Halifax Group (Pty) Ltd v Mandela Bay Development Agency (1998/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 41 (12 August 2021)

Halifax Group (Pty) Ltd v Mandela Bay Development Agency (1998/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 41 (12 August 2021)

The applicant failed to comply with the material requirements of the tender by not amending the bills of quantities as stipulated in the addenda, resulting in a material deviation that rendered its bid non-responsive under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the CIDB Standard. The Bid Evaluation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 41
Parties
Applicant: Halifax Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mandela Bay Development Agency; Respondent: Second Respondent (not named in header)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
1998/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed with costs; Part B review postponed sine die.
Judges
Govindjee
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Interim Interdict, Bid Responsiveness, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Material Deviation, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Interim Interdict Bid Responsiveness Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Material Deviation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halifax Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mandela Bay Development Agency

Respondent

Second Respondent (not named in header)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bid Evaluation Committee was entitled to disqualify the applicant's bid for non-compliance at stage 3 of the evaluation process.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's decision to reject the applicant's bid as non-responsive was procedurally unfair or materially influenced by errors of law.
  3. 3 Whether the award of the tender to a higher-priced bidder violated section 217 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the material requirements of the tender by not amending the bills of quantities as stipulated in the addenda, resulting in a material deviation that rendered its bid non-responsive under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the CIDB Standard. The Bid Evaluation Committee was entitled to disqualify the bid at stage 3, and the timing of the disqualification did not prejudice the applicant's rights. The deviation was not trivial or minor, but affected the scope, quality, and performance of the works. The applicant's prospects of success in the review proceedings were slim, and the requirements for interim interdict were not satisfied. The...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed with costs; Part B review postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court relating to forms, time periods, and service is condoned and leave is granted to move the application on an urgent basis.
  • The application for interim relief (Part A relief) is dismissed with costs.