Independent Online

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView weather by locationView market indicators

Gijima wins tender court case against Sita, In2IT, and is awarded the contract by the High court

The company said it felt vindicated as it was aggrieved by the decision to award the contract to In2IT. Photo: Leon Nicholas.

The company said it felt vindicated as it was aggrieved by the decision to award the contract to In2IT. Photo: Leon Nicholas.

Published Oct 25, 2021


INFORMATION and communications technology (ICT) company Gijima has announced that on Thursday, it won a court case over the South African Police Service (SAPS) tender that was unlawfully awarded to In2IT by the State Information Technology Agency (Sita) in 2020.

In a statement, the company said judgment was handed down by the High Court, awarding it with its partner, Advanced Voice Systems, the contract that was illegally awarded to the multinational from India with a branch in South Africa.

Story continues below Advertisement

The company said it felt vindicated as it was aggrieved by the decision to award the contract to In2IT.

It said its attorneys, Nicqui Galaktiou, initiated a review application pursuant to the awarding of the contract.

"Gijima exercised its constitutional right to challenge the unlawfully awarded contract.

"Gijima is pleased that the Court considered the procurement laws and regulations in its judgment which boosts confidence in the justice system and adjudication laws of tender bids," the company said.

Gijima said it was also awarded legal costs.

According to the company, when commenting on Gijima’s application, Justice Windell said: “Gijima and AVS are the only entities that satisfy the tender requirements. They are the only entities authorised to service and maintain the specific NEC and Mitel models mentioned above, and they are also authorised to service and maintain the remaining models covered by the tender (other NEC and Ericsson models, as well as Siemens).

Story continues below Advertisement

"There was ample evidence at its disposal to demonstrate that In2IT did not comply with the requirements of the tender. SITA should then have excluded In2IT from further evaluation. Ultimately, that being the case, the comparative price of Gijima and In2IT is irrelevant to the outcome of this review."

Gijima said In2IT misled Sita by deliberately quoting a price far below market value, which excluded some mandatory services.

According to the ICT company, Justice Windell confirmed in her lengthy reasons for granting the relief that “Gijima has adduced detailed evidence on the issue of price and has demonstrated that SITA’s assessment of price resulted in an approach that compared apples with oranges (and grossly underestimated In2IT’s true cost). Moreover, in its replying affidavit, it has pared down its price to come in under the budget.”

Story continues below Advertisement

Gijima said it was looking forward to working with SAPS and Sita in executing the contract.

"We note that IN2IT has indicated that it intends to apply for leave to appeal this judgment, notwithstanding that it has grossly failed to comply with the tender bid requirements and therefore makes a mockery of the judiciary," the company said.

Gijima also urged Sita to comply with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and procurement laws that are the mandatory requirements of the tender.

Story continues below Advertisement

"Sita has been ordered by the judge that it has 30 days within which to engage with Gijima to conclude a memorandum of agreement, reflecting the terms," it said.

Gijima group CEO Maphum Nxumalo said: “We are pleased with the judgment, as it confirms that in terms of the services required, we were the only bidder, together with our partner AVS, that satisfy the tender requirements.

He said the judge further indicated that: “In2IT did not comply with the mandatory requirements, and the implication is that In2IT should have been treated as non-responsive. As only one compliant bidder remains, namely Gijima, submitted that the court is in as good a position as the decision-maker to make a decision.”