IN a dramatic turn of events yesterday, a joint committee of the Eastern Cape legislature resolved that the auditor-general should table a report after he has verified all the aspects of a R3,9-billion fleet contract awarded to Phakisa Fleet Solutions, including value for money.

This was decided at a four-hour closed meeting of the transport and finance committees at which witnesses, including Transport MEC Ghishma Barry, were required to give evidence under oath, a provision rarely invoked by the committees of the legislature.

DA MPL Dacre Haddon had criticised the fact that it was a closed meeting on the grounds of protecting MPLs from possible litigation. “To ensure absolute transparency in the matter, public and media oversight should have been allowed.”

Haddon said he had also raised concerns at the meeting about “Bosasa”, the company which reportedly is being investigated by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and whose directors also allegedly serve on the board of Phakisa.

Barry had said this information had only come to light after the contract was awarded, and had no bearing on the facts of the matter. Haddon said it was of concern that government “take heed of their reputation and whom they do business with if the Bosasa allegations are true”.

After the meeting, roads and transport chairman Xolile Nqatha said the auditor-general investigation would “ensure there was no corruption and there was value for money”.

The joint committee session followed media reports and public outcry on poor management of the bid allocation process for the contract which included an allegation that Phakisa Fleet Solutions – the preferred bidder – did not “have the requisite skills and expertise for managing a provincial fleet project”.

Among the concerns expressed by the committee was the belief that the allocation of the tender to Phakisa appeared to be “contrary to tender conditions stipulated in the Constitution which provides that a state organ should ensure fairness, equitability, transparency, competitiveness and cost-effectiveness in awarding tenders for goods and services”.

Nqatha found it “amazing” that the tender had been awarded to a provider which had tendered for R3,9-billion – way beyond the set budget. This meant the claim that there was consideration of “reasonable affordability” in the process was false.

The joint meeting also learnt that 150 SMME bidders who showed interest in the tender had fallen by the wayside. Only two big companies, which were not even based in the Eastern Cape, had instead emerged.