Losing bidder wants Sassa tender voided
SEVERAL administrative factors had been blatantly disregarded earlier this year in the awarding of a R10bn tender for the payment of social grants worth R500bn over five years, losing bidder All pay argued yesterday in its review application in the Gauteng North High Court.
It is asking the court to set aside the decision of the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) to award the tender to Cash Paymaster Services (CPS), and to order the reissuing of the tender from scratch.
The big banks were interested in the lucrative tender, which has since sucked them into the controversy after Sassa decided not to renew Absa’s contract.
Gilbert Marcus (SC) for Allpay said the tender process was fundamentally flawed at almost every level, from the terms of reference to the procedure and ultimately to the evaluation and adjudication of bids. Due to the illegality of the process, Sassa’s decision was invalid and had to be set aside, he argued.
Allpay also claimed there were serious allegations of widespread corruption in the process, but agreed not to address the court on these matters after objections by CPS that this was based on hearsay.
Sassa argued that it had embarked on a process of designing a system that would eliminate serious problems it had encountered due to fragmented payment methods by different service providers. This included fraud, double payments and ghost payments.
The new system promised to save the state R800m a year as it would move to a banking system and a standardisation of payment methods that would allow for biometric verification before payments were made.
Fanie Cilliers (SC), appearing for Sassa, said it decided on CPS as it was the only bidder able to offer the solutions it was seeking to introduce with its newly designed system.
He said All pay’s proposed solution did not make adequate provision for biometric verification and standardisation of services, whereas CPS offered biometric verification and an additional voice recognition service that Allpay did not.
Mr Cilliers argued that Sassa’s only duty was to ensure that the service to beneficiaries was continued and that there were no disruptions. “The others (Allpay and CPS) are here for profits … their stakes are different.”
Mr Cilliers accused Allpay of trying to put the judge in a “legal straight-jacket” where he had no other choice, but to set aside the awarding of the tender. But the court had discretion and could decide that although the tender had been awarded irregularly, it would take account of the consequences.