Security companies raised concerns about licensing, pricing, staffing requirements and the procurement process.
Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) faces scrutiny over its security procurement processes as companies challenge a George Airport tender and wider concerns emerge over state contracts. Picture: Gallo Images/Misha Jordaan
Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) has blamed a typing error for a controversial security licensing clause in a George Airport tender withdrawn last week following high court action and objections from security companies.
The provision allegedly opened the door to contractors beyond Acsa’s approved and licensed security supplier panel, despite previous court orders restricting disputed security appointments.
An objecting company said the clause appeared to contradict existing panel arrangements.
Acsa blames typing error for disputed licensing clause
The provision Acsa described as a typographical error read: “All bidders who are currently providing security services to the airport stakeholders will continue to do so irrespective of the outcome of this bid.
“Newly appointed bidders will also be awarded a licence to provide security services to the airport stakeholders.”
The tender, issued on 16 October, sought security services at George Airport for five months, commencing on 1 November.
Contractors had six calendar days to submit quotations.
The contract required 30 security personnel, including armed guards, supervisors and a site manager.
Security companies challenge tender process
Eagle Eye Security Specialists challenged the procurement process in the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town.
Its spokesperson said the licensing provision was among the company’s principal objections, particularly given previous litigation involving Acsa’s security tenders.
An interim interdict granted in December 2023 suspended implementation of a disputed security panel procurement process.
The order also affected licences and allocations awarded under that process.
“The George request for quotation (RFQ) nevertheless proposed granting stakeholder licences to newly appointed contractors without explaining compatibility with those restrictions,” the spokesperson said.
“Eagle Eye considers this an apparent attempt to circumvent existing safeguards.”
Acsa denied any connection between the George Airport tender and the earlier litigation. It confirmed the 2023 tender was reviewed and set aside.
A separate emergency security tender issued in 2024 was also interdicted and later cancelled.
Eagle Eye also challenged the bidding period, procurement method, pricing instructions and staffing requirements.
It demanded disclosure of the contract’s estimated value and the approvals authorising the procurement process.
Fidelity raises concerns over pricing and staffing requirements
Fidelity Security Services’ attorneys separately questioned conflicting pricing instructions, staffing arrangements, working hours, airside access requirements and licensing conditions.
It also sought clarification on statutory rest periods and whether the staffing model accommodated them.
Fidelity did not respond to further questions from The Citizen.
Acsa said the procurement complied with the Public Finance Management Act and its supply chain management policies.
It said no procurement deviation was necessary because RFQs to existing panel members were standard procedure for services valued below R5 million.
Dispute adds to scrutiny of state security contracts
The dispute comes amid wider scrutiny of Acsa’s security procurement arrangements and their use by other state entities.
In August, The Citizen reported Transport Minister Barbara Creecy had ordered forensic investigations involving Acsa, the South African Civil Aviation Authority and security contracts at the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa).
The probe followed revelations concerning Reshebile Aviation and Protection Services, which had been placed in liquidation.
Security services at Prasa subsequently continued through Reshebile Aviation Solutions, a separately registered company that is not presently on Acsa’s approved panel.
The disputed Prasa security arrangements reportedly involved payments of approximately R16 to R18 million a month, with more than R1 billion paid to the two Reshebile companies collectively.
Prasa relied on Acsa’s approved security supplier panel as the legal basis for the appointment.
Wayne Duvenage, chief executive of Outa, said the organisation is concerned at the extent of tenders issued by state entities, such as Acsa, that fail to follow due process and, as a result, end up costing the public more funds spent on legal challenges and delayed service provision.
