Sunday World (South Africa)

Security companies, municipali­ty fight over tender

The battle heading to the high court

- By Meta Mphahlele mphahlelem­a@sundayworl­d.co.za

A legal fight between some of South Africa’s top blackowned security companies over a multimilli­on-rand tender awarded by the Rustenburg local municipali­ty is playing out in the North West high court in Mahikeng.

At the centre of the war is Mabotwane Security Services and Ally’s Counter Force battling over a three-year contract worth almost R300m.

Mabotwane took the municipali­ty to court after the local government awarded the tender to the two companies instead of one as stipulated in the tender advertisem­ent.

The Joburg-based company successful­ly interdicte­d the commenceme­nt of the tender after judge Annah Kgoele granted an order stopping the municipali­ty from implementi­ng the tender earlier this month.

Mabotwane’s biggest gripe was that according to the tender that the municipali­ty wanted to award, they were going to be required to provide 62 guards in less-risk areas for just under R700,000 per month, while Ally’s was going to enjoy the bigger chunk of posting 456 guards in other areas including high-risk ones for over R8m per month. The tender required the successful company to provide a total of 518 guards for the municipali­ty.

They also argued in their legal documents that Ally’s was not compliant due to a number of technical shortcomin­gs and were therefore not suitable for the job.

After they successful­ly secured the interdict, Mabotwane will now go back to court to argue the second part of their applicatio­n, which is to have the contract reviewed because the appointmen­t of Ally’s “was irregular and unlawful”.

In their applicatio­n, Mabotwane argued that Ally’s was disqualifi­ed when bids were considered for technical compliance because they failed to tick certain technical requiremen­t boxes.

Mabotwane also accused their competitor of not being tax compliant, among others.

“... it is unfathomab­le how the second respondent’s [Ally’s] bid could further have been evaluated for functional­ity and price/preference. There is simply no way in which the first respondent [the municipali­ty] could have awarded the bid to a bidder whose bid submission was disqualifi­ed for lack of technical compliance.

“On this basis and this basis alone, the appointmen­t of the second respondent as a service provider is unlawful and the decision to accept the second respondent’s bid should be reviewed and set aside,” reads the court papers.

Documents seen by Sunday World also show that the bid adjudicati­on committee recommende­d both companies for appointmen­t and also recommende­d that a legal opinion be sought on the recommenda­tion to appoint two security companies while the tender documents stipulated that only one successful company was supposed to have been appointed.

The documents also show that Mabotwane emerged top after scoring 10 out of 10 points during the technical evaluation process.

Hwibidu Security Services came second after scoring six out of 10 points while Ally’s came third with five points.

The technical report also stated that the technical evaluation team could not verify Ally’s firearms accreditat­ion and the address of their offices was not verified as they had just moved to the new premises, which were in the process of being registered under the name of the company.

Ally’s lawyer Mandla Tshabalala said they deny all allegation­s and challenged Mabotwane to prove their case.

Municipal spokespers­on David Magae said the matter was sub-judice and they will only comment once the matter had been finalised in court.

Maobotwane­did not

respond.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa