Admin
02 Mar, 2026
Parliamentary submission on Mtentu River Bridge procurement irregularities
Mr Songezo Zibi, MP Chairperson: Standing Committee on Public Accounts Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Cape Town 8000 Mr Chairperson Formal Parliamentary submission on identified procurement, governance and contractual irregularities relating to subcontract adjudication and awards under the Mtentu River Bridge project (N2 Wild Coast Toll Road) 1. Introduction 1.1. I address this correspondence in the broader interest of constitutional governance, public financial accountability, and the protection of public resources. 1.2. This letter constitutes a formal parliamentary submission to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), placing on record a series of material, systemic and recurring irregularities identified in the adjudication and award of subcontract packages under the Mtentu River Bridge Project, forming part of the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road Programme. 1.3. The purpose of this submission is not merely to catalogue administrative shortcomings, but to alert Parliament to substantive deviations from lawful procurement practice, which, if left unexamined, may give rise to irregular expenditure, contractual disputes, audit qualifications, and erosion of public trust in State-funded infrastructure delivery. 2. Strategic and policy context of the project 2.1. The Mtentu River Bridge Project is one of the most significant infrastructure investments undertaken by the State in the Eastern Cape, both in scale and symbolic importance. It is intended not only to enhance national logistics connectivity, but also to stimulate inclusive economic development, local enterprise participation, and community empowerment in historically marginalised areas. 2.2. The project is implemented under South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) Contract No. N.002-201-2023/1C through a Main Contractor Joint Venture. As such, all procurement activities associated with the project are conducted within the public finance environment, notwithstanding subcontracting arrangements. 2.3. Accordingly, the entire procurement chain is governed by: 2.3.1. Section 217 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 2.3.2. The Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (PFMA). 2.3.3. Treasury Regulations issued in terms of the PFMA. 2.3.4. National Treasury Supply Chain Management prescripts. 2.3.5. Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) audit standards relating to irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. 2.4. It is against this framework that the matters raised herein must be assessed. 3. Basis and methodology of review 3.1. This submission arises from a careful, document-by-document scrutiny of official procurement records generated by the implementing agents. The review focused on: 3.1.1. Consistency of application of mandatory requirements. 3.1.2. Alignment between advertised evaluation criteria and final decisions. 3.1.3. Integrity of price, preference and scoring processes. 3.1.4. Contractual certainty and enforceability. 3.1.5. Internal controls relating to bid submission, correction and acceptance. 3.2. The following documents form the factual foundation of this submission and are attached as annexures: 3.2.1. Adjudication Report: Subcontract Package 2 - Bulala Access Road. 3.2.2. Adjudication Report: Subcontract Package 5 - Crushing and Screening of Aggregates. 3.2.3. Appointment Letter: Subcontract Package 5 - Sourcing of Wearing Course Materials from State-Owned Borrow Pits. 4. Detailed account of identified irregularities 4.1. Selective and inconsistent enforcement of mandatory requirements: 4.1.1. A central and recurring concern across the reviewed packages is the uneven application of mandatory compliance requirements. 4.1.2. In Subcontract Package 2, a bidder was disqualified on the basis of a procedural defect relating to clarification briefing attendance documentation, which was characterised in the adjudication report as fraudulent. The disqualification was immediate and final. 4.1.3. By contrast, in Subcontract Package 5, a bidder who failed to submit a mandatory statutory requirement, specifically a valid Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) mining permit, was nonetheless deemed compliant and recommended for award. 4.1.4. Mandatory requirements, by definition, are not discretionary. Their selective enforcement constitutes a breach of the principles of fairness, equity, transparency and competitiveness, and is inconsistent with Treasury Regulations governing supply chain management. 4.2. Deviation from advertised evaluation criteria after final scoring: 4.2.1. In Subcontract Package 5 (crushing and screening), the adjudication process applied a 90/10 price and preference scoring system, as prescribed in the tender documentation. 4.2.2. The highest-scoring bidder under this system was subsequently excluded after completion of the scoring process, based on concerns relating to operational capacity and prior performance on other projects. 4.2.3. While capacity and performance considerations may be relevant, they were not disclosed as pre-qualification criteria or evaluation factors in the Request for Quotation. Their introduction after scoring constitutes a material deviation from the rules of the competition as advertised to bidders. 4.2.4. This practice undermines the legality and defensibility of the adjudication outcome and exposes the process to review under administrative law principles. 4.3. Post-adjudication negotiation of prices 4.3.1. The adjudication documentation further records an explicit intention by the main contractor to negotiate further rate reductions with the recommended bidder after the adjudication process had concluded. 4.3.2. Post-adjudication price negotiations compromise the integrity of competitive procurement. They alter outcomes outside the transparent scoring framework, disadvantage other bidders, and undermine price certainty. 4.3.3. Such practices are incompatible with PFMA requirements and raise the risk of irregular expenditure. 4.4. Conditional appointment presented as a concluded award 4.4.1. The appointment letter issued in respect of Subcontract Package 5 records a stated contract value and anticipates immediate commencement of works. However, it simultaneously makes the appointment subject to multiple unresolved conditions, including: 4.4.1.1. Agreement on rates. 4.4.1.2. Finalisation of borrow pit locations. 4.4.1.3. Laboratory testing and approvals. 4.4.1.4. Engineer’s instructions. 4.4.1.5. Execution of a formal subcontract agreement. 4.4.2. This creates a situation where a document styled as an appointment lacks the legal certainty of a concluded contract yet purports to trigger performance obligations. 4.4.3. Such ambiguity exposes the State to contractual disputes, audit findings, and the risk that expenditure incurred may later be classified as irregular. 4.5. Internal contradictions regarding commencement of works 4.5.1. The same appointment letter states that commencement shall be immediate upon signature, while also indicating that commencement is contingent upon technical approvals and preparatory works. 4.5.2. These positions are mutually inconsistent and render the commencement provisions legally unclear and operationally impractical. 4.6. Weaknesses in bid control and arithmetic governance 4.6.1. Across the reviewed packages, several control deficiencies are evident: 4.6.1.1. Significant arithmetic corrections applied to bids without documented bidder acceptance. 4.6.1.2. Submission of outdated, duplicate or incomplete bills of quantities by multiple bidders. 4.6.1.3. Lack of evidence of robust bid submission screening prior to opening 4.6.1.4. These weaknesses point to systemic deficiencies in bid management and internal control, increasing the risk of dispute, error, and audit qualification. 5. Cumulative PFMA and AGSA risk implications 5.1. Individually, each of the issues outlined above raises concern. Taken cumulatively, they point to systemic governance weaknesses that fall squarely within the oversight mandate of SCOPA. 5.2. The risks include: 5.2.1. Non-compliance with the PFMA and Treasury Regulations, 5.2.2. Exposure to irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, 5.2.3. Breakdown of internal control and accountability mechanisms, 5.2.4. Legal vulnerability of adjudication and award decisions, 5.2.5. Undermining of developmental and community-based procurement objectives, 5.2.6. These are precisely the categories of risk that Parliament and the AGSA are constitutionally mandated to interrogate. 6. Request for parliamentary oversight intervention 6.1. In light of the seriousness, scale and systemic nature of the concerns raised, I respectfully request that SCOPA: 6.1.1. Calls upon SANRAL and the relevant implementing agents to account in detail for the adjudication and award processes. 6.1.2. Examines whether the identified practices comply with PFMA, Treasury Regulations and supply chain management prescripts. 6.1.3. Considers referral of the matter to the AGSA for further investigation or special audit attention. 6.1.4. Recommends appropriate corrective, remedial and consequence-management measures. 7. Annexure index 7.1. The following annexures accompany this submission: 7.1.1. Annexure A: Adjudication Report - Subcontract Package 2 (Bulala Access Road). 7.1.2. Annexure B: Adjudication Report - Subcontract Package 5 (Crushing and Screening of Aggregates). 7.1.3. Annexure C: Appointment Letter - Subcontract Package 5 (Wearing Course Materials / Borrow Pits). 8. Conclusion 8.1. The matters raised in this submission are substantive, factual, and grounded in official documentation. They are not advanced lightly, nor for any purpose other than to uphold constitutional governance, lawful procurement, and responsible stewardship of public funds. 8.2. I trust that SCOPA will give this submission the thorough and deliberate consideration it warrants in the execution of its oversight mandate. Yours sincerely Maj Gen (Ret) BH Holomisa President of the United Democratic Movement Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans For information: Office of the SANRAL CEO Chief Executive Officer Information Officer
