Johannesburg - Eskom on Wednesday welcomed the decision by the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application by Westinghouse Belgium to review the award of the tender for the replacement of the 6 steam generators at the Koeberg Power Station. This comes after supplier of nuclear technology Westinghouse brought a review application in the High Court to have the R5 billion Koeberg Power Station tender Eskom awarded to Areva in August 2014 reviewed and set aside.
Eskom had in June 2012 called for expressions of interest for the replacement of the six steam generators for Koeberg.
In June 2014, Eskom board tender committee decided to invite Westinghouse Belgium and Areva, the two bidders for tender negotiations.
Eskom then awarded the tender to Areva in August 2014.
But Westinghouse then brought a review application in the High Court to have the tender set aside. However, the High Court dismissed the review application with costs.
The Supreme Court of Appeal also turned down Westinghouse plea that the tender be awarded to it, but instead remitted it to Eskom for reconsideration.
Read also: Westinghouse appeal granted
Areva and Eskom then applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In a statement, Eskom said the Constitutional Court's judgement to dismissed the review Westinghouse's application confirmed that the power utility followed a robust governance process in the awarding of the contracts.
Justice Zondo noted the minority judgement of Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke with acting Justice Bosielo which stated that Eskom was 'truly meticulous and proper in its assessment of the bids', Eskom said.
"And further that 'the evidence suggests that the board tender committee process was a hallmark of careful consideration of all relevant factors'."
Justice Zondo's judgement further stated that "Westinghouse's claim that certain vital strategic tender requirements were irregularly considered mid-stream was not supported by a careful evaluation of the tender process".
The judge added: "In my respectful view of the Supreme Court of Appeal erred by finding that the strategic consideration fell outside the bid evaluation criteria".