Transport and Public Works

1. No. However, despite this response, the information requested in a) to d) has been provided below.

(a)The company was appointed on 01 December 2017.

(b)The appointment is for a period of 36 months with an option to extend for a further 24 months.

(c)The total amount paid to the company for implementation at Health Infrastructure is R147 219 725.

     This includes construction costs that went to construction companies and professional service fees.

(d) There is no impact on smaller contractors, as the projects implemented by the company are of a major capital nature.  The company is a consultant using infrastructure contractors in the appropriate grading who in turn use subcontractors who are normally the smaller contractors.  

2. Yes. Prior to the appointment, the DTPW and the Provincial Treasury had numerous engagements, over an 18-month period, on both formal and informal platforms to deal with the matter of enabling DTPW as Custodian and Implementer through various mechanisms and considering various models.

These platforms included but were not limited to the official Accounting Officer’s Letter submitted to the Provincial Treasury early in 2017 specifically considering the following mechanisms:

(a) Filling of vacancies in terms of current provision for DTPW in respect of Cost of Employment.

(b)Procurement of facilities management contractors through an open bidding process.

(c) Procurement of framework agreements for all classes of work across all three Works components

(d) Procurement of management contractor for DTPW

(e) Utilisation of a Project Implementation Unit. (PIU)

(f) Insourced and outsourced models of Engineering Services

(g) Procurement of Implementation Agent or support services,

(h) Alternative technology

(i) Research and development services

(j) Reviewing Norms and Standards.

(k) Addressing efficiencies in design, implementation, catering for drought, climate change, energy related service requirements in the built sector environment.

(l) Project and programme management services

(m) Research into insuring construction works

This model consolidates a number of the intended models and mechanisms highlighted above and therefore presents a convincing value-added service model without the administrative and contract intensive requirements of contracting multiple companies to give effect to each one of the models.

Furthermore, Professional Service Provider fees range between 20-22% of the cost of infrastructure, while the management fee of the company appointed ranges between 2.8% - 8%, depending on the value of the project.

3(a)  The total amount spent on this company by DTPW for Education Infrastructure Professional Services is as follows: 

3(b) The department does not classify amounts spent on a racial basis, as since 2011 the PPPFA regulations do not distinguish between white consultants and black consultants, and only require companies to submit their BBBEE Level.  The BBBEE level of the company in question is a Level 1 contributor, which is the highest level that a company can be in terms of a BBBEE score.

4(a) The original contract value did not include just the tendered sum. It also allowed for extensions, expansions and variations and was approved as such by the Bid Adjudication Committee and Delegated Authority.  No extensions, expansions and variations outside of this framework were performed. 

        Within this approved contract two variations on projects at 4 Dorp Street were done:

1. 4 Dorp Street – Facade Repairs – Additional accommodation exceeded by 70%; and

1. 4 Dorp Street – Ground Floor Refurbishment – Alterations exceeded by 53%;

4(b) The full details of the two 4 Dorp Street projects are as follows:

4 Dorp Street – Facade Repairs – Additional Accommodation

Comprising repair required to the facades of the 4 Dorp Street Tower Block (26 storeys):

• • • Original Contract Value =       R35,563M
    • Final Contract Value =                         R60,631M

Reasons for the original contract value being exceeded:

• A provisional amount was set for the concrete repair which was grossly inadequate and was exceeded almost tenfold;
• Extensive waterproofing was required around windows which required the building in of steel sub-frames and angles. This was unforeseen and necessitated additional work and unexpected extra costs;
• Windows had to be sealed off to protect the interior against dust ingress and potential damage during the works;
• As the contract took far longer to complete than was originally expected there were considerable Preliminary and General costs to be paid.

4 Dorp Street – Ground Floor Refurbishment – Alterations

Comprising the pedestrianisation and enclosure of the concourse between Wale Street and Keerom Street and associated spaces.

• • • Original Contract Value =   R50,617M
    • Final Contract Value =        R77,680M

Reasons for the original contract values being exceeded:

Additional items included in the contract post award:

• • • Control Room mezzanine level (Access control and security)
    • Wheelchair lifts
    • Ramp to security office
    • Steel facade screens and balconies
    • Crash decks, security boom and hoarding to ensure user client access
    • Mezzanine gym
    • HR walk-in centre
    • Cape Gateway information centre
    • De Kampie building opposite 4 Dorp Street south entrance
    • Fire escape stairs and ramp
    • Canopyand Lift Motor Room waterproofing
    • Staircase
    • Refuse room under ramp
    • PABX system and PABX room
    • Long Street kiosks

1. 5. (a) The original budget for Leeuwenhof upgrade: R14.3m. 
2.      (b) The total spent to date is R13.2m