Lesedi Local Municipality addresses issues with aerodrome project
The municipality for obvious reasons would like to distance itself from the conclusive narrative drawn from these allegations as contemplated in the article.
Heraut reported on February 17 about the plans to convert Heidelberg Aerodrome into an airport after the aerodrome was officially handed over by Lesedi Local Municipality (LLM) to MTP Aviation Solutions on February 12.
Since then this topic has been in the media with controversial statements from Lesedi Local Municipality and Gauteng Infrastructure Financing Agency (GIFA) regarding the processes followed in appointing the tender to MTP Aviation Solutions.
According to CEO Oupa Seabe, GIFA was dealing with the Lesedi aerodrome project but when the Lesedi Local Municipality advertised the project with flimsy terms of references, GIFA withdrew.
Furthermore, the CEO also indicated that this was irregular and that GIFA did not want to be part of it because they knew it would result in a bad product.
Seabe stated that LLM ignored the treasury regulations by acting on its own when they awarded the tender to MTP Aviation Solutions. LLM spokesperson Katleho Seaga released the following media statement regarding the allegations on February 23.
“In the spirit of intergovernmental relationship (IGR), the municipality reserves the right to directly respond to the allegations levelled against it, in the recent article titled “Lesedi Municipality acted on its own to award R7-billion aerodrome tender.”
In the interest of IGR, the municipality will initiate a formal meeting with GIFA to address the matter raised in that article and to further confirm their knowledge with regards to the allegations levelled. The municipality for obvious reasons would like to distance itself from the conclusive narrative drawn from these allegations as contemplated in the article.
However, the municipality intends to provide clarity with regards to the internal processes followed in the procurement of the service provider to implement the project of Heidelberg Aerodrome as reflected in both the municipality’s approved Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and the Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan (SDBIP).
It is the responsibility of the municipality to ensure that all the projects in the IDP and SDBIP are achieved and implemented and not the responsibility of any other spheres of government.
The municipality must implement these projects autonomously through the application of its internal processes; however, it may seek support and assistance from other spheres of government. The request for support does not necessarily imply to exonerate the municipality from its obligations or responsibilities.
Indeed, assistance was sought from GIFA and a Memorandum of understanding (MoU) was duly entered into in August 2019 when the parties’ intent to collaborate had been established as early as April 2019. To this end, it is common cause that accordingly there was a list of priority deliverables expected of each party to the agreement.
This primarily related to the deliverables expected from GIFA to perform, namely:
1. The establishment of the project steering committee
2. The appointment of a service provider to conduct the feasibility study and
3. To report on the progress.
As a matter of fact, as of when the article was published, none of these had materialised.
Stemming from the failure by GIFA to deliver as agreed, the municipality had no reason to still waste any further time of more than 18 months for GIFA to communicate their progress considering the impact that such a project will have.
Consequently, the municipality took matters into its hands when the internal SCM processes unfolded.
The reason for taking over the process as mentioned was not only to neglect the assistance that was not received but to also ensure that the project got delivered to fulfil the strategic objectives as contemplated in the (IDP) of the municipality, which in this case the municipality takes autonomy on it rather than to blame the other sphere of government if it is not delivered.
In this regard, the competitive bidding process was undertaken in compliance with section 217 of the Constitution of the Republic, the MFMA Regulations and finally the Lesedi Local Municipality Supply Chain Management Policy as approved by the council.
The process dictates that an award must be made; hence, the appointment of the service provider who met our terms of reference (ToR), which we believe were not flimsy as the word is relative.”
