Helios Security and Risk Management CC and Another v College of Cape Town and Others (22265/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 319 (18 October 2024)

Helios Security and Risk Management CC and Another v College of Cape Town and Others (22265/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 319 (18 October 2024)

The College of Cape Town's tender process for security services was procedurally unfair and unlawful. The Bid Evaluation Committee disqualified bidders, including the Applicants, based on criteria not required by the tender specifications, in breach of the College's Supply Chain Management Policy. The College failed to provide reasons to unsuccessful bidders, violating both PAJA and its own policy. The College Principal awarded the tender to Mthidhla-Sniper without properly considering the financial ability requirement and disregarded the recommendations of the Bid Adjudication Committee. The College's subsequent counter-application for self-review was unnecessary and misconceived, as...

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 319
Parties
Applicant: Helios Security and Risk Management CC; Applicant: Sechaba Protection Services Western Cape (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: College of Cape Town; Respondent: Mthidhla Group VIP and Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sniper Security Solutions; Respondent: Tshedza Protective Services CC; Respondent: Mafuko Security Services CC; Respondent: Maduna Protection Services; Respondent: Department of Higher Education and Training
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Case Number
22265/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of the College's tender award is granted. The College's counter-application for consequential relief is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the College.
Judges
Vivier, P AJ
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Procedural Fairness, Bid Evaluation, Self Review, Just and Equitable Remedy
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Procurement Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Procedural Fairness Bid Evaluation Self Review Just and Equitable Remedy

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helios Security and Risk Management CC

Applicant

Sechaba Protection Services Western Cape (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

College of Cape Town

Respondent

Mthidhla Group VIP and Security (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sniper Security Solutions

Respondent

Tshedza Protective Services CC

Respondent

Mafuko Security Services CC

Respondent

Maduna Protection Services

Respondent

Department of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the College of Cape Town's tender process for security services complied with statutory and constitutional procurement requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Adjudication Committee acted in accordance with the College's Supply Chain Management Policy and the tender specifications.
  3. 3 Whether the College Principal's decision to award the tender to Mthidhla-Sniper was procedurally fair and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The College of Cape Town's tender process for security services was procedurally unfair and unlawful. The Bid Evaluation Committee disqualified bidders, including the Applicants, based on criteria not required by the tender specifications, in breach of the College's Supply Chain Management Policy. The College failed to provide reasons to unsuccessful bidders, violating both PAJA and its own policy. The College Principal awarded the tender to Mthidhla-Sniper without properly considering the financial ability requirement and disregarded the recommendations of the Bid Adjudication Committee. The College's subsequent counter-application for self-review was unnecessary and misconceived, as...

Court Disposition

Application for review and setting aside of the College's tender award is granted. The College's counter-application for consequential relief is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the College.

Orders

  • The decisions and recommendations made by the First Respondent's Bid Evaluation Committee on 3 October 2023 in respect of Tender No. CCT042023 are reviewed and set aside.
  • The decision of the First Respondent's College Principal to award Tender No. CCT042023 to the Joint Venture between the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent is reviewed and set aside.