Finance and Economic Opportunities

Question by: 
Hon Nobulumko Nkondlo
Answered by: 
Hon David Maynier
Question Number: 
6
Question Body: 

Regarding the Auditor-General’s report that refers to underspending of R163 million at the City of Cape Town:
(a) Which two projects resulted in this underspending, (b) what are the details of the projects, (c) who were the implementation agents involved, (d) what were the reasons for the underspending and (e) what remedial action was put in place?

Answer Body: 

(a) The Cape Flats Aquifer and Contermanskloof Reservoir projects.
(b) The Cape Flats Aquifer project concerns the development of Cape Flats Aquifer Scheme. The relevant works includes boreholes, pipework, treatment facilities, storage tanks and network injection points.
The Contermanskloof Reservoir project concerns the construction of a 100ML service reservoir and associated infrastructure at Contermanskloof, Cape Town.
(c) The implementation agents in the Cape Flats Aquifer project:
o Boreholes: Sesiway Engineering (Pty) Ltd, SA Rotsbore (Pty) Ltd, Artcon-Senzogystic JV, Master Drilling Exploration (Pty) Ltd, Echo Bau (Pty) Ltd and Steyns Drilling
o Tanks: Meyer Beton and Nammic Western Cape cc
o Treatment and pipelines: CSV Construction (Pty) Ltd and Esor Construction (Pty) Ltd
The implementation agents in the Contermanskloof Reservoir project:
o BKM/NMC Joint Venture (comprising NMC Civils (Pty) Ltd, NMC (Pty) Ltd) and Botes & Kennedy Manyano (Pty) Ltd)
(d) Underspending in respect of the Cape Flats Aquifer project was a product of a number of factors, including, for example, the following:
o Amendments to the relevant Wastewater Treatment Works Discharge permit needed to be sought from and granted by the relevant regulator due to the need to contain contamination sources;
o Additional design and tenders were required to address contamination sources;
o There was a lack of immediate access to certain private properties to drill boreholes, as well as limited contractors available for drilling, a limited supply of borehole casings available, and a protracted drilling programme;
o Poorer than anticipated aquifer characteristics;
o Poorer than anticipated water quality that required a rigorous water treatment regime and additional design and tenders;
o Significant “downstream” impacts (design of infrastructure) once water quality and quantity are known;
o Refusal of access necessitated expropriation. Protracted expropriation processes are in progress and have significantly delayed implementation and affected project spend;
o Protracted approvals of wayleaves once access was granted; and
o Statutory approvals needed to be obtained from the Regulator (Department of Water and Sanitation) pursuant to the Water Use Licence.
Underspending in respect of the Contermanskloof Reservoir project was a product of a number of factors, including, for example, the following:
o Two of the three joint venture partners were placed under business rescue and the third joint venture partner filed for voluntary liquidation during implementation of the tender;
o The guarantor for the project provided the City of Cape Town with a proposal to appoint another contractor to complete the required work, which proposal could not be accepted by the City of Cape Town.
(e) The remedial action being put in place for the Cape Flats Aquifer project:
The project programme has been revised to reflect pragmatic design and implementation, and aligned with the Water Strategy (as approved by Council - MC 29/05/19) milestone dates.
The remedial action being put in place for the Contermanskloof Reservoir project:
The project programme and capital budget were adjusted accordingly, and a new tender document has been prepared.

Date: 
Friday, August 23, 2019
Top