probity team

In one case TMPD-1, Probity Team indicated two instances of disqualifying a bidder due to missing audited financial statements and a missing five-ton truck, and BEC provided evidence to Probity to amend confirmation letters accordingly.

“We had a discussion on TMPD-1, on the Probity report, where the Probity Team came on board and clearly indicated there are two instances where we are disqualifying this bidder... as a result of the audited financial statements not being there and as a result of the five-ton truck not being there. Probity Team provided the relevant evidence to – no, apologies. The BEC team provided the necessary evidence to the Probity Team, convinced them accordingly, and amended confirmation letter was provided.”

Mr Mnisi asserts there was no prima facie evidence of fraud at the time except for the finding of irregularity, and that if there was evidence, the Probity Team would have raised it and empowered the BAC to act.

“At this point in time, there is no prima facie evidence, except for a finding. The finding that is raised is that as the Probity Team would pick this up, if there was prima facie evidence, the Probity Team would have raised it and made those attachments accordingly, which would have then empowered me or us, as BAC, to act on that”

While the tender irregularity regarding firearm licences was curable in isolation, procurement processes must be considered as a whole and the presence of incurable matters justified cancellation.

“When you are doing supply chain management processes, you cannot look at matters in isolation of each other. So I just want to give that overview that, indeed, you are correct. This is a matter that could have been cured. However, procurement process is the entire picture. It is not certain aspects. That is why we have administrative, mandatory and evaluation - related criteria. But if an individual is compliant in one aspect, we cannot just look at that aspect in isolation of the entire picture. So this instance, with all due respect, we had to look at the entire picture, and the entire picture included the uncurable matters as raised by Probity Team.”

The contradictions identified in reports from the Probity Team were valid and constituted key issues that needed highlighting.

“when we looked at this, it was a valid contradiction ... that contradiction was raised at that point in time as a key issue that must be highlighted”

The Probity Team had previously raised more than twelve findings, including essential matters that could not have been remedied, which were relevant to tender cancellations.

“There were more than 12 other findings that had already been raised by the Probity Team. Amongst those, there were essential matters that could not have been cured ... in some instances we were also taken to court for cancelling tenders”

Decisions of the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) only officially record specific reasons, while additional concerns may exist but are not repeated in formal reports.

“If one looks at the resolution, which is the decision of the committee, these are the only reasons given ... The BAC report is just a summary of the discussions that were raised ... The BAC report as well as the actual Probity report are part and parcel of the entire pack ... The BAC report does not mean they are disregarded”

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) raised concerns about inconsistencies in the probity report regarding a bidder flagged for non-10 compliance who was nonetheless recommended for award without adequate explanation.

“Specifically, the BAC noted a discrepancy where a bidder which was flagged by the probity team for non-10 compliance was nonetheless recommended for award without adequate explanation.”

The BAC insisted on a final probity report providing physical evidence and assurance that all concerns, including those related to validity of extensions and disqualifications, were satisfactorily addressed before approval.

“You cannot just tell us by word of mouth, as BEC, that Probity Team have confirmed the report is now fine, you can approve. We need a portfolio of evidence to convince us, as the BAC, that indeed, that certainty was obtained.”

The BEC verbally indicated to the BAC that the disqualification matter concerning bidder number 2 was deliberated with the probity team and resolved, but BAC required physical probity confirmation report.

“Remember I indicated, Chair, earlier that the BEC verbally indicated to the BAC that this bidder number 2, the matter was deliberated with the probity team, it was effectively dealt with and they were compliant... However, we could not rely on that, we needed physical evidence in the form of a probity confirmation report as we would normally have.”

The final report of GM17, recommended by the Chairperson of BAC, confirmed that all probity concerns were adequately addressed and bidder number 2 was compliant.

“The issue where a probity concern, which was identified and there was confirmation received from the probity team in the form of Forensic Assurance Review Report as an addendum, attached by the external independent verifier, that bidder number 2 was indeed compliant.”

The probity steps are conducted sequentially after BAC has concluded its work, ensuring orderly progression from administrative to site inspections.

“After BAC has concluded, Chairperson ... Yes.”

Bidder 2 was initially disqualified due to erroneous conclusion by the probity team that audited financial statements for the last three years were not submitted.

“the probity team erroneously concluded that the bidder did not submit audited financial statements for the recent three financial years ... bidder 2 was disqualified”

Subsequently it was discovered that bidder 2 had actually submitted the audited financial statements, leading to their evaluation in Stage 2 and 3 and qualification for award recommendation.

“following further engagement and reassessment ... it was discovered that bidder 2 had submitted the audited financial statements ... we evaluate bidder 2 in respect to Stage 2 and 3 ... bidder 2 qualified to be recommended for the award”

Initially, the probity team did not visit or validate the possession of a five-ton truck by bidder 2 but later confirmed it after the Stage 3 inspection, which was after the bidder was previously disqualified at Stage 1.

“in their earlier report they say they did not even go out ... they did not go out at this time because they were disqualified on that basis ... later went out and confirmed”

External consultants confirmed error in probity team which wrongly concluded bidder did not submit audited financial statements for three years and incorrectly stated bidder lacked a 5 ton truck.

“We confirm at the time of the initial review of the tender documents, the probity team erroneously concluded the bidder did not submit all annual audited financial statements for three years... it was erroneously stated that bidder 2 did not have a 5 ton truck.”

The bidding company was disqualified at stage 1 due to inability to find annual financial statements, but there was a 5 ton truck present during inspection unlike the probity report stating otherwise.

“they disqualified them on stage 1 due to inability to find the annual financial statements... they say erroneously that this bidder did not have a 5 ton truck... BEC says... the 5 ton truck was there whilst the probity says it was not.”

Specifications mandated complete pricing schedules without blank spaces, and failure to submit firearm licenses as part of bids led to disqualification disadvantaging bidders without licenses.

“the addendum stipulated that the pricing schedule must be completed in full, no blank spaces. And the BEC interpretation is that the pricing schedule need to not to have blank spaces. And according to the probity team, the blank spaces must be completed with numerical figures. The specifications stipulated that some areas do not require... whereas the mandatory requirement dictate that bidders who do not submit firearm licences as part of their bid would be disqualified. Therefore, it is disadvantaging those who do not have firearm licences.”