Huddle Park property sale ‘irregular’
Contrary to the city’s supply chain management policy and much below market value
THE DISPOSAL by the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) of portions of a prime property in Huddle Park was allegedly done contrary to the city’s supply chain management policy and significantly below market related value.
This was one of the claims made by Bill Kirk, whose company Associated Golf Developments assembled a consortium and submitted a bid for and on behalf of the Asibambane Consortium for the Huddle Park site.
The consortium lost the tender.
Kirk has lodged a R1.94 billion civil damages claim against the CoJ and laid criminal charges related to the two transactions.
Kirk claimed that if the property was sold for below market related value, the CoJ was required in terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act to obtain the permission of the National Treasury, which it failed to obtain.
He said the mandated terms of reference in the bid document stipulated and defined the set of parameters and criteria for the redevelopment, as recommended by the mayoral committee.
Kirk alleged the adjudication panel ignored these prescribed development parameters when evaluating the tender and subsequent awarding of points in terms of the specified criteria.
The original signed scoring matrix is missing or lost, says Kirk.
Kirk claims that other irregularities in the award of the first transaction include:
The required declaration was not signed or witnessed by a commissioner of oaths.
There was no proper conformation to any of the terms, conditions or specifications of the proposal.
Many specified documents were omitted.
A neighbourhood shopping centre was included in the bid proposal when the bid document indicated a proposal for another shopping centre would not be supported.
An eco-park/bird sanctuary was designated as their “special place” valued at R25 million instead of the “Gold Reef City/Melrose Arch” type development envisaged by the city.
The bid also only included an exclusive “golf estate” golf course on the property to be developed while a non negotiable aspect in the bid document specified that “one golf course shall be upgraded and operated as a speciality (private) course” and one golf course operated as a public course.
Kirk further alleged CoJ officials fraudulently submitted documents to the Public Protector in response to a request for documents in an attempt to cover up some of the maladministration and irregularities in the bid process and bid evaluation.