Question no

QUESTION NO 579
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 11-2008.
“579. Ms D van der Walt (DA) to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture:
(1) Whether the company chosen to supply the new Robben Island Ferry was awarded the contract on the basis of a public tender process, if not, why not; if so, (a) in which edition of the Government Tender Bulletin was the tender advertised, (b) how many tenders were received,(c) from whom were they received, (d) what amounts were tendered in each case, (e) in which edition of the Government Tender Bulletin was successful tender announced and (f) what criteria were used to assess the capabilities of the company chosen regarding its ability to (i) deliver on time and (ii) meet all the safety and performance criteria;
(2) whether any clauses were included in the contract to exact penalties in the event of delays or operational problems; if not why not; so, what clauses;
(3) whether any penalties have been levied against the chosen company; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?
NW 1264 E
REPLY
(1) Yes a thorough public tender and procurement process was undertaken.
An advertisement was placed in the National and Local News Papers; prospective manufacturers on the database were invited as well as other interested parties – all tendered under competitive conditions. A provisional schedule of work was prepared and issued to all prospective catamarans manufacturers. The same information was issued to other interested manufacturers. Tender documents with terms of reference was issued at a non refundable value of R500.00 to bidders by the RIM Supply Chain Management Unit, Financial Management and Administration Department, P O Box 51806, Waterfront, 8002 or Nelson Mandela Gateway, Clock Tower Precinct, V&A Waterfront, 8002 Officer hours: 7h30-13h00, 14h00- 16h00 (Monday 21st November 2005 to Friday, December 2, 2005).
The date and venue for the tender closing was set at 11am, December 09, 2005 at Nelson Mandela Gateway, Clock Tower Precinct, V&A Waterfront, 8002. Tenders were deposited in the tender box. No extension of the tender period was required. The tender validity period was 90 days from the day of advertisement and tenders remained valid until February 12, 2006.
(a) The tender was not advertised in the Government Tender Bulletin.
(b) Tenders were issued to seven companies and only six application s were returned at the closing date.
(c) Applications were received from:
Australia

_ Sabre Catamarans (Aust) Pty LTD Perth West

_ North West Bay Ship Pty Ltd- Sydney

_ Austal Image- Perth West

South Africa

_ Farocean Marine

_ Veecraft Marine CC
Holland

_ Damen Fast Ferries

(d) The following amounts were tendered in each case:
Australia

_ Sabre Catamarans (Aust) Pty LTD Perth West, R29, 996,931.00 vat inclusive

_ North West Bay Ship Pty Ltd- Sydney, R22, 454,307.00 vat inclusive

_ Austal Image- Perth West, R29, 765,517.00 vat inclusive

South Africa

_ Farocean Marine, R23, 940, 000, 00 vat inclusive

_ Veecraft Marine CC, R23, 183,205.00 vat inclusive
Holland

_ Damen Fast Ferries, R26, 957,965.00 vat inclusive

Please note the estimated tender prices changed due to the rand-dollar exchange rates and the actual full purchase amount paid to Farcocean Marine was R26 000 000.00 vat inclusive.

(e) The successful bidder was not published in the Government Tender Bulletin for security reason since the boat was built within the country and it was felt that the Media would put the company and the RIM under undue pressure.

(f) As listed in the schedule of contract, the following factors were taken into account in the evaluation process:
Compliance and information contained in the returnable schedule

SARS original tax clearance certificate

The profile of the bidder and previous experience in the work of a similar nature.

Any qualification to tender eg. Design of catamarans Tender price

Briefing attendance

The bidder’s financial capacity, performance, resources and reference

The preferential procurement requirement BEE (PDI or HDI)

Use of local labour

Tender price

Penalties

Tenderers were recommended for further presentation as per evaluations/points. The chosen company (Farocean Marine) met all the tender requirements and their submission compared favorably with the RIM’s budget. Their reference could be investigated easily and they were deemed suitable contractors for this service. They showed the necessary experience, capacity, skilled officers, resources etc to execute this project. They were also evaluated in terms of price, even though there was an estimated amount.
(i) RIM was assured of Farocean Marine’s ability to deliver on time since

they had unquestionable experience in building boats for the National

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

Their experience was evident and did not generate any reason for doubt,

(ii) Farocean Marine met all safety requirements as well as the performance criteria. The selection criteria for the building of the boat were developed by specialists in this field and all offers received were evaluated on these set criteria. Information is available for inspection.
(2) A standard clause was included in the contract to exact penalties in the event of delays. This clause, however, did not cover the RIM for loss of income in the event the boat is delivered later than the stipulated date as per the contract.
(3) Penalties have already been levied against the boat building company, Farocean Marine. Due to the overall penalty percentage levied at 4% of the purchase price, the RIM is currently negotiating with the builder to increase that percentage to a reasonable amount.


QUESTION NO: 580
MR M R SAYEDALI-SHAH (DA) TO ASK THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

(1) Whether all staff currently employed by his department have signed performance agreements; if not, what percentage has signed such agreements;

(2) in respect of each of the past three years up to and including 2007, how many (a) senior managers (levels 13-16) were employed by his department and (b) of these senior managers signed performance agreements;

(3) whether all senior managers who signed performance agreements were assessed during this period; if not, why not; if so,

(4) whether any senior managers failed to meet the performance standards required of them; if so, what action was taken against them?

NW1265E

REPLY

1. 
   The annual signing of Performance Agreements is a compulsory event and the DCS requested all DCS Supervisors to adhere to these Policy requirements. With regard to DCS employees on Salary Level 2 – 12 an accurate audit will be available after the conclusion of the final personnel assessments and moderation of the 2007/2008 year under review. These moderations including 41 000 personnel are scheduled from 15 April 2008 and the signed Performance Agreements will be submitted during the moderations.
   

With regard to the status of signed Performance Agreements of members of the SMS (Level 13 – 16) which are centrally monitored by the DCS, all SMS-members did sign their 2007/2008 Performance Agreements with their Supervisors (100% compliance). Only four (4) Performance Agreements is outstanding of SMS-members who were recently appointed (Since November 2007).

2. 
   (a + b) The status of signed Performance Agreements of SMS-members for the four (4) years (including the 2007/2008 year under review) are according to records the following:
   

LEVEL 13 – 16	2004/2005
	NUMBER OF SMS MEMBERS	SIGNED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS ON RECORD
TOTAL____170___167'>TOTAL____148___144'>TOTAL____78___60'>TOTAL	78	60
NOTE The eighteen (18) outstanding Performance Agreements were referred to the relevant Regional Commissioners to address for non-compliance. 60 SMS members were assessed.

LEVEL 13 – 16	2005/2006
	NUMBER OF SMS MEMBERS	SIGNED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS ON RECORD
TOTAL	148	144
NOTE The four (4) outstanding Performance Agreements were referred to the relevant Regional Commissioners to address for non-compliance. 144 SMS members were assessed.

LEVEL 13 – 16	2006/2007
	NUMBER OF SMS MEMBERS	SIGNED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS ON RECORD
TOTAL	170	167
NOTE The Department did engage in a process of personal communiqués to determine the reasons for non compliance during which two (2) of the three (3) outstanding Performance Agreements were submitted and the remaining outstanding Performance Agreement was referred for Disciplinary Action by the relevant Regional Commissioner. 169 SMS members were assessed.

LEVEL 13 – 16	2007/2008
	NUMBER OF SMS MEMBERS	SIGNED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS ON RECORD
TOTAL	168	153
NOTE There are four (4) outstanding Performance Agreements of SMS-members as these members have been appointed recently. There are also 11 SMS positions vacant on Salary Levels 13 – 15. All outstanding Performance Agreements will be signed within the 3 month period of assumption of duty. The deadline for assessments of all SMS members for 2007/2008 is 25 April 2008.

(3) During 2004/2005 60 SMS members were assessed. The eighteen (18) outstanding Performance Agreements were referred to the relevant Regional Commissioners to address for non-compliance.

During 2005/2006 144 SMS members were assessed. The four (4) outstanding Performance Agreements were referred to the relevant Regional Commissioners to address for non-compliance.
During 2006/2007 169 SMS members were assessed. The Department did engage in a process of personal communiqués to determine the reasons for non compliance during which two (2) of the three (3) outstanding Performance Agreements were submitted and the remaining outstanding Performance Agreement was referred for Disciplinary Action by the relevant Regional Commissioner. 169 SMS members were assessed.
During the 2006/2007 there were four (4) SMS-members not assessed for the specific year under review (Three (3) SMS-members did not sign a Performance Agreement). The Department did appoint a formal Investigation Team to determine the reasons of non-compliance of the four (4) SMS-members. The recommendations and outcome of the Investigation Report is completed and submitted for a decision on possible disciplinary actions.

(4) There are Senior Managers who failed to deliver according the required Performance Standards. The individual SMS-members (seven (7) of them) were informed of their unsatisfactory performance per letter and their Supervisors were urged to focus on monitoring of their performance improvement during the current performance cycle.

Furthermore, the Head of the Department (National Commissioner) also took a decision that these seven (7) SMS-members should be subjected to a competency assessment for the purpose of their personal development. An accredited service provider has been identified and recommended to conduct the competency based assessments which are projected to be finalised during April 2008.