Bid Adjudication Committee

The Bid Adjudication Committee failed to exercise due care when considering the evaluation report from the Bid Evaluation Committee regarding the Medicare 24 Tshwane bid.

““The Bid Adjudication Committee did not exercise due care in considering an evaluation report from the Bid Evaluation Committee.””

The CFO sits on the Bid Adjudication Committee but not on the Bid Evaluation Committee, which is responsible for compliance checks.

“The CFO sits on the Bid Adjudication Committee. Now, if he sits on the Bid Adjudication Committee, he cannot sit on the Bid Evaluation Committee.”

The Chairperson asserts that forwarding names of bidders to the CFO and responding is part of the procurement process involving bid adjudication.

“names being forwarded or at least required to be forwarded to the CFO about this same process”

The accounting officer has a duty to evaluate reasons for irregularities identified by the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) and can concur or refer the matter back to avoid irregular expenditure.

“At the tail end of their process, if we identify an irregularity, we cannot ignore that ... the accounting officer on the recommendations of BAC then takes that decision after analysing that ... he concurred the reasons and he approved.”

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) chaired by Mr Mnisi noted that six documents were lost during the relocation of documents to another storage in relation to the TMPD-3 tender, and recommended measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented.

“that there were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage . Therefore, measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented”

Mr Mnisi confirmed the BAC's concern about the missing scoresheets as an additional shortfall not identified in the Probity report, necessitating isolation of that shortfall.

“BAC raised that as an additional measure, as an additional instance, which was not picked up or identified in the Probity report ... We had to isolate that as an additional mechanism or as an additional shortfall that was identified”

During the bidding adjudication meeting held on 23 October, six documents were lost during relocation and measures should be implemented to safeguard documents.

“During the discussion of this matter by the bid adjudication meeting held on 23 October, the committee noted the following: • There were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage. Therefore, measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented.”

Material irregularities identified by Probitiy were due to the pricing schedule issued as an addendum, requiring the pricing schedule to be completed in full with no blanks.

“The material irregularities identified by Probity were due to the pricing schedule, which was issued as an addendum. In regard to the interpretations of the addendum, it stipulated that the pricing schedule must be completed in full, with no blank spaces.”

There was no mention of meetings held on the 28th and scoring on the 29th in the BAC narrative resolution.

“So we see nothing in that narrative of what was discussed as to whether the meeting was held on the 28th and the scoring was done on the 29th. That is just not mentioned.”

Matters raised in isolation within the BAC report are additional matters not noted in the Probitiy report and the BAC wants to emphasize these.

“matters that are raised in isolation within the BAC report are additional matters that the BAC wants to emphasise on one or that the BAC did not take note of within the Probity report.”

The cancellation resolution adopted by BAC notes material irregularities were found and the tender be cancelled due to material irregularity.

“During the evaluation of the tender, the Committee identified the following misalignment and material irregularities. ... tender ... be cancelled due to material irregularity as indicated below.”

The Probity report was accepted by the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) and brought to the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) with acknowledgement of shortcomings, leading BAC to agree to cancellation of the tender due to incurable issues.

“The Probity report was not disputed. The Probity report was already accepted by the BEC included. In actual fact, the report when it came to BAC, it came with an acceptance of the findings and an acknowledgement by BEC of the shortcomings that were there. When it comes to BAC, it does not come with a recommendation, SC. The BEC report already came to BAC having acknowledged the shortcomings that were presented to them by Probity.”

Two findings raised in the tender process were incurable, making referral back to cure the issues a futile exercise, as cancellation would still result.

“However, there are two findings that were raised that are uncurable. It would be a fruitless exercise referring a team back to go and cure matters in isolation where other matters cannot be cured. So even if BAC took a decision to refer this back, cure these irregularities, it would have come back and been cancelled in any case as a result of finding number one and two. It would have been a time waster.”

The cancellation resolutions cited difference in interpretation between BEC and BAC and BEC and Probity as the primary reason for cancellation, which was confirmed as accepted by BEC.

“The first reason for cancelling is a difference in interpretation between BEC and BAC, BEC and Probity. You have confirmed that BEC accepted that Probity was right. Can you confirm that ? I can confirm that .”

The BAC's powers, including the power to refer back to BEC, are delegated through the MFMA and SCM policy to the City Manager who delegates further to the Bid Adjudication Committee including Mr Mnisi as chairperson.

“It is in the delegation of authorities ... the roles and responsibilities of the Bid Adjudication Committee as per the MFMA ... delegated to the City Manager, who further delegates them to myself (chairperson) and other members serving on the Bid Adjudication Committee”

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) was not comfortable with the pricing structure 'as and when' which led to the report being referred back to the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) to provide clarity.

“B A C w a s n o t c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g : The pricing per award leads to bid pricing, and some of the pricing in the fee structure are as and when. BAC further notes that as and when is not standard pricing.”

The final probity report was not provided to the BAC at the time to confirm that all concerns were addressed, though the BAC was aware the bid underwent probity process.

“The third aspect is that we, as BAC, were fully aware that this bid underwent probity. However, the final probity report was not provided to the BAC at this stage, confirming that all the concerns that were raised had been addressed.”

BAC cannot make a determination on why the highest scoring bidder was not recommended due to the need for consensus and proper delegation of authority; directives must allow BEC to finalize matters first.

“In practise, Chair, had the BAC made a determination, there would be a breach in lines in terms of the delegation of authorities... So, we do not make a directive because there will be a breach of process. We have to allow the BEC to make a determination. There must be consensus throughout the process.”

The bid evaluation process revealed concerns about compliance, probity, and transparency, including incomplete communication from the probity audit team and partial responses only from five bidders out of 57.

“During his deliberations, the BAC raised several concerns relating to the compliance, probity and transparency of the evaluation process... the BAC noted that documentation provided on validity extensions reflected responses only from five bidders rather than all 57. There was no formal communication received from the independent external probity audit team that the matters had been adequately resolved.”

BEC must respond to probity concerns and if they do not, the matter is referred back, which happens when answers are not readily available or BEC needs to reconstitute to respond to BAC queries.

“BEC will say , where is the probity report in terms of this bid ? Or the probity raised these concerns , have you addressed them accordingly ? We are not seeing this clearly stated in the BEC report . The BEC is there to answer that question ... when answers are not readily available by the BEC , or whether the BEC themselves need to reconstitute in terms of responding to the BAC on that particular query”

The accounting officer has the power to refer matters back to BAC if necessary and approve or disapprove BAC's conclusions on awards.

“an accounting officer perspective , Chair , where the BAC would conclude on an award . The accounting officer has got the power to refer that back and say , I am referring this back ... If we respond accordingly , the accounting officer then okays that response and approves .”

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.”

Following these concerns, the BAC resolved to refer the probity report back to the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) for clarity on inconsistencies and to obtain a final probity confirming all issues have been addressed.

“the BAC resolved to refer the report back to BEC on the following directive: [1] Provide clarity on the apparent inconsistency regarding the recommendation of a bidder previously disqualified by the external independent probity team. Obtain and submit a final probity confirming that all issues have been dealt with satisfactorily.”

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.”

Bidder number 2, Vimtsire Security and Protection Services, was disqualified for not submitting three years audited financial statements and not having a five-tonne truck, yet was recommended for award by the BEC, which raised a major concern with the BAC.

“Bidder number 2, Vimtsire Security and Protection Services, Chair, did not submit three years audited financial statements... However, they were disqualified, indicated that the bidder did not have a five-tonne truck, therefore were disqualified. However, the bidder is being recommended for region 5... major concern that BAC had picked up, BAC had raised, therefore had to refer the matter back.”

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.”

At the BAC meeting of 24 November 2025, the BAC took note that bidders 32 (Elshaddai Security Services), 35 (Ngaphesheya Construction and Projects), and 5 (Two Cops and Security Services) were non-compliant at the time of evaluation.

“The BAC took note of further issues, that Bidder number 32, Elshaddai Security Services, Bidder 35, Ngaphesheya Construction and Projects, as well as Bidder number 5, Two Cops and Security Services, at this stage were non-compliant at the time of evaluation.”

The BAC accepted that all issues previously raised by the probity team had been satisfactorily addressed and subsequently approved the BEC recommendations subject to Regulation 43 implementation and tax compliance confirmation through the Centralised Supplier Database System.

“...the BAC finally approved the recommendations of BEC subject to the implementation of Regulation 43. It was further noted that subsequent to verification through the Centralised Supplier Database System, there was confirmation that affected bidders were now tax compliant.”

The Bid Adjudication Committee required formal written confirmation from the external legal firm conducting the probity audit to assure that all findings and recommendations were fully addressed by the Bid Evaluation Committee.

“The Bid Adjudication Committee further required that the external legal firm appointed to conduct a probity audit issue a formal written confirmation providing assurance that all findings and recommendations ... have been fully addressed by the Bid Evaluation Committee”

The Bid Evaluation Committee verbally provided assurance they had addressed the probity findings, but the BAC insisted on official written confirmation.

“BEC came and verbally provided this surety. BAC said no, give us an official confirmation from the third party”

There was confusion and lack of clarity on how the errant decision to disqualify bidder 2 for not having a five-ton truck was reversed, with the BAC accepting the reversal without clear basis.

“it is not clear how the basis for reversing the decision about having a five-ton truck ... the BAC seems to have accepted this as having cleared the thing”

The BAC relied on the confirmation from the bid adjudication process review that the mandatory requirement of a five-ton truck had been met by bidder 2, putting their trust in this confirmation as resolving previous conflicts or concerns.

“The BAC placed reliance on this as a confirmation to resolve ... there are areas of concern that was picked up ... the BAC placed reliance on this as a confirmation to resolve”

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) evaluates tenders and receives probity reports to assess compliance and irregularities.

“So , the BAC does its evaluation . ... The probity authority is brought in at that point ? ... Yes . ... The probity authority is brought in at that point ? ... Yes . ... Once it is done , it is presented to the BEC . The findings are presented and deliberated at the BEC . They are given an opportunity to make the necessary corrections . Once consensus has been reached between probity team and the BEC , then it is served to the BAC for further consideration .”

There was a conflict between the findings of the probity report which flagged irregularities in bidder number 2 from Vimtsire Security Services and the BEC report which cleared them, causing the BAC to refer the matter back to the BEC for further confirmation or correction.

“BAC has identified a notable difference between the final probity report and the BEC report . In this case , it was as a result of bidder number 2 Vimtsire Secure Services where that bid , from a probity perspective , said , nope , there are irregularities here . You should not award this . BAC says , no , we have had our interaction with the probity team . We have cleared this . But at BAC , they are not providing us with conclusive evidence that that has been dealt with accordingly . We refer that back for there to either be an official confirmation in the form of an addendum or a confirmation report from probity that , indeed , we had a discussion with BEC . We are now convinced that bidder number 2 from Vimtsire Security Service , for an example , is now compliant and should be awarded . They could have come back , Chair , and said , no , this bidder should not have been awarded . We have maintained our stance there . We did not find , we did not confirm one , two , and three issues , which means the BEC must ensure correction . Probity report , as part of our internal controls , is authoritative in nature .”

All procurement processes from start to finish have been followed, and the bidders on board are confirmed as eligible prospective bidders according to the stated step process.

“all processes from A to Z have been followed, that the bidders that we have on board are confirmed indeed as eligible prospective bidders in line with the step process that we just articulated”

The policy requires the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) to ensure the procurement process has no glitches or shortcomings and if issues are found, the matter must be referred back to the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) for clarification.

“the policy makes reference to the BAC performing its function ensuring that the process has been followed to the T without any glitches or shortcomings . If the BAC picks up shortcomings within the process , we are entitled to refer that back for clarification”

The Bid Adjudication Committee recommended that the bid be cancelled due to material irregularities, based on the probity report and relevant circumstances.

“the Bid Adjudication Committee ... recommended that the bid be cancelled ... based on the view that it would not have been appropriate or lawful for the process to proceed in circumstances where material irregularities had been identified”

There were significant material irregularities that could not be cured, resulting in cancellation of the tender due to those irregularities.

“significant material irregularities that were identified during the process ... results in ... cancellation due to significant material irregularities”

The BEC evaluated the 12 findings, identified which were curable and incurable, then reported to BAC that incurable matters necessitated bid cancellation due to irregularities.

“the BEC went back, evaluated the 12 findings that were received, identified matters that could be cured, identified matters that cannot be cured, came to BAC and said, we cannot cure these matters, hence it must be a cancellation based on irregularities”

The City of Tshwane's procurement process includes segregation of duties across different committees: Bid Specification Committee (BSC), Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC), and Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).

“there are duties of the Bid Specification Committee. There are duties of the BEC, Bid Evaluation Committee. And then there are duties of the Bid Adjudication Committee, the BAC. And those three sets of duties are segregated so that different committees comprising different people will be responsible for each one of those sets of duties.”

Probitty assurance is an additional step conducted before BAC to validate the work of the BEC and to ensure independence among committee duties in the procurement process.

“Just before you get to BAC, that a probity assurance must be conducted to ensure and to validate the work of the BEC. So that is an additional step I would like to add just before you go to BAC, and that is indeed the process and it assures independence and ensures that there is no interlink between the duties of the various committees.”

Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) documents are kept under lock and key by the Bid Evaluation Committee until they make a recommendation, after which the documents are handed over to the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).

“BEC documents are kept under lock and key at the BEC ... documents are formally handed over to them ... still under lock and key”

Only Bid Evaluation Committee members have access to BEC documents until they make a recommendation which is submitted to the Bid Adjudication Committee for consideration.

“only the BEC that has access to those documents until the BEC has made a recommendation”

Members of the Bid Adjudication Committee only receive the documents at the time they consider the matter, often for the first time on the meeting day itself.

“when BAC sits to consider a matter, that is when we all see documents ... you only receive those documents for the first time on the morning of the first BAC meeting”

Documents are kept confidential during the BAC process to prevent leaks of reports before finalisation, which has happened before and caused public leaks.

“I had to put in place an internal control ... we sit for an entire day ... just looking at BAC matters ... it was a really hard decision to take to safeguard what happens at BAC because ... BAC reports leak ... it is leaked and it is all out there in the public”

The BEC presented a report to the BAC on 4 September 2025, indicating the BEC must have adopted a report prior to that date to present.

“report from the BEC was presented by Mr Kgopa ... to the BAC at 4 September ... the BEC must have adopted a report prior to 4 September 2025 to be able to report it”

On 4 September 2025, at the BAC meeting, the BEC report was presented but BAC complained it had not received the final probity report, so the process was sent back to get the final probity report.

“when the BAC meets for the first time on 4 September and Mr Kgopa presents the BEC report, the BAC complains that they have not been given the final probity report ... it is then sent back to get the final probity report”

The BEC report must be considered by the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).

“the BEC report must be considered by the Bid Adjudication Committee”

There would be difficulty if the BAC is not involved in considering the BEC report.

“there would be some difficulty if the BAC is not involved”

Director Malatji was involved in preparing the bid specification and considers it "his bid", but he did not participate in the Bid Adjudication Committee (BEC) process where the report is taken after submission to supply chain management.

“it is basically your tender. The very fact that you are asked right at the start to prepare the bid specification, it is your bid.”

The extension of the tender was approved by the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC), the approval process involves a committee discussion and recommendation signed off by the Chairperson and the accounting officer.

“the extension was approved by the Chairperson of the BAC ... the report is presented by the department to the committee. The committee does obviously discuss the matter between themselves and then it is recommended and the Chairperson of the committee signs off on the report as a recommendation to the accounting officer and then the accounting officer signs off based on the recommendation from the Chairperson”

The tender extension report was signed off by the Chairperson of the BAC and final approval was granted by the accounting officer identified as Mr Mettler, acting as the City Manager.

“it was signed off as recommended by the Chairperson of the BAC, Mr Gareth Mnisi, on the 28th of February 2025, and it was then final approval by the accounting officer, Mr Mettler, as the City Manager”

The tender was evaluated with 22 companies considered successful by the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC), but the entire process was stopped and cancelled due to missing documents and irregularities as per the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).

“...there was a total evaluation of 22 companies, and they did the complete evaluation and those 22 companies have been in the BEC the whole time. But when it was then submitted... with a recommendation that that whole process must be stopped and cancelled.”

The Chairperson of the BAC, Mr. Umar Banda, who was also the City's previous CFO, cancelled the tender due to irregularities, but Judge Fabricius ruled narrowly that the tender had to be started fresh due to legislative limitations on cancellation reasons.

“The then Chairperson of the BAC was the previous CFO of the City, Umar Banda, and he signed off and said it must be cancelled due to irregularities. However, Judge Fabricius very narrowly in the first court order... ruled that you cannot use that to cancel the tender, that is why it must be started fresh.”

Information about the 22 companies considered successful was probably leaked by the City, and the companies then took legal action to assert their success and the court ruled they must be awarded the tender.

“...everyone leaked most probably the information, and then the 22 companies knew that they were deemed by the BAC to be successful, but they took then the decision to court to say, no, but we are successful, and that is when the court then made the ruling to say that those 22 companies we initially were must be awarded the tender.”

The Bid Adjudication Committee chaired by Mr. Gareth Mnisi recommended the cancellation of tender TMPD 03/2024/25, with final approval by the City Manager on 29 October 2025.

“The committee's Chairperson, Mr Gareth Mnisi, also then recommended on the 28th of October 2025, and it was again signed off by the City Manager as the accounting officer on the 29th of October 025.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirms that the document sent to him was an internal City of Tshwane document dealing with tenders for land leases, specifying details about the proposals, approvals, and cancellations.

“this looks like a internal City of Tshwane document dealing with tenders for land leases, which explains the specifications that were put out, the proposals that came in, which were recommended, which lease have been recommended for cancellation, and which proposals had been approved by the Bid Adjudication Committee”