Grow Mine: We Had The Best Bid By Far
Monkagedi Gaothobogwe | Monday November 30, 2020 17:19
The details are revealed in Grow Mine’s replying papers filed by Parks Tafa of Collins Newman Co in an urgent application pitting two of the country’s millionaire lawyers, Tafa and Rizwan Desai.
The blow-by-blow details are contained in the affidavit of Grow Mine deposed by its chairperson, Chandra Chauhan of Sefalana group.
Although Ithuba is one of the big players in the lottery business in South Africa, thanks to a technical partnership with IGT Global Solutions Corporations, Grow Mine successfully approached the same technical partner of Ithuba Solutions in South Africa to be their technology supplier of Botswana’s first ever national lottery.
IGT is recognised as the world leader in lottery technology and services, boasting a global market share of 60%.
It has also been instrumental in the creation of lotteries in jurisdictions as diverse as Trinidad and Tobago, as well as several lotteries in the USA, UK, India, South Africa and Mauritius.
In South Africa, IGT has been the technology provider and technical partner to Ithuba Solutions for several years. However, for the Botswana national lottery, IGT opted to provide a technical solution directly to Grow Mine Africa, instead of its South African partner, Ithuba.
Ithuba Solutions found themselves in deep waters when they realised that the tender requirements of the Botswana Gambling Authority did not permit a technical partner like IGT to participate and be involved in more than one or multiple bids.
According to Sefalana MD and Grow Mine Africa chairperson, Chauhan this meant that once IGT selected the Grow Mine Consortium for its participation in this National Lottery licence application in Botswana that was it for Ithuba; it would have more likely had to scan around the world literally looking for a technology partner for purposes of the said tender.
“It is my understanding that there are few, by far, companies of IGT’s pedigree in the world. Meanwhile, it is significant to point out that Grow enjoys the exclusive partnership between it and IGT in Botswana; on its own Ithuba does not possess the requisite technical capability needed to successfully run, operate, and administer the national lottery business as envisaged by the requirements of the Gambling Authority pursuant to section 61 to 72 of the Gambling Act,” Chauhan said.
As a result of submitting a bid without a technical partner, Chauhan says the Gambling Authority in Botswana identified inadequacies and clear and obvious shortcomings in Ithuba’s submission in respect to the lottery technical systems and services.
“The Gambling Authority stated in a letter dated June 26, 2020 that there were concerns regarding lack of playtronix/multigame, and its compliance with best industry practices…the weak point of the player protection proposal was the relative lack of detail regarding the protection of players’ funds and prize liabilities,” Chauhan said.
The Grow Mine chair further added the evaluation reports which form part of the record of the decision delivered by the Gambling Authority pursuant to the main review application, it is repeatedly stated that as a consequence of the technical evaluation of the Ithuba bid the same playtronix/multigame has no proven track record of running a complete lottery system.
Chauhan also presented himself to the court as an expert in public procurement rules, as his company, Sefalana, annually relies on government tender businesses of the tune of P400 million, most of them undertaken through the procurement processes prescribed by the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board (PPADB).
He added that through his 18 years of participating in these tender processes and procedures he had become an expert in managing, overseeing, all phases of the procurement cycle, being pre-tendering, tendering, post award phases, contracting negotiations, execution of contract agreements and contract implementation.
Chauhan also said parastatals like Gambling Authority often have their own procurement procedures, independent from the PPADB.
He said as such the lottery licence is not issued by the PPADB, but by its regulatory sector as it is the case with various licences issued by their various regulators.
“The issuance of the lottery licence falls outside the scope and ambit of the PPADB Act and the Gambling Authority could therefore not follow the provisions and procedures set out therein.
The applicant’s allegations concerning the application of the PPADB Act as a basis for undermining the decision of the Gambling Authority are therefore misconceived.”
Chauhan also found it cynical that Ithuba could participate in the entire bid process without ever raising the concern that the procedures prescribed by the PPADB were not being followed and to raise them only at the stage when the Gambling Authority had selected the preferred applicant in terms of the RFA, and was about to commence negotiations for the licence.
Chauhan added that in his entire 18-year involvement in public tenders and licence authorisation processes, as well as the entire public procurement value chain, he has never witnessed or experienced before hand such a thorough, complete, robust and dynamic tendering process providing such a degree of accountability and transparency and requiring the highest professional standards of integrity in the entire bidding cycle to date.
“The absolutely demanding and extended procedures, instruments, controls and compliance regime of the Gambling Authority set out in the RFA and the Virtual Data Room (the VDR) communication platform, which every bidder had to comply with were clearly designed to promote and enhance good governance, accountability, transparency, integrity, fairness, equal opportunity of all potential tenderers, including Ithuba and Grow Mine.
This framework implemented by the Gambling Authority could only serve to instil public trust and confidence as well as to reinforce the culture of integrity throughout this entire public procurement cycle in the public interest.”
Chauhan further said his observations were reinforced by the fact that Ithuba participated happily in the tender, as well as accepting the terms of the tender, which were binding to any would be loser or winner.
According to Chauhan, Ithuba’s court case is opportunistic as they only protested upon learning that they had lost.