Construction on the University of Fort Hare’s massive 2000-bed student village at its Alice campus will go ahead at least until December after an unsuccessful bidder to the R400-million project failed to interdict the ongoing work.
But, although it refused to interdict ongoing construction, the Grahamstown High Court has found prima facie evidence of at least some irregularities in the decision-making leading to the award of the tender to joint venture company Asag/Isondlo.
The company that lost the award, Equicent Eastern Cape Developments, will in December go ahead with its application to review UFH’s decision to award the tender to the Asag/Isondlo.
It had asked the Grahamstown High Court to in the meantime interdict any further implementation of the tender pending the outcome of the review. But Judge Clive Plasket declined to do so.
He said that although he was of the view the process followed by the university and its April decision to award the tender to the joint venture might well be irregular, the balance of convenience was stacked in favour of the university and joint venture.
He would therefore not interdict the ongoing work.
He pointed out that it was just six weeks until the review would be heard on December 4.
The university and the joint venture had said that if they were now interdicted from proceeding with work, the joint venture and all its subcontractors would be severely prejudiced.
About 154 people employed on the contract at a monthly cost of R880000 a month faced retrenchment.
One subcontractor, Dewing Construction, indicated in court papers that it alone would have to retrench 100 workers and the company would make an immediate loss of more than R15-million if it had to pack up and leave.
“For reasons, I find that despite Equicent having established a prima facie right – and I accept that irreparable harm and the absence of an alternative remedy have also been established – the balance of convenience is manifestly stacked against it and in favour of UFH and the JV .”
Equicent, despite bidding R191-million more than the joint venture’s R381-million bid had been the only contractor that initially met all of UFH’s mandatory bid requirements and so it was the only one to qualify for the bid.
The university council recommended in November last year that Equicent get the tender although it wanted some issues ironed out with the company. This was never communicated to Equicent.
Instead, university vice-chancellor Dr Mvuyo Tom had revisited the issue in council.
There it was decided to change the mandatory bid requirements leading to several other companies qualifying, including Asag/Isondlo.
Under the changed requirements – which were never communicated to bidders – Asag/Isondlo became the preferred bidder.
Plasket said when it was decided to revisit the decision UFH had abandoned criteria it had itself categorised as mandatory.
He said that even if a deviation from the mandatory requirements was permissible it should have been done in a procedurally fair manner.
Equicent was entitled to have been heard before a new and different process was decided upon.
The student village will consist of 17 residential buildings accommodating 2046 students, a student centre, a parking area and walkways.
Bidder fails to halt UFH construction
But, although it refused to interdict ongoing construction, the Grahamstown High Court has found prima facie evidence of at least some irregularities in the decision-making leading to the award of the tender to joint venture company Asag/Isondlo.
The company that lost the award, Equicent Eastern Cape Developments, will in December go ahead with its application to review UFH’s decision to award the tender to the Asag/Isondlo.
It had asked the Grahamstown High Court to in the meantime interdict any further implementation of the tender pending the outcome of the review. But Judge Clive Plasket declined to do so.
He said that although he was of the view the process followed by the university and its April decision to award the tender to the joint venture might well be irregular, the balance of convenience was stacked in favour of the university and joint venture.
He would therefore not interdict the ongoing work.
He pointed out that it was just six weeks until the review would be heard on December 4.
The university and the joint venture had said that if they were now interdicted from proceeding with work, the joint venture and all its subcontractors would be severely prejudiced.
About 154 people employed on the contract at a monthly cost of R880000 a month faced retrenchment.
One subcontractor, Dewing Construction, indicated in court papers that it alone would have to retrench 100 workers and the company would make an immediate loss of more than R15-million if it had to pack up and leave.
“For reasons, I find that despite Equicent having established a prima facie right – and I accept that irreparable harm and the absence of an alternative remedy have also been established – the balance of convenience is manifestly stacked against it and in favour of UFH and the JV .”
Equicent, despite bidding R191-million more than the joint venture’s R381-million bid had been the only contractor that initially met all of UFH’s mandatory bid requirements and so it was the only one to qualify for the bid.
The university council recommended in November last year that Equicent get the tender although it wanted some issues ironed out with the company. This was never communicated to Equicent.
Instead, university vice-chancellor Dr Mvuyo Tom had revisited the issue in council.
There it was decided to change the mandatory bid requirements leading to several other companies qualifying, including Asag/Isondlo.
Under the changed requirements – which were never communicated to bidders – Asag/Isondlo became the preferred bidder.
Plasket said when it was decided to revisit the decision UFH had abandoned criteria it had itself categorised as mandatory.
He said that even if a deviation from the mandatory requirements was permissible it should have been done in a procedurally fair manner.
Equicent was entitled to have been heard before a new and different process was decided upon.
The student village will consist of 17 residential buildings accommodating 2046 students, a student centre, a parking area and walkways.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos