Gauteng denies tender rigging

DA POINTS OUT FLAWS IN ICT CONTRACT ‘It’s a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions and taint department’s image’.

The Gauteng department of education notes “with concern” allegations contained in a DA statement that the department rigged the tender process on the province’s information communication technology (ICT) programme and that another service provider could have delivered the product at “a tenth” of the value.

“We are concerned about the DA’s tactic of raising issues in the media. We view this as a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions and taint the image of the department,” the department said in a statement yesterday.

“The tender process for the ICT programme is above board and we have obtained value for money. We will await the DA’s questions to the MEC as they claim.”

The DA in Gauteng on Sunday called for an investigation into alleged irregularities in the department’s acquisition of equipment.

“The DA has received reliable information that the Gauteng education department may have rigged tender processes to favour a company to provide schools with smart boards,” said DA Gauteng MPL Khume Ramulifho.

“According to sources, a company offering superior smart boards at a tenth of the price was denied the opportunity to tender, despite its significant market share in South Africa because this tender was never advertised.”

The department invested over R800 million for e-learning in the 2015/16 financial year, which was projected to escalate to over R2 billion over the medium-term, Ramulifho said.

According to the Auditor-General (AG), a number of investigations were already being conducted into alleged financial irregularities, financial misconduct, and fraud in the department.

The AG further noted that goods and services with a transaction value above R500 000 were procured without following correct procurement processes as required; sufficient appropriate audit evidence could not be obtained that contracts were awarded to suppliers with tax clearance certificates from the South African Revenue Service; and the head of department did not exercise adequate oversight over compliance with laws and regulations.