Company sues minister over tender

Transmission and Distribution Company and Deloitte Zimbabwe over a tender for a prepaid metering system.

Those being sued have stated that they will defend their positions strongly and deny any wrongdoing.

Solahart Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd says the original tender for the system was shelved before adjudication after the minister allegedly sought to have a newer technology, a smart prepayment option, also considered.

ZETDC originally intended to roll out the prepaid system in December last year, but is still waiting for a recommendation from Deloitte Zimbabwe, which is advising on which of the available technologies would be the best to choose.

In an application filed at the High Court, Solahart Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd is seeking to stop Minister Mangoma from having any say in the recommendation because the company believes he has already made up his mind on which route to take.

The minister yesterday said his position on the matter would be made public when his lawyers file their response.

Deloitte, represented by Mrs Nellie Piyagojinjika of Scanlen and Holderness, said the consultants were engaged before ZETDC’s feasibility studies had started.

“They have no knowledge of the allegations that have been raised and will be strongly defending against the insinuations by the applicant, said Mrs Piyagojinjika.

Zesa Holdings spokesperson Mr Fullard Gwasira said commenting at this stage would be wrong and they would wait for the outcome of the court process.

Solahart contends that the smart prepayment option is not in use anywhere in Africa and is still a nascent technology in the developing world. The technology would require a “smart grid” and broadband communication platform, the firm says.

Technically, this is not possible in Zimbabwe and would still add an extra operational cost, it argues.

“From the foregoing, I submit that the purported cancellation of the Tender ZETDC 06/2010 by the first (ZETDC) and second (SPB) respondents is of no force or effect,” reads the draft order sought by Solahart.

The company wants the court to order ZETDC and the procurement board to announce the successful tenderer, or announce that there is no successful tenderer so that any aggrieved tenderer can take appropriate action for redress.

The firm claims that Minister Mangoma’s desire for other technologies to be considered resulted in ZETDC’s delay in implementing the prepaid metering system.

Solahart managing director Mr Bulukani Masola said in May 2010, ZETDC invited tenders for the supply and delivery of a prepayment revenue management system, meters and associated equipment in accordance with their specifications under tender number ZETDC 06/2010.

Solahart and nine other companies responded and submitted their bids for the tender, which officially closed on June 1, 2010 but was subsequently extended to June 29, 2010.

On July 19, 2010 ZETDC forwarded the documents to the State Procurement Board for it to perform its statutory duty of awarding the tender to the winner.

“For unclear reasons, the second respondent (SPB) did not do so and enquiries have established that on 19 August 2010, the secretary for Energy and Power Development wrote to the chairman of SPB requesting that the tender be awarded in order to expedite implementation of the project in the public interest,” stated Solahart in its papers.

The firm further claimed that at this point, the minister was entertaining a presentation on a smart metering system from VasX Technologies (Pvt) Ltd.

Minister Mangoma then allegedly directed ZETDC to halt the adjudication process for the prepayment meters and at the same time carry out a technical feasibility study of using smart metering in Zimbabwe.

Solahart says as such Minister Mangoma usurped ZETDC’s functions.

“The most worrying aspect is that there is no outcome to the tender the applicant and other tenderers submitted for to date.

“With due respect there can be no transparency in the minister’s directive to shelve a duly conducted tender process and replacing it with a completely different arrangement, which is not risky in that it has not been tried and tested, but is also far more expensive than the initial one,” Solahart argues.

The firm also attacks Deloitte’s involvement.

“What is more worrying is the cost of the involvement of the fourth respondent (Deloitte), which is a whopping US$1 892 560 according to a letter dated 8 December 2010 addressed to the unsuccessful tenderer for Tender ZETDC 15/2010,” Solahart claims.

According to Solahart, Deloitte’s costs account for about 30 percent of the cost of the first phase of implementing a prepaid metering system for US$6,2 million.

Further, the firm avers that it had the lowest offer price (US$6,2 million compared to the next two going for US$8,1 million and US$9,5 million) in addition to meeting all the tender requirements.

The requirements include technical and price specifications of the procurement entity.

According to the firm, tender procedures make it mandatory for ZETDC to award it to the lowest bidder.