INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT UNIT OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

1
INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT UNITOFFICE OF THE PREMIER

• INVESTIGATING CORRUPT ACTIVITIES USING BOTH
  INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL RESOURCES 30 July 2009
  ACLN Port Elizabeth

2
WHAT IS THE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT UNIT?

• It is a unit established in the Office of the
  Premier for two main purposes
• To promote and enhance a culture of integrity
  which is intolerant of unethical conduct, fraud
  and corruption
• To build ethical values, integrity and
  professionalism in the organization

3
GOAL AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIT

• Goal
• Combat fraud and corruption and enhance a
• culture of integrity in the Public Service
• Strategic objectives
• Investigate cases of alleged fraud and
  corruption as reported on the National
  Anti-Corruption Hotline (NACH)
• Provide awareness campaigns of fraud and
  corruption in the Public Service

4
Case study

• Allegations were made that the awarding of a
  tender by the Department of X was done without
  following proper Supply Chain Management
  Procedures

5
Analysis of information

• The Department advertised a tender for the
  facilitation of a security tender by a
  professional service provider, the closing date
  was on 18 December 2006
• The advertisement was only placed in the
  newspaper and not on the government tender
  bulletin, the scope include the following
• Advertising and adjudication of tenders on behalf
  of the Department of Safety and Security
• Preparation of a security tender specification
  document
• Assist in the briefing session
• Tender Adjudication process

6
Analysis cont..

• Advise during the tender evaluation process
  including, but not limited to site visits
• Benchmarking with other environments
• Process analysis
• Contract document refining and redevelopment
• Security process briefing to all level of
  government
• Rate evaluation
• Document management
• Pre-qualifying prospective security companies

7
Analysis cont.

• The Terms of Reference included the outsourcing
  of the advertisement, evaluation and adjudication
  of a tender which is supposed to be delegated to
  Departmental officials
• A briefing session was held on 8 December 2006,
  the report indicates that a total of 10 companies
  attended. The Department was only in possession
  of one page of the attendance register which had
  3 companies representatives signing the
  attendance register
• A Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting was first held
  on 11 January 2007. The Committee noted that
  there was no departmental specifications
  developed for the tender

8
Analysis cont.

• The Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 16
  January 2007, did not evaluate the tender. The
  Chairperson of the Bid Evaluation Committee,
  recommended that the entire tender be disapproved
  because there was an omission of the 90/10 or
  80/20 principles when the tender was advertised
• A meeting was held with the HOD to discuss the
  matter.
• A memorandum dated 17 January 2007 from the HOD,
  to the Chairperson of BEC, indicated the
  following We were also in agreement that our
  responsibility (regardless of whether you are
  correct or not) is to advise me immediately there
  arises a need to do so.
• The HOD appointed an acting Chairperson of the
  BEC on 23/01/2007

9
Analysis cont.

• In the minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee
  meeting held on 26 January 2007, two companies
  were confirmed to be in existence. The Bid
  Evaluation Committee compiled a report which
  merely recommended that both companies should be
  considered, recommendations were not based on any
  calculations (Preferential point system)

10
Analysis cont

• An unsigned Bid Adjudication Committee report or
  minutes was made available, although the date is
  conflicting to the Bid Evaluation Committee
  report. The Bid Adjudication Committee meeting
  indicates 25 January 2007. The Committee did
  their calculations of the HDI Points and the
  focus was on Functionality (60 ) and Price
  (40). Company Y was thereafter recommended by
  the Bid Adjudication Committee for an amount of
  R1 460 910.00 and an appointment letter issued on
  30/01/2007

11
Analysis cont.

• A Service Level Agreement (SLA) was signed on 8
  February 2007 between the Department of and
  Company Y. In the SLA the Process Milestones was
  indicated as follows
• Process Milestones Target Date Contract award and
  Pre-contract Briefing and Contract signing 9
  February 2007, Commence Project work and Site
  visits12 February 2007, Develop Tender
  Specifications and Bid Document Pack,26 March
  2007, Advertise Tender16 23 March 2007,Brief
  Session for prospective Bidders 30 March 2007,
  Close Bids 20 April 2007 Final Adjudication of
  Bids and Recommendations of successful Bidder 11
  May 2007 Final Contract and Service Level
  Agreement negotiations 31 May 2007, New Service
  Provider to commence contract delivery 01 June
  2007

12
Conclusion of investigation

• The Accounting Officer failed to ensure that the
  Bid documentation include the evaluation and
  adjudication criteria, including the criteria
  prescribed in terms of the Preferential
  Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000 (Act No. 5
  of 2000) and in accordance with the requirements
  of the National Treasury.
• The Accounting Officer failed to ensure that the
  terms of reference exclude the advertisement,
  evaluation and adjudication of the tender which
  is supposed to be delegated to departmental
  officials.
• The Accounting Officer failed to ensure that the
  bid is properly evaluated.

13
Cont

• The Accounting Officer failed to ensure that the
  bid is properly adjudicated.
• The Accounting Officer failed to ensure that the
  Service Provider is not irregularly appointed.
• The Bid Evaluation Committee failed to ensure
  that the Bid is properly evaluated.
• The Bid Adjudication Committee failed to ensure
  that the Bid is properly adjudicated.
• The Service Provider should have been engaged to
  produce the tender specifications only.
• The engagement of the Service Provider to
  advertise, evaluate and adjudicate the tender is
  irregular as these functions are supposed to be
  delegated to departmental officials

14
Accounting officer

• Accounting Officer was charged.
• Charges were based on all the conclusions of the
  investigations,
• Accounting Officer submitted notice of
  resignation in August 2008
• Accounting Officer dismissed on 30 October 2007.

15
Integrity Management Unit Office of the
PremierMpumalanga Province

• Riaz Ahmed Bellim
• Tel [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• Cell 084 450 8225
• Email rbellim_at_mpg.gov.za