CIPRO ECM TENDER AND MATTER BETWEEN MANTRA CONSULTING VERSUS VALORIT
Despite the media articles on the above matter, as Mantra Consulting, we took a principled position not to comment until the judicial process has undergone its due and proper course. This occurred today at the Gauteng South High Court.
We wish to provide the following information:
1. The Verdict
We are pleased to inform that the Court awarded the verdict in our favour. Of note is that:
a) The contract Mantra Consulting has with ValorIT is valid and binding
b) While ValorIT tried to push for that a compromise payment of R2,5m was made to Mantra Consulting, the court determined that a compromise has to be accepted by both parties. This is a common law principle; if an agreement between two parties were signed where one party pays the other an agreed sum, the other former party cannot change this amount without the other party consenting. Accepting partial payment does not constitute a compromise let alone a cancellation of the contract. Imagine the consequences of this had the court ruled in favour of ValorIT!
c) ValorIT admitted their liability but failed to provide contractual reasons as to why they should not fulfil the contract terms as agreed. As such, the order has requested that both parties shall go through trial for adjudication in order that both parties provide reasons for their respective positions. As Mantra Consulting we are confident of our position as ValorIT has failed to implement due process as defined by the contract between ourselves.
d) An immediate payment of R2,5 million with interest is due and payable. We are confident the remainder will be paid as there is sufficient precedence on contract termination that favour our position.
2. The Business Case Document
a. As Mantra Consulting, we have never hidden the fact that the CIO of CIPRO gave us the Business Case Document so much so that it formed part of our application affidavit both at court and with the SAPS.
b. The Business Case document provided to us was not classified as CONFIDENTIAL or otherwise. As such, we had no guarantee it was not circulated to other competing parties.
c. In our court papers, both the Minister and CIPRO were sited as interested parties. As such, they had ample opportunity to raise their position in court. Instead they chose not to, not only to the courts but they have never seen the need to approach us to date.
d. As Mantra Consulting, we wrote to them end of August 2009 to help address the matter. To date, they have yet to respond to us. Instead, they decided to give our letter to ValorIT to help them take legal action against us! As per attached case 35874/09 verdict, in Gauteng North, Valor IT failed in this attempt.
e. If, for whatever reason both the Minister and the Director-General and their lawyers did not notice that we provided the Business Case Document in our affidavit then a memo from the CIPRO Chief Operating Officer on the matter (see attached) would have provided them with sufficient reason to respond both internally and in Court if they so decided.
f. We re-iterate that we never hidden the fact that the CIPRO CIO gave us the business case document; further ValorIT was not forced to either accept it or incorporate it into their proposal as determined by the Auditor General's report.
3. Conclusion
a. CIPRO and the dTI had an opportunity to address this matter, in their wisdom, they decided otherwise.
b. The government and any other organisation that awards a bid must ensure that the underlining subcontractors cannot be removed at the whim of the main contractor without due process. This is especially so that the CIPRO and ValorIT Master Agreement had a specific clause to prevent ValorIT from doing precisely this.
Yours Truly,
Abe Mbulawa
Chief Executive Officer
MANTRA CONSULTING (PTY) LTD
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
