LDM Consulting v Dube Tradeport & Others (7900/2016) [2021] ZAKZDHC 14 (16 April 2021)

LDM Consulting v Dube Tradeport & Others (7900/2016) [2021] ZAKZDHC 14 (16 April 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reviewable irregularity in the functionality assessment of its bids for both projects. The Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Adjudication Committee evaluated the applicant's bids in accordance with the criteria stipulated in the tender documents. The replacement of key personnel was a consequence of the applicant's own strategic decision, not undue pressure from the respondent. The assessment of green building accreditation and medical/pharmaceutical experience was consistent with the requirements of the projects and the tender documents. The evaluation process was transparent, objective, and rational, and no evidence was presented...

Citation
[2021] ZAKZDHC 14
Parties
Applicant: LDM Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dube Tradeport Corporation; Respondent: AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: ARUP (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Case Number
7900/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of tender awards dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Moodley
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Tender Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Functionality Assessment, Bid Evaluation
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Tender Review Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Functionality Assessment Bid Evaluation

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LDM Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Dube Tradeport Corporation

Respondent

AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

ARUP (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the functionality assessment of the applicant's bids for Projects 1 and 2 was irregular and susceptible to review under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Adjudication Committee applied criteria not stipulated in the tender documents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unfairly penalised for lack of green building accreditation and medical/pharmaceutical experience.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reviewable irregularity in the functionality assessment of its bids for both projects. The Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Adjudication Committee evaluated the applicant's bids in accordance with the criteria stipulated in the tender documents. The replacement of key personnel was a consequence of the applicant's own strategic decision, not undue pressure from the respondent. The assessment of green building accreditation and medical/pharmaceutical experience was consistent with the requirements of the projects and the tender documents. The evaluation process was transparent, objective, and rational, and no evidence was presented...

Court Disposition

Application for review and setting aside of tender awards dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the award of the tenders by the First Respondent to the Second and Third Respondents under case number 7900/2016 is dismissed.
  • The Rule Nisi issued under case number 6301/2016 is discharged.