The enterprises division in Eskom was responsible for the processes that culminated in the award of the tenders to which you refer in ‘Moosa in R38-billion tender conflict†(February 8).
The innuendo that this process was in some way flawed or subject to political influence is totally unfounded. Not only does this have repercussions generally concerning Eskom’s procurement processes, it is also an insult to the many good people who worked tirelessly on these tenders to ensure a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective outcome.
Eskom has provided you with a comprehensive summary of the process. However, I need to highlight the following, some of which have not been brought to the attention of your readers:
– The process was a robust one and found to be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective in an internal review and after an independent review by Deloitte.
– The evaluation of the tenders for the Medupi power station was carried out in terms of objective evaluation criteria comprising a technical component, a financial component and an Asgisa component.
– The winning tender therefore emerged from an objective process. The outcome could not be influenced or arbitrarily altered by any person or committee.
– Each of the evaluation criteria was assessed by a specialist team that scored each tender, and the scores were then consolidated.
– Once the scores were determined, I requested that it be subject to a process of verification by the internal audit department. I requested this additional step given the significance of the tender and to be absolutely sure that the process was a rigorous one.
– Once the final score was verified and the winning tender had emerged, the recommendation was submitted to the governance structures for approval. This included the executive management committee, the board of directors’ tender committee and the board itself.
– The role of the governance structures, including the board, in approving the tender, was to consider the process that was followed and to ensure that it had been a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective process. In doing this the board relied, inter alia, on the report and recommendations of the evaluation team. No individual or committee was in a position to arbitrarily change the outcome of the objective evaluation.
– The change from Alstom to Hitachi was also a recommendation by the evaluation team and was based on this objective process.
– The evaluation criteria did not afford any party a preference for any shareholder interests and likewise did not permit any party to be disqualified by virtue of its shareholders.
– Independent consultants, including Eskom’s appointed engineers for the project and an external law firm, were involved in the process.
– Given the significance of the tender, the board decided that a further independent review be conducted. This review was conducted by Deloitte and, as you are aware, they confirmed the process to be thorough and equitable and not biased towards any predetermined outcome.
In the light of the above, the suggestion of any impropriety is rejected. I owe it to my loyal and dedicated team, and all Eskom employees, to set the record straight.
Brian A Dames is Eskom’s chief officer: generation