How official interference undermined P1.5 Billion water tender

The Ncojane Water Supply tender began as an infrastructure initiative aimed at delivering water to villages in the Kgalagadi Ghanzi South and Kgalagadi North districts. With a budget exceeding P1.5 billion, it stood as one of the previous government’s largest expenditure commitments. Yet, the process soon became mired in controversy, which the Public Procurement Tribunal later characterized as a debacle fueled by the actions of the Ministry’s Accounting Officer.

A Court of Appeal panel, comprising Judge President Tebogo Tau, Isaac Lesetedi, and South African Judge Edwin Cameron, dismissed an appeal by China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation and Zhong Gan Engineering (CCECC/ZGEC). The appeal challenged a ruling by former High Court Judge Zeinub Kebonang that had set aside the Public Procurement Tribunal’s decision invalidating the tender. CCECC/ZGEC also sought a declaration from the Court of Appeal affirming its entitlement to the contract over Tawana Ventures.

The case background reveals that the procurement process followed a strict two-envelope system, whereby financial proposals were to be opened only for bidders who passed the technical evaluation. Of ten initial bids, only two survived this preliminary screening: the Tawana Joint Venture (Tawana) and the CCECC/ZGEC Joint Venture. The technical evaluation committee concluded that CCECC/ZGEC failed to meet the mandatory 60 percent sub-minimum threshold for its Project Management Plan and should have been disqualified.

[paywall]

At this pivotal moment, the then Permanent Secretary and Accounting Officer for the Ministry of Water and Human Settlements, Dr. Kekgonne Baipoledi, intervened. He rejected the disqualification of CCECC/ZGEC and ordered a re-evaluation, asserting that the bids had been unfairly excluded.

When the committee repeated its evaluation and reached the same conclusion, Baipoledi issued a terse directive: the evaluation team’s recommendation was rejected. He then ordered that the financial bids of both companies be opened, ostensibly to foster further competition. Court records show that this decision disregarded the fact that CCECC/ZGEC’s financial bid was nearly one-quarter billion Pula higher than Tawana’s.

Despite the higher price and the technical shortcomings, Baipoledi disqualified Tawana and, on October 3, 2024, awarded the substantial tender to CCECC/ZGEC. When the matter came before the Public Procurement Tribunal, the full scope of the interference emerged. The Tribunal subpoenaed Baipoledi, noting that after considerable evasion, prevarication, and outright falsehoods, he eventually admitted that CCECC/ZGEC should never have advanced to the financial evaluation stage.

The Tribunal’s findings were scathing, describing a scheme designed to favor CCECC/ZGEC and accusing the Ministry of providing information that was neither candid nor truthful, thereby “perpetuating a fallacy” in its calculations. The Accounting Officer was found to have relied on fabricated calculations involving VAT and other costs to justify Tawana’s disqualification. Due to these serious irregularities, the Tribunal referred the matter to the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC).

The Court of Appeal panel noted that the Ministry’s role had been diminished owing to its own procedural errors and late submissions. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to substitute Tawana as the successful bidder, concluding that such substitution was the only viable remedy for the Procuring Authority’s improper interference.

[/paywall]