Shula Construction CC v Ethekwini Municipality and Another (5838/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 52 (24 May 2023)

Shula Construction CC v Ethekwini Municipality and Another (5838/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 52 (24 May 2023)

The court found that the scoring of the applicant's tender was conducted in accordance with the tender guidelines and requirements. The evaluation committee correctly considered only the relevant experience of key personnel as stipulated, and the applicant's submission did not sufficiently demonstrate the required experience for the contract manager, site agent, or foreman. The absence of a construction methodology, or even if considered, would not have resulted in the applicant meeting the minimum threshold of 60 points. The court held that any incorrect scoring was attributable to the applicant's own failure to provide clear and relevant information in its tender documents....

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Shula Construction CC; Respondent: Ethekwini Municipality; Respondent: Stedone Civils (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Case Number
5838/2022P
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P C Bezuidenhout
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Scoring of Bids, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Bid Evaluation Committee, Grounds of Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Review Scoring of Bids Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Bid Evaluation Committee Grounds of Review

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shula Construction CC

Applicant

Ethekwini Municipality

Respondent

Stedone Civils (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent correctly interpreted and scored the applicant's tender submission.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was properly declared non-responsive under the tender requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the decision to award the tender to the second respondent should be reviewed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the scoring of the applicant's tender was conducted in accordance with the tender guidelines and requirements. The evaluation committee correctly considered only the relevant experience of key personnel as stipulated, and the applicant's submission did not sufficiently demonstrate the required experience for the contract manager, site agent, or foreman. The absence of a construction methodology, or even if considered, would not have resulted in the applicant meeting the minimum threshold of 60 points. The court held that any incorrect scoring was attributable to the applicant's own failure to provide clear and relevant information in its tender documents....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.