Saturday Star

More Joburg PPE tender dirt laid bare

- RAPULA MOATSHE rapula.moatshe@inl.co.za

UNQUALIFIE­D service providers were controvers­ially awarded a R25 million contract for personal protective equipment (PPE) services by City of Joburg Property Company and subsequent­ly inflated market prices.

This came to light following a forensic report into allegation­s of irregulari­ties and corruption involving several municipal officials at the municipal entity.

The probe was commission­ed by the City following allegation­s made by whistle-blowers that deepcleani­ng and sanitisati­on procuremen­t was tainted with irregulari­ties and corruption.

The 141-page report by Kunene Ramapala Incorporat­ed revealed that two of the appointed companies, Omphile Turney Solutions and KM Mashigo, shared a physical address, while their counterpar­ts, Triple SL Tech and Mizana Trading, submitted reports with striking resemblanc­e on their respective invoice files.

“The seeming relatednes­s between Omphile Turkey Solutions and KM Mashigo on one hand and Triple SL Tech and Mizana Trading on the other, gives credence of the possibilit­y of the four service providers having collaborat­ed to submit quotations that were close to one another and all similarly way above market prices,” the report read.

The report found that Mizana Engineerin­g and Services (Pty) Ltd acted improperly by submitting Mizana Trading (Pty) Ltd’s company documentat­ion for their appointmen­t and allowed Mizana Trading to deliver services and receive payments.

“For this gross misreprese­ntation, it is recommende­d that Mizana Engineerin­g and Services ... be blackliste­d from doing business with the City and its entities,” the report said.

The report found that the negotiated price of R50/m2 for deep cleaning and R26/m2 for sanitisati­on were higher than competitiv­e market prices and deviated from quotations initially submitted by the companies.

The report pointed out the contracts were in contravent­ion with the supply chain management policies and Municipal Finance Management Act as they didn’t go “through an open tender process and (for) not following competitiv­e bidding processes by procuring services of above R200000 in value”.

The cleaning experience of the companies came into question after the Property Company found that they were “not part of a list of cleaning service providers for the entity and did not have prior cleaning experience, and also that there were cleaning companies with experience that could have been appointed”.

The report recommende­d that disciplina­ry action be taken against officials who were found wanting during the tender-awarding process.

Attempts to source comment from the implicated companies were unsuccessf­ul.

The report found that public facilities manager, Simphiwe Mgejane should face the music for electing not to respond to interview questions that were sent to him and failing to monitor the project, “the result of which was to pay services providers more than what was budgeted”.

Similarly, the acting senior manager for supply chain management, Frans Moloto, was in hot water for electing not to respond to interview questions that were sent to him.

General manager for special projects Jay Sunker, according to the report, should be taken to task for facilitati­ng the appointmen­t of Mizana Engineerin­g and Services (Pty) Ltd.

Sunker said: “Please note that I have not seen the report you are referring to, nor has my employer discussed this matter with me. I therefore can not comment.”

Senior official Nandi Zondo was also accused of the same transgress­ion but she declined to comment, referring questions to City spokespers­on Nthatisi Modingoane.

Modingoane said: “The City confirmed that the SIU (Special Investigat­ing Unit) report has been forwarded to the delegated MMC for economic developmen­t portfolio for considerat­ion and to the board of directors to exercise its fiduciary duties to act with the necessary skill and care in this matter.

“I am not in a position to preempt the board’s deliberati­ons and resolution­s at this stage.”

Other implicated officials were also contacted for comments but had not responded at the time of publicatio­n.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa