Fezi Consultants and Auditors (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (SOC) Ltd (1381/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 325 (15 August 2023)

Fezi Consultants and Auditors (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (SOC) Ltd (1381/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 325 (15 August 2023)

The court found that Fezi misunderstood the requirements of the tender, resulting in non-responsive pricing and failure to meet the prescribed minimum qualifying criteria. The tender documents were clear, and Fezi's bid did not comply with the technical specifications or the pricing schedule. The bid evaluation committee was not permitted to deviate from the conditions of the tender or condone non-compliance. The principles of fairness, equity, transparency, competitiveness, and cost-effectiveness, as set out in section 217(1) of the Constitution and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, require strict adherence to the tender specifications. Since Fezi's bid was not an...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 325
Parties
Applicant: Fezi Consultants and Auditors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Centlec (SOC) Ltd; Respondent: Makomota Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2023
Case Number
1381/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mbhele, Daniso
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Acceptable Tender, Bid Evaluation, Threshold Requirement
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Acceptable Tender Bid Evaluation Threshold Requirement

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fezi Consultants and Auditors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Centlec (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Makomota Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision by Centlec to appoint Makomota as the successful bidder should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether Fezi's bid was properly disqualified for failing to comply with the tender requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the bid evaluation process complied with the principles of fairness, equity, transparency, competitiveness, and cost-effectiveness as required by section 217(1) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Fezi misunderstood the requirements of the tender, resulting in non-responsive pricing and failure to meet the prescribed minimum qualifying criteria. The tender documents were clear, and Fezi's bid did not comply with the technical specifications or the pricing schedule. The bid evaluation committee was not permitted to deviate from the conditions of the tender or condone non-compliance. The principles of fairness, equity, transparency, competitiveness, and cost-effectiveness, as set out in section 217(1) of the Constitution and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, require strict adherence to the tender specifications. Since Fezi's bid was not an...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include that of counsel.