All 4 Security Services CC and Others v The City of Cape Town and Others (11496/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 182 (15 September 2022)

All 4 Security Services CC and Others v The City of Cape Town and Others (11496/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 182 (15 September 2022)

The court found that the City's advertisement for tender 226S/2020/21 failed to comply with the requirements of s 217 of the Constitution, the MFMA, and the City's supply chain management policy. The term 'facilities management' was too generic and did not adequately inform potential bidders that the contract included the provision of security services. This lack of clarity undermined transparency, competitiveness, and fairness in the procurement process. The court rejected the City's argument that interested parties could have discovered the scope by consulting the tender documentation, holding that the advertisement itself must provide sufficient information to attract qualified...

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 182
Parties
Applicant: All 4 Security Services CC; Applicant: Securitem (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Security SA Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The City of Cape Town; Respondent: CBRE Excellerate Facilities Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: AFMS Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Excellerate Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Metro Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Case Number
11496/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application granted. The advertisement and award of tender 226S/2020/21 declared invalid, with suspension of the order for six months to allow lawful procurement.
Judges
Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Municipal Supply Chain Management, Procedural Fairness, Constitutional Compliance, Tender Advertising Requirements, Standing in Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Municipal Supply Chain Management Procedural Fairness Constitutional Compliance Tender Advertising Requirements +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All 4 Security Services CC

Applicant

Securitem (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Security SA Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The City of Cape Town

Respondent

CBRE Excellerate Facilities Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

AFMS Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Excellerate Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Metro Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City of Cape Town's advertisement for tender 226S/2020/21 complied with the requirements of s 217 of the Constitution and applicable legislation.
  2. 2 Whether the omission to specify the provision of security services in the advertisement rendered the procurement process unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had standing to challenge the tender process and award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the City's advertisement for tender 226S/2020/21 failed to comply with the requirements of s 217 of the Constitution, the MFMA, and the City's supply chain management policy. The term 'facilities management' was too generic and did not adequately inform potential bidders that the contract included the provision of security services. This lack of clarity undermined transparency, competitiveness, and fairness in the procurement process. The court rejected the City's argument that interested parties could have discovered the scope by consulting the tender documentation, holding that the advertisement itself must provide sufficient information to attract qualified...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The advertisement and award of tender 226S/2020/21 declared invalid, with suspension of the order for six months to allow lawful procurement.

Orders

  • The first respondent's advertisement of tender number 226S/2020/21 is declared non-compliant and invalid.
  • The award of the contract in tender number 226S/2020/21 to the joint venture of the third, fourth, and fifth respondents is declared invalid and set aside.