Public wants to know all regarding Caledon St contract
This letter from J van der Westhuizen includes comments from the George Municipality:
As residents in Caledon Street we have been inconvenienced for some time now. I feel it is important that the following be made public knowledge and that these claims should, at the very least, be investigated. The lack of urgency throughout the entire project, the chaotic arrangements, often on short or no notice, and the misleading communication regarding time frames have left many of us questioning whether the municipality is in fact being honest with us.
I was already alarmed when the contractor milled out the entire road surface and simply tipped material in the side entrances as their answer to traffic control! Surely if this was done in sections it could have been less disruptive for residents. The contractor did this without consulting with the residents and without proper communication with commuters. They were left scurrying aimlessly through the side streets looking for a way through the madness.
The contractor is now disputing the results of the road surface tests and this is causing yet more delays. If the entire lane is to be taken out and replaced, the inconvenience will persist. Another, more sinister option would be for the municipality to brush over the deficiencies and simply hide it from the public. Would the municipality withhold such information?
The article in the George Herald of 14 February, "Faulty asphalt delays Caledon road works", refers.
The municipal communications chief raises some interesting points.
Q: According to her the contractors must source the asphalt from an approved asphalt supplier.
A: The George municipal PPPFA conditions required that the contractor make use of local suppliers. With reference to Caledon Street, the contractor contracted a supplier that made use of a temporary batching plant located closed to the airport, which is deemed to be within the George municipal area, and thus local.
Q: I have been told that the asphalt for the lane in question was not sourced from an approved asphalt supplier. An approved asphalt supplier needs to have an air emission licence with stringent regulations in place. Apparently the plant supplying this asphalt did not have and still does not have authorisation to supply to this contract.
A: Yes, the municipality was made aware, but as the municipality does not have a contract with the supplier, but only with the contractor, the municipality can only comment on the material supply by the contractor, and as stated in the article, the municipality rejected portions of the BTB layer supplied. The plant, air emission licence and other regulations applicable to asphalt manufacturing are applicable to the asphalt supplier, and not the contractor.
Q: I was also told that the municipality was made aware of this. So why do we know nothing?
A: The municipality, after being made aware of this, did two things. One: request clarification surrounding the relationship between the contractor and the supplier, and two, order additional independent tests on roads, where the same batching plant's material was used, to ensure that the quality of asphalt complied with the approved mix design. The outcomes of that test confirmed that the BTB and asphalt supplied conformed to the approved design.
Q: On a similar contract in the same municipal area, done at roughly the same time, the contractor handed in what seems to be a blatantly falsified and copied mix design. This was brought to the municipality's attention and is currently an ongoing investigation of fraud by the SAPS. Why is this not public knowledge?
A: The contractor is required to submit a mix design for approval from his supplier.
The mix design was submitted and accordingly approved. Again, take note that the municipality deals, in terms of the signed contract, with the contractor and not his suppliers. The case of fraud is being investigated by SAPD against the supplier and not the contractor.
Q: At least the communications chief admits that the mix design forms the basis of such pre-approved design. It is hoped the mix design for this road was scrutinised and the underlying tests supplied.
A: As mentioned above, the consultant approved the mix design after comparing the proposed design content against the design. Q: Given the brittle state of the economy, can the citizens of George honestly afford for millions of rand being lost to business outside of its boundaries? The contractor was brought in by the DA-controlled municipality after tenders were put out.
One can only guess that the municipality chose an outside contractor for the tender as it was felt that maybe someone else needed a chance to do the work in George. The results have been disastrous while the DA has persisted to overlook the proven, reputable companies locally and also its own taxpayers.
By this logic, wouldn't it be fair to say maybe someone else needs the chance to run our city? With the election coming up, those very same taxpayers may decide just that.
A: The tender under which the contractor was appointed, which is an administrative function excluding any councillor interference, was done via open tender process, in line with the approved supply chain management regulations.