ABVAriety of truths

  I have heard that the feathers are flying within the DTI's cold campus.  NABC and ABVA are at each other's throats.  I can't pretend that I side with ABVA so I won't - but if they are going to put up stuff on self verifications then they really should have their ducks in a row.  I think that's asking for too much - they've never got their shit together well enough to convince me that they can provide a vaguely sound argument on most things.

A recent post on their website proudly announces "NON-ACCEPTANCE OF SELF-ASSESSMENTS".  They do concede that the DTI notice 354 is silent on self-verifications, and that the codes themselves don't expalin what "suitable evidence" means.  So they resort to that poorly drafted verification manual for legitimacy.  The specific clause is 5.4.8 which states (and I am typing this from the manual not ABVA's website)

When verifying the B-BBEE Recognition Spend calculated by the measured entity, the Verification Agency must ensure that the entity only uses verified B-BBEE status for its calculations.

The first problem here is that nowhere is the word verify defined in the codes.  If it is not defined then we must assume that it refers to code 000, paragraph 2.6

"Any representation made by an Entity about its B-BBEE compliance must be supported by suitable evidence or documentation. " 

Please tell me where does 5.4.8 of the verification manual give the verification agency the right to state that they will only accept accredited verification certificates?  It doesn't.

That was point 1

Point 2
I referred to Kevin's opinion in an earlier post.  Kevin and Safiyya are of the opinion that the verfication manual and the interpretive guide have no legal status whatsoever - they conclude on page 7 that

As with the Interpretive Guide, the standards may not be construed as legislation, nor subordinate legislation, on the basis that neither the DTI nor SANAS are empowered in terms of the BEE Act to pass any form of legislation regarding the application of the BEE Act.  Therefore, the standards may not be utilised to read into the BEE Act and Codes any matters not specifically dealt with there.

This is their opinion but it does open up the potential for a proper legal challenge on these two documents.  One which I believe the DTI is happy to defend, but I think we should regard the fact that the interpretive guide has been removed from the DTI's website as some evidence that they have been acting ultra vires (thanks for pointing this out Dionne).

Point 3
And this is the most significant point, it makes no difference whether the verification manual is valid or not, it is now common cause that it is the procurement officer is the one who will decide whether to accept a certificate or not. 

And the evidence

1. Vuyo Jack's book - page 80 -  The Codes place the onus on the procurement officer of each entity.  They encourage procurement officers to purchase from entities that can provide a BEE status level supported by a verification certificate.
2.  And most significantly is a letter from Takalani Tambani to Ivan van der Merwe, dated 1 April, 2009 (whoops) in which our sesame friend states It is (thus) at the discretion of the procuring entity whether they accept verified ratings and/or self-assessments in their supplier selection process as long as they are supported by a suitable supporting document or evidence.  I am quite sure that ABVindaloo is going to claim that they now how to make sure that each self-verification has supporting evidence like Theo did.  They would be wrong but let them do it - it creates more work for them that they won't be paid for.

Please circulate this amongst procurement officers and other related people - because they are being hoodwinked by unsupported bullshit.