Eskom added late requirements to tender, says Westinghouse
STATE-owned power company Eskom had added “strategic considerations” in the last stage of the negotiation process for its R4.3bn nuclear power tender, which were not in the original bid criteria, USJapanese nuclear company Westinghouse told the Johannesburg High Court yesterday.
They included the bidder having to be the original equipment manufacturer of the steam generators to be replaced, lawyers representing the company in its fight to have the tender reviewed argued.
According to Westinghouse, Eskom included additional requirements for bidders “at the last minute”, which tipped the result of the tender in the favour of Areva.
Westinghouse is challenging the awarding to French rival Areva of the contract to replace steam generators at the Koeberg. Areva is the original equipment manufacturer of the generators.
The consideration also required technical experience in replacing the generators, where Areva scored higher, while Westinghouse scored higher on price.
Westinghouse lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett presented opening arguments in the case yesterday and Eskom is scheduled to present its arguments today in the threeday proceedings.
“Where does the power come to add on?” he asked.
“You cannot simply, on the last day of negotiations, say there are going to be further factors. In the SCMP (supply chain management policy), criteria for evaluation must be stated in the tender inquiry without ambiguity.”
The controversy over this contract increases disquiet about how the much bigger contract — estimated at about R1-trillion — for SA’s next generation of nuclear power will be handled.
The contract to replace six steam generators that are about 30 years old was awarded to Areva in August in a two-horse race that lasted nearly three years.
Media reports had said that Westinghouse had twice been recommended for the bulk of a split contract. However, the full contract was awarded to Areva.
At the end of August Westinghouse filed an application for an interdict to prevent the contract being awarded to Areva, but it later withdrew the application.
The withdrawal prompted Eskom to say it had been vindicated and its tender processes were beyond reproach. However, the withdrawal appears to have been only tactical.
Westinghouse said that after seeing affidavits filed by Eskom officials, it felt it had a strong case for a full review and decided to withdraw the interdict to pursue a full review of the adjudication process. It filed papers for the review in September last year.
Eskom legal council said it would present case law and go through Eskom’s procurement process today in court to reveal evidence that proper processes had been followed in awarding the nuclear power bid.
You cannot simply, on the last day of negotiations, say there are going to be further factors. In the supply chain management policy, criteria for evaluation must be stated in the tender inquiry without ambiguity