Cade Transport (Pty) Ltd v Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Others (27318/06) [2008] ZAGPHC 243 (30 July 2008)

Cade Transport (Pty) Ltd v Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Others (27318/06) [2008] ZAGPHC 243 (30 July 2008)

The court found that the applicant's variant bid did not comply with the requirements set out in the Request for Proposals and the Bidders Questions and Answers document. Specifically, the bid failed to quote on specified routes, did not set out all cost and benefit ramifications, lacked proper motivation, and did not provide appropriate costing for comparison with compliant bids. As a result, the South African Post Office was under no obligation to consider the variant bid as a discrete and self-standing bid. The evaluation committee's decision to only consider the variant bid in the context of the compliant bid was justified. The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 243
Parties
Applicant: Cade Transport (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The South African Post Office; Respondent: The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the South African Post Office Ltd N.O.; Respondent: The Chairman of the Procurement Committee of the South African Post Office Ltd N.O.; Respondent: The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of the South African Post Office Ltd N.O.; Respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2008
Case Number
27318/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
B R Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Public Procurement, Variant Bid Compliance, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Review Public Procurement Variant Bid Compliance Review of Administrative Action

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cade Transport (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The South African Post Office

Respondent

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the South African Post Office Ltd N.O.

Respondent

The Chairman of the Procurement Committee of the South African Post Office Ltd N.O.

Respondent

The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of the South African Post Office Ltd N.O.

Respondent

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the South African Post Office was obliged to consider the applicant's variant bid as a discrete and self-standing bid.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's variant bid complied with the requirements set out in the Request for Proposals and Bidders Questions and Answers documents.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to consider the variant bid constituted a reviewable irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's variant bid did not comply with the requirements set out in the Request for Proposals and the Bidders Questions and Answers document. Specifically, the bid failed to quote on specified routes, did not set out all cost and benefit ramifications, lacked proper motivation, and did not provide appropriate costing for comparison with compliant bids. As a result, the South African Post Office was under no obligation to consider the variant bid as a discrete and self-standing bid. The evaluation committee's decision to only consider the variant bid in the context of the compliant bid was justified. The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.