done similar work for BGI at the Lobatse labs at a cost of P43,900.00 (for 457 Square meters).
However, he said, the evaluation of their bid was P1,500,000.00 (for 1,400 square meters), which was way above budget and affordability and due to financial constraints, management opted to find other alternatives that could deliver within budget and time.
“It became apparent to the PSC that this could be achieved and was part of the refurbishment work package, which had already been awarded. As such, the PSC approved this process and approach. The business partner successfully removed the asbestos at a lower price of P500,000.00, meeting all regulatory requirements and all documentation,” he said.
Mashabila said private companies are not compelled to have PPRA codes. However, in this case, Geothax outsourced the services to one of the service providers at a much lower price and successfully delivered the hazardous waste in accordance with the law.
Quizzed on why there was no tendering, the CEO said there were three work packages and stages under the Business and Operating Model Project, and these, he said, are: The development of the Business and Operating model for BGI, which was completed at P6.7 million; The implementation of the Business and Operating model that included business development at BWP15.5 million. He said the refurbishment of the Selebi Phikwe Labs, as per the design developed during the Business and Operating Model development, would be fully funded by BGI based on: PSC-approved BOQ for refurbishment; and that the refurbishment would follow the approved BOQ and would be frequently reviewed by the project team and approved by PSC. Mashabila said Geothax was awarded the implementation phase because they had successfully delivered the Business and Operating Model, which BGI was advancing to the implementation stage, so that revenue projections and opportunities could be pursued effectively.
“In this instance, Direct procurement was allowed as per PPRA regulations (section 20), which state that direct procurement is allowed when any additional works, services or supplies are required to be compatible with existing works, services or supplies, and it is advantageous or necessary to purchase additional works from the original contractor. As Geothax had completed the first phase, PSC recommended for award,” he said.
Called on to explain how the conditions under which the two employees worked could be so poor as to justify a P3.87 million variation, and why this was not identified before the contract was signed, Mashabila said the initial internal estimation (BGI lab Personnel) of the scope of refurbishment was P25 million. “Subsequently, with the guidance of the Business partner, the package was delivered at P17 million, a P8 million cost avoidance through cautious and prudent financial management and discipline. Various service providers also quoted the refurbishment at P30 million, still with a P13 million cost avoidance proving that this was strategic sourcing that saved the government and business,” he said.
Mashabila said most of the buildings are as old as the BCL Mine, built in the 1970s, and the lab is one of them. He said it became clear from the assessment that refurbishment works needed to commence immediately to accommodate the expanded scope and new business opportunities presented by mine-to-market. He said the scope change was duly recommended to and approved by PSC in line with the newly approved business plan. This, he said, was done in accordance with section 105 of the PPRA regulations.
Quizzed on a letter he had signed instructing Geothax to proceed with refurbishment and asbestos-removal works, promising to reimburse them P7.68 million VAT inclusive, Mashabila said BCL Lab facilities were marked as a national project due to their role in diversifying the country's economy as well as contributing to BETP. It was imperative to shorten the project delivery time.
“Consequently, Geothax Consulting, which was already appointed consultant under the Business Model Development and Implementation contract, was instructed to commence the refurbishments in accordance with international standards. Due to financial constraints, the project was experiencing delays with the possibility of penalties. To avoid this, BGI subsequently negotiated with the business partner to proceed with the works on a reimbursement basis, which is a normal part of procuring,” he said. As this was a continuation of the Business Development and Operating model, progressing into implementation, Mashabila said there was no need to seek the Minister’s approval for the next stages, in line with section 20(c) of the PPRA regulations.
He denied that any purchase order had been raised for half of the reimbursements issued.
“We are not aware of any procurement officer who refused to raise the purchase order on condition that it was unlawful. No officer was ever recalled from leave to raise this particular order,” he said.
Regarding allegations against the Finance Manager, he said the manager is responsible for all procurement functions; therefore, their duty is to allocate work, review work, and provide guidance and feedback on assigned work. “I am not aware, and it has never been brought to my attention, that my staff are being instructed to make payments which breach procurement law,” he said.
Geothax deny wrongdoing
Responding to questions from this publication, Geothax Director Tshepho Thatayame denied any wrongdoing, stating that his company dealt with BGI in a clean manner.
He said Geothax did not undertake the physical removal, handling, transport, or disposal of asbestos-containing materials, stating it was carried out by a separate specialist contractor, whose disposal records and completion documents can be provided by BGI “Accordingly, Geothax’s prior asbestos-removal experience is not the relevant issue for the physical asbestos-removal scope, because Geothax did not physically remove the asbestos. Geothax’s role, to the extent applicable, was limited to the broader project implementation and coordination process,” he said. On the pricing, Thatayame said Geothax’s proposal was priced and structured based on the scope as understood at the time, the proposed methodology, specialist technical and commercial input, deliverables, timelines, and assignment risks.
He said the review and implementation were distinct phases of work. Geothax provided technical and commercial recommendations during the review phase, while any decision to appoint Geothax for implementation was made by BGI.
“Geothax did not appoint itself, approve its own contract, or independently validate its own deliverables. During implementation, deliverables, progress updates, proposals, and completed items were submitted to BGI for review, inspection, acceptance, and approval through the applicable project governance process. From Geothax’s perspective, no formal variations to the implementation project have been issued to date,” he said.
“Geothax’s role was to execute the assigned scope of work, submit deliverables, and invoice in accordance with the applicable appointment and contractual arrangements. Purchase order timing, approval routing, payment sequencing, and procurement documentation are matters within BGI’s internal processes,” he said.
Thatayame said all work undertaken by Geothax for BGI has been linked to agreed scopes, deliverables, and review milestones. These, he said, have included technical assessments, operational plans, commercialisation inputs, refurbishment and implementation recommendations, project reports, presentations, and supporting documentation for BGI’s decision-making.
“The relevant deliverables have been submitted, reviewed, and, where required, accepted or approved through the Project Steering Committee and applicable governance structures. Any detailed payment breakdown or contract-value information should be verified through BGI’s authorised contractual and financial records,” he said.
He said their role was to support BGI’s objective of moving the laboratories from limited functionality to commercial-scale service delivery. That required addressing gaps in equipment, safety, calibration, workflow, quality assurance, capacity, and market-readiness identified during the assessment.
“The refurbishment cost, therefore, which is set by the client, reflects the investment required to bring the laboratories to the standard needed for dependable commercial operations, in line with the scope and objectives set by BGI,” he said.