Infrastructure
With regard to the construction of the Sir Lowry’s Pass High School and the termination of the contact with the contractor:
- (a)(i) What was the motivation for the termination of this contract and (ii) who motivates for the termination of such contracts and (b) what process was followed to arrive at the decision to terminate the contract;
- Whether conflict of interest and/or internal bias was considered; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
- whether there was any motivation from an independent inspector or assessor that was utilised in making the decision to terminate the contract; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
- whether the termination was the only fair action to remedy the construction challenges; if so, what are the relevant details;
- what is the number of people who worked for this contractor on this contract who have lost their jobs and source of income as a result of the termination of the contract;
- (a) what is the detailed account of the decision-making process followed to decide on the termination of the contract, (b) what steps were taken to consider and address the discrepancy between the structural engineering plans and architectural plans, (c) what was the role of his Department in addressing these issues and (d) what was the justification for prosecuting this contractor for any and all construction challenges?
(1) (a)(i) The motivation for termination was the slow progress on site and this was amplified by the major risk of the contractor’s breach of occupational health and safety regulations which necessitated 2 Stop Works Orders being issued during the construction period.(ii) Termination can be motivated by any party to the contract, if a contract condition is contravened.
(b) The contract administration process was followed, as outlined in the applicable contract. These sets out what steps to follow for termination.
(2) There is no conflict of interest and/or internal bias involved. The contract conditions were followed.
(3) The project team, which consists of Professional Service Providers and internal Departmental officials, were all in agreement to terminate. An independent inspector / assessor is not required in terms of normal contract management. The contractor was given ample opportunity to rectify defects and bring the project back on track and the relevant notices and warnings were issued in line with the contract.
(4) The contractor was given ample opportunity to rectify defects and bring the project back on track and the relevant notices and warnings were issued in line with the contract. At the time of cancellation the contract was at ±28% completion, not taking into account the major defects picked up by DOI and which still needed to be repaired. At time of termination, the elapsed project time exceeded 60% of the projected construction period. At the very least, the project should have been 50% complete.
(5) This is not information the Department has access to as the contractor has temporary staff, permanent staff and staff that are not allocated full time on any project, but proportionally on projects.
(6) (a) The termination process, as outlined in the contract, was followed. The contractor was issued notices of default during construction due to lack of progress on site and occupational health and safety concerns.
(b) Any discrepancies / changes are managed in accordance with the conditions as allowed in the contract.
(c) The Department’s role is as the “employer” as defined in the contract and as implementing agent in terms of the SDA with the Western Cape Education Department
(d) The contractor was not prosecuted. A termination process was followed as per the conditions of the construction contract.
