15/10/2021
On 10 August 2021, our firm was embroiled in an urgent application in the South Gauteng High Court. We acted for the second respondent in the matter, namely Slim B & D Construction (Pty) Ltd. The other parties were Raubex DPT Joint Venture ("applicant"), MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng ("first respondent") and LMD Joint Venture ("third respondent").
Pertinent background:
The matter pertains to the tender award for the construction of the infamous K46 dual carriageway in the Diepsloot and Steyn City area. The applicant, second and third respondent were participants in the tender process.
The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation of functionality stage of the tender process. In short, the applicant failed and/or omitted to attach to its bid, the CV's of key personnel. The Department accordingly allocated a score of zero points. The applicant argued that the Department was incorrect to allocate the said score as they had attached certificates and academic qualifications which served the same purpose as the CV's of the key personnel. The Department was of the view that this was not the case.
The applicant argued that second respondent was not entitled to the tender award as it did not sign the form of offer of acceptance. The Department sought an opinion from Senior Counsel who opined that this omission was immaterial.
Proceedings:
On 10 August 2021, the applicant sought to interdict the second respondent from carrying out the works, contending that it should not have been awarded the tender for reasons aforesaid. The department, inter alia, argued that the matter was not urgent as the applicant should have brought the application when it was disqualified from the tender process, and not after the second respondent was awarded the tender. Advocate Tsatsawane SC and Advocate Ramatselela, counsel for the second respondent opposed the relief sought based on the merits and argued, inter alia that the applicant had/has an alternate remedy, namely a review application of the tender process.
The Honourable Justice Mudau found the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for an interdict and accordingly dismissed part A (interdict) of the application with costs.
The link to the full judgment is below.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6854658255772360704/
The court has blown the halftime whistle, metaphorically speaking, as the review application is still alive.
Jonathan Raphunga
Director
Raphunga Attorneys
