PPADB Appeals Road Tender Order
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Monday March 1, 2021 15:12
High Court judge, Michael Leburu recently issued an order directing PPADB to rescind its earlier decision to award the P450 million tender to Land Mark Projects and Van & Truck Hire (Pty) Ltd and award the tender to Cul de Sac instead.
Justice Leburu explained that to award the tender or recommend other companies other than Cul de Sac was irrational. The judge was clear that the awarding of the tender to Land Mark Projects and Van & Truck Hire was null and void in terms of regulations of the procurement. The two companies were said to have previously benefitted from the country’s Economic Stimulus Package (ESP), therefore they could not benefit from another government tender. Leburu explained that Cul de Sac was the only bidder technically compliant and should have been awarded the tender with a recalibration and revision of the pricing thereof, occasioned by the delay and price fluctuations.
He further pointed out that the successful bidders ought to have been disqualified at the technical stage of evaluation.
However, PPADB has appealed the judgement on the grounds that the High Court erred in failing to hold that there was no evidence of bias and/or connivance on its part at all, in holding that it was entitled to make a substitution order in favour of Cul de Sac. According to PPADB Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed with the CoA, Justice Mothobi erred in holding that Cul de Sac should have been awarded the said tender, with a recalibration and a revision of the pricing thereof, occasioned by the delay and price fluctuations when it never sought that order. It further said the court a quo erred in taking into account its adverse findings against the Independence Complaints Review Committee for purposes of a substitutionary order when those findings were irrelevant to the substitutionary order which affects only PPADB.
It also argued that Cul de Sac was certainly not the only technically compliant bidder. “In fact, quite apart from opining that the sixth and seventh Respondents (Land Mark Projects Pty Ltd and Van & Truck Hire Pty Ltd) was not technically compliant, the court did not even discuss the compliance of the fourth and fifth Respondents even though these two were lower in pricing than the Applicant,” argued attorney Tshiamo Rantao on behalf of PPADB.
PPADB wants Leburu’s judgement set aside and the Cul de Sac ordered to pay the costs of the court a quo and of the appeal. Bango Trading, Zebra Construction, Land Mark Projects and Van & Truck Hire the committee, Independence Complaints Review Committee and Attorney General are all cited as Respondents in the matter.