On how the BMF is an inherent danger to society

The title is loosely inspired by either AA Milne or Kenneth Grahame - I can't be sure.  The terribly relevant Black Management Forum has issued a little notice about the PPPFA.  And I paste

The Black Management Forum has made a submission on the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Regulations through BUSA as a member organisation.  "The BMF is dissatisfied with the PPPF Act and calls for its total overhaul or repeal and replacement by the Procurement BBBEE Codes of good practice", said Tembakazi Mnyaka , the BMF Deputy President.  The overhaul suggested by the BMF includes the following provisions, "50 of the 100 points be allocated to BBBEE compliance, a minimum level 4 contributor for Public Service compliance, remove all thresholds irrespective of value, implement 30% set- aside on government procurement and include a mandatory audit by the Auditor General of Public Sector BBBEE compliance", continued Mnyaka.

Now I have heard the totally disgraced jungle utter these same words before (could it be that he is too shy to talk out at the moment?).  What their deputy president is actually asking for is an amendment to the constitution.  Because what they are asking for is stipulated in section 217 of the constitution.  Check it

Procurement
217. (1) When an organ of state in the national, provincial or local sphere of government, or any other institution identified in national legislation, contracts for goods or services, it must do so in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the organs of state or institutions referred to in that subsection from implementing a procurement policy providing for -
(a) categories of preference in the allocation of contracts; and
(b) the protection or advancement of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.
(3) National legislation must prescribe a framework within which the policy referred to in subsection (2) may be implemented.

217(3) actually refers to the PPPFA.  It's section 217(1) that is relevant though especially the words fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

If you follow the BMF's recommendation you are going to have a huge problem with fairness and equitability.  Any set aside cannot ever be viewed as fair or equitable (and they have been outlawed by Treasury anyway).  A set aside precludes certain types of bidders from submitting bids - in other words if you are not a level 4 player don't bother bidding. 

This then impacts on cost-effectiveness.  Two reasons are given (by me)

1. By eliminating a series of bidders (including foreign companies) you might not get the best price. 
2. You pay a premium of 50% for empowerment (the BMF is requested for a 50:50 regime for empowerment).  The corporate coffers would be dry very soon if we let this crowd loose on government procurement. I was going to mention that this is a ludicrous suggestion - but I have never seen anything from the BMF that isn't ludicrous.

Enough of that for now.  The BMF website is very short on jungle's expulsion from the DoL (sorry, I meant suspension).  But if you want a lovely overview of Manyi the personality and why perhaps he was suspended - you must read Chris Barron's piece  Pay special attention to the last paragraph

Could there possibly have been a misunderstanding or a problem of interpretation, I asked the Norwegian embassy? "No," I was told.

So the question now is whether we should let the BMF attack our constitution or not - your comments would be appreciated.