Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister, Department of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (93389/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1047 (15 December 2016)

Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister, Department of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (93389/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1047 (15 December 2016)

The court found that the Bid Adjudication Committee's method of determining price reasonableness was irrational and contrary to the PPPFA and Terms of Reference. The BAC improperly included non-responsive bids in its calculation and failed to apply objective criteria as required by law. The respondent joint venture...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1047
Parties
Applicant: Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Gin Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister, Department of International Relations and Cooperation; Respondent: Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Neo Thando/Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
93389/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits After Prior Urgent Application Refused for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application granted; tender award to respondent joint venture reviewed and set aside; tender awarded to applicants; costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
C J Van Der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Tender Review, Substitution Order, Bid Evaluation, Bbbee Compliance
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Tender Review Substitution Order Bid Evaluation Bbbee Compliance

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

Parties

Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gin Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister, Department of International Relations and Cooperation

Respondent

Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Neo Thando/Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits After Prior Urgent Application Refused for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award of the tender to the respondent joint venture contravened the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA).
  2. 2 Whether the Bid Adjudication Committee applied objective criteria as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent joint venture's bid was responsive to the requirements, including provision of a valid guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Bid Adjudication Committee's method of determining price reasonableness was irrational and contrary to the PPPFA and Terms of Reference. The BAC improperly included non-responsive bids in its calculation and failed to apply objective criteria as required by law. The respondent joint venture did not provide a valid guarantee, rendering its bid non-responsive. The applicants scored the highest points and met all requirements. Exceptional circumstances existed for the court to substitute its own decision, as remittal would serve no purpose and the award to the applicants was a foregone conclusion. The tender award to the respondent joint venture was reviewed and set...

Court Disposition

Application granted; tender award to respondent joint venture reviewed and set aside; tender awarded to applicants; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The award of tender DIRCO 05/2016/17 to the third respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • The tender DIRCO 05/2016/17 is awarded to the applicants.