Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd v Centlec SOC Ltd and Another (3372/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 315 (3 December 2021)

Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd v Centlec SOC Ltd and Another (3372/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 315 (3 December 2021)

The court found that the first respondent awarded the tender after the expiry of the validity period without proper extension or consent from all bidders, rendering the process invalid. The point scoring was irregular, as the evaluation did not consider the total contract period, and the absence of Annexure E prevented verification of the scoring process. The second respondent failed to submit a mandatory pricing schedule, which should have led to its disqualification. The CEO of the first respondent acted outside his authority by exercising discretion not provided for in law. The cumulative effect of these irregularities rendered the tender process unlawful. The court declared the award...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 315
Parties
Applicant: Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Centlec SOC Ltd; Respondent: Ignite Security
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2021
Case Number
3372/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The tender award and service level agreement are set aside. A new bidding process is ordered. Costs awarded against both respondents, with parties to bear their own wasted costs for specified dates.
Judges
JP Daffue, JJ Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Tender Validity Period, Irregular Point Scoring, Mandatory Requirements, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Procurement Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Tender Validity Period Irregular Point Scoring Mandatory Requirements Judicial Review

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Centlec SOC Ltd

Respondent

Ignite Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's award of the tender after expiry of the validity period was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether irregular point scoring and absence of objective criteria invalidated the tender award.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent's failure to comply with mandatory requirements warranted disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent awarded the tender after the expiry of the validity period without proper extension or consent from all bidders, rendering the process invalid. The point scoring was irregular, as the evaluation did not consider the total contract period, and the absence of Annexure E prevented verification of the scoring process. The second respondent failed to submit a mandatory pricing schedule, which should have led to its disqualification. The CEO of the first respondent acted outside his authority by exercising discretion not provided for in law. The cumulative effect of these irregularities rendered the tender process unlawful. The court declared the award...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The tender award and service level agreement are set aside. A new bidding process is ordered. Costs awarded against both respondents, with parties to bear their own wasted costs for specified dates.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent to award Tender CD37/2020 to the second respondent is declared constitutionally invalid, reviewed and set aside.
  • The service level agreement concluded between the first respondent and the second respondent pursuant to the tender award is set aside.