Paul Janisch

What about those entities that think they might need a BEE scorecard but don't

This is a repost of one of my informative Caird Code Rules as per a reader's request.  I've added in another little feature that I've never done before - if you place your mouse on the underlined text it will show the sections in the codes that I'm referring to.

Charities and other section 21 companies that are looking for SED money

Paragraph 5 of Code 000, statement 004 states very clearly that their BEE status is not a consideration in determining whether they will be beneficiaries of SED contributions

There are some NGOs/section 21s who provide certain types of services to corporates to raise money for their core activity. Under these circumstances they become a supplier to that corporate and might be required to produce a specialised enterprises BEE scorecard (statement 004).

Entities or companies providing enterprise development services

Now this is a very common occurrence. There are many private companies providing these services, Endeavor and Raizcorp are two that I know rather well. This practice is contemplated by code 600, paragraph 3.2.5.12.  It does not appear that these companies actually need to produce a BEE scorecard to provide ED services. One of the exclusions under Code 500 (Preferential Procurement) is empowerment related procurement – more specifically (paragraph 6.5.2)

investments, loans or donations qualifying for recognition under any statement under Code series 600 or 700

This strongly suggests that that expenditure is excluded and hence a BEE scorecard is not needed.

PPPs and BEE

Public Private Partnerships are without doubt the most effective tool that the government has to achieve its Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), RDP and other empowerment related goals. Yet this method of procurement is not making the most of these opportunities. The problem seems to be that the transaction advisors that are used in the early stages of the feasibility study are not suitably aware of empowerment requirements and structures that PPPs would like to achieve in the long term. The majority of these bid documents contain antiquated empowerment requirements that might deliver a narrow type of empowerment structure that ultimately benefits very few people.

The empowerment criteria for PPPs are contained in Module 2 of the National Treasury PPP Practice Note of 2004. The practice note precedes the Department of Trade and Industry's broad-based BEE codes of good practice (COGP) by about three years but a careful reading of both the COGP and the practice note reveals that they are remarkably similar and that a standard COGP implementation will more than likely cover almost every requirement that Module 2 has laid out. Interestingly the Municipal Service Delivery and PPP Guidelines have deviated from Treasury's module 2 and incorporated the DTI's codes of good practice into its requirements – suggested perhaps that the Treasury module will follow suit in the future.

The stated empowerment objectives of PPPs include

•    Increasing levels of black ownership and management

•    Development of local skills

•    Development of supporting entrepreneurship

•    Creation of local jobs (directly and indirectly)

It is the last three objectives that tend to be ignored in most PPPs. The management and ownership requirements are pushed to the fore and more often than not benefit people who may not reside or have any roots in the area that the PPP has targeted. It may appear that empowerment has been achieved but without the required emphasis on local economic development, the local population might come out of this process completely neglected. Perhaps the best way to explain this process is to use an example of a PPP that we worked in a remote area of the Eastern Cape.

The specific project is located in an region that was a labour sourcing area during apartheid. It is still suffering from the chronic ravages of this policy and as a result has virtually no infrastructure with an economically active population that is mostly female with a high HIV infection rate. It stands to reason that any investment in this area must have some positive impact on the local community. Our job was to ensure that the empowerment requirements would continuously develop that local community.

Using both module 2 and the DTI's codes as a starting point we recognised that the construction phase was unlikely to employ any of the local population on a permanent basis so budgets that would typically be allocated under a standard BEE scorecard were re-allocated to other areas of the scorecard that would see a greater investment in the local community. We specified that the local community (i.e. people living within a 50km radius of the target area) was to be used because the DTI's BEE scorecard only speaks of black people – not local people. This means that without specifying local investment it is conceivable that a company operating in this area could be fully compliant by investing in any other area. The facilities' management scorecard built on the BEE foundations laid by the construction phase and increased the number of local people employed on a permanent basis over a ten year period. The modifications to the scorecards were within the ambit of module 2.

The single most important feature of a PPP is that the Treasury Manual insists that all empowerment requirements are made contractually binding on the winning consortium, with penalties for non-compliance. Of course this requires both the government and the private party to measure their BEE performance. If the prescribed scorecard deviates so far from a standard scorecard then there is no conventional method of measurement. Verification agencies have been mandated to measure empowerment based on either the DTI's scorecard or a sectoral charter and do not have the legal capacity to measure any other type of scorecard that deviates from these norms. This means that an additional third party has to be contracted to measure and report on this.

Public Private Partnerships are still relatively new to South Africa and their efficacy is not yet fully tested. But there is little doubt that they have incredible potential to deliver on government's empowerment measures. It is very important that these measures are carefully thought out at the early stages of any PPP because it may be very difficult to change them ten years down the line when it is realised that they are not achieving what all stakeholders hoped they would. Proper advice at the outset mitigates this risk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Janisch is the CEO of Caird Consulting – a broad-based BEE compliance consultancy. Caird has advised both the private and public sectors on PPP empowerment requirements. Janisch can be contacted on 083 227 1375 or email

2009 BEE awards

I was looking through my predictions for 2009 and have to (humbly) confess that the Nostradamus way is not my calling.

• The FSC is probably going nowhere
• A bunch of charters made section 9 gazetting
• BEE scorecards have become necessary tools in doing business but are not a competitive advantage. It seems that each industry has a certain standard and if you don't meet that standard then you are at a disadvantage
• Treasury actually published updated regulations for the PPPFA and they included scorecards
• Verification agencies were accredited and before the elections too
• Can't say whether Empowerdex lost their market share to NERA – but they do seem to have lost the empowerdex.com domain

Now onto to 2009. It was one hell of a year for BEE as a policy. This is what I think were the most significant events

• Accreditation of verification agencies

I never thought this would happen. But it did and it looks as though a few more will make the cut too. I've prepared a spreadsheet that explains how much work verification agencies have on their hands in the next few years. I was fiddling around on a VERY FAMOUS verification agency's website and they proclaimed that to date they had done about 2000 certificates since they started. I have news for you VERY FAMOUS verification agency, you are going to have to do about 6,494 (I like to keep my speculative figures precise) next year. This is about 26 per day. If you'd like to check my figures - please do.

As a little postscript I have been very hard on the old VAs (but not hard enough on ABVAngelis) – I have just completed a list of procedures for a VA hoping to get through SANAS. This is a lot of work and a very expensive process. I expect I'll be doing a lot more of that next year.

• Rob Davies taking over the trade and industry ministry

This was a weird one. It seemed that Rob wasn't that interested in BEE and that he inherited a mess from Mandisi. I stand by what I have said about Rob, I think he's pushing for compliance over transformation, hoping that compliance will lead to transformation.

• Section 9 Charters

There were a bunch. Some gazetted by Mandisi and others by Rob.

• New PPPFA regulations

A bold move, even if they are in draft form. I'm not going to speculate as to when the final document gets published.

• NABC starts making a noise

The National Association of BEE Consultants. This is a total waste of time. As much as I dislike ABVA, at least they are organised. The NABC has no common agenda and lacks unified leadership. I cannot see how they are going to add any value to anything ever (oops there I go wearing my Nostradamus hat again)

• BEE advisory council

Good move Zumachine Gun. Let's see what they do in 2010.

• Expected demise of the FSC

The FSC seems to be dead in the water (on this subject the drafter of the new FSC annual report pinched almost everyone of my ideas from last year – don't they say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. It would have been nice to see a document that stuck to the actual tender requirements).

Good luck for 2010 – I am hoping to fulfil the Charlie Christian mantra throughout the year with each client (it is said that Charlie would play guitar if he got all three, but he was known to settle for two out of three)

1. Learn something new
2. Get paid
3. Have fun

And on the subject of fun – can anyone spell AC/DC.

Feel free to add your highlights in the comments section.

Caird Code Rule #1 – Is BEE applicable to you

A while ago I was doing a presentation to the American Chamber of Commerce on Equity Equivalents. One of the delegates was an apparel manufacturer who asked my why his company should consider the programme I was proposing. I was a little surprised that such a company would even consider equity equivalents as an option. Why would they need to, they sell takkies, T shirts and caps. Every single one of their products are sold to a consumer who is very unlikely to use BEE status in their decision to buy their product. Edgars etc might ask them for their BEE status but I have my gravest doubts that they will not stock those products in their stores because that company does not comply with their BEE wishes. And it is also unlikely that Edgars will incentivise their sales staff to push a local product over the imported one. Can you imagine the conversation

Consumer: I'd like to try on these Adidas shoes.

Sales assistant: Please sir would you consider these Dlaminis. They are locally manufactured and Edgars will get more BEE points if we sell these.

Consumer: No I will not you horrid sales assistant you. I'm off to Sportsman's Warehouse.

This fictitious interaction exposes the deepest flaw in the implementation of BEE viz if the average joe is the end user then BEE is not going to be very important. This means that BEE can really only be applicable when the consumer is some sort of a corporate or government entity.

The general rule here is that if your business caters for consumers then it is unlikely that BEE will ever affect you. This would include restaurants (that don't serve alcohol), shoe shops, clothes shops, plumbers, electricians, pool companies, record shops, news agents, retail jewellers. As with any rule there are exceptions.

1. Any restaurant, hotel, pub or anything that serves alcohol requires a liquor licence. And those licenses are handed out by the DTI. And the DTI asks a bunch of BEE questions in allocating these licenses. I have written countless BEE plans for liquors wholesalers and retailers that have to be submitted with each renewal.
2. Shops looking to rent in malls that are owned by parastatals like Transnet or Eskom. I have heard that your BEE status is important to these types. ACSA is another example – the annual tender for renewals for shops in the airports require BEE credentials. I don't know who drafted those BEE questionnaires but they are so badly written they are an embarrassment (mind you so is ACSA). I haven't come across private property owners asking for BEE credentials.
3. Manufacturing jewellers have to comply with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002, (MPRDA). The requirements for this are exactly the same as those for a mining licence. I won't comment on this right now but suffice to say – this abomination requires its own future post.
4. Anything that can be used under section 10 of the BEE Act. I haven't really seen this being used, although I have worked on PPPs where the legal advisors have anticipated it in the PPP agreement. The DTI has taken a cautious path when it comes to section 10 because I believe that they recognise that over-regulation will stifle the development of the South African economy (as if we aren't over-regulated already). Technically speaking they could shove section 10 in the way of almost everything to achieve the BEE Act's transformation goals.

What about those entities that think they might need a BEE scorecard but don't

Charities and other section 21 companies that are looking for SED money

Paragraph 5 of Code 000, statement 004 states very clearly that their BEE status is not a consideration in determining whether they will be beneficiaries of SED contributions

The status of Socio-Economic Development Contributions made to any of the types of entities in paragraphs 1 and 2 under Code series 700 is not dependent on such entity's scorecard result, but rather the nature of the contribution itself and the identity of that contribution's beneficiaries.

There are some NGOs/section 21s who provide certain types of services to corporates to raise money for their core activity. Under these circumstances they become a supplier to that corporate and might be required to produce a specialised enterprises BEE scorecard (statement 004).

Entities or companies providing enterprise development services

Now this is a very common occurrence. There are many private companies providing these services, Endeavor, Raizcorp and ED Alliances are three that I know rather well. This practice is contemplated by code 600, paragraph 3.2.5.12

payments made by the Measured Entity to third parties to perform enterprise development on the Measured Entity's behalf

However it does not appear that these companies actually need to produce a BEE scorecard to provide ED services. One of the exclusions under Code 500 (Preferential Procurement) is empowerment related procurement – more specifically (paragraph 6.5.2)

investments, loans or donations qualifying for recognition under any statement under Code series 600 or 700

This means that the expenditure is excluded and hence a BEE scorecard is not needed.

Jacob Zuma on plans for economic transformation

Zuma's ANC letter beautifully precised by Moneyweb as "ANC president responds to the concerns raised by the BMF over Eskom and other SOE's". 

A few features/quotes

• One of the key focus areas of the ANC government is economic transformation.
• We emphasise that the creation of decent work will be at the centre of our economic policies and will influence our investment attraction and job-creation initiatives.

To achieve this, we said we would utilise state levers such as procurement, licensing and financial support to assist small and medium enterprises as well as to promote the implementation of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) and affirmative action policies. These policies must not just benefit a few but should be extended to a broad section, especially the workers, youth, women and people with disabilities.

(You know where licensing comes in - good old section 10)

And then a reference to the BMF (who now deny that they ever suggested Bobby is racist, but they want the board to resign).  And now for a post within a post.  This is from November the 9th (Business Report) in which they called for the resignation of the board and threw in a few choice epithets.

Mnyaka said the problems at the power utility stemmed from an ideological disconnection between the strategic imperatives of the ANC government and the board led by its chairman Bobby Godsell, as well as lack of clarity between his and Maroga's role. She added that Maroga was a victim of "anti-transformation people with a racist agenda" at the electricity parastatal.

'nuff sed about that.  Back to Zumachine Gun

• Our meetings with black business sensitised us to some actions of government which serve to hamper the development of small entrepreneurs. One of these is the delays in paying small businesses.
  
  During the election campaign we said we would change the way in which government works, and that we would ensure faster delivery. Treasury Regulations on the approval of expenditure in government states that unless determined otherwise in a contract or other agreement, all payments due to creditors must be settled within 30 days from receipt of an invoice or, in the case of civil claims, from the date of settlement or court judgment.
  
  We have instructed all government departments to comply with this regulation without delay.
• To further streamline our transformation work, we are currently in the process of appointing a BBBEE Advisory Council which in terms of the BBBEE Act will be chaired by the President of the Republic. This process should be completed in a few weeks’ time. The Council’s responsibility will be among others to advise government on black economic empowerment, monitor implementation and review progress in achieving black economic empowerment.

That's about it.  You can read the whole thing here.

Pravin and the PPPFA (not quite Peter and the Wolf, but there is a jungle element in it somewhere)

This is a repost - I messed around with the blog and lost the post.  Sorry Mike - I've also lost your comments.

 

 

In municipalities and government agencies, similarly, spending on unnecessary travel and entertainment, unfocused consultant contracts, procurement supplies at uncompetitive prices and layers of administrative paperwork that interfere with getting the job done, will be cut.

Pravin Gordhan - Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (27 October 2009)

 

This quote comes from the Weekender’s Thought of the Week.  Our new Trevor (the real one was seen by me with Maria shopping for veggies at Woollies in Hyde Park on Saturday) has impressed me no end.  I think there is a wealth of information contained in this quote.  I suppose being a consultant who does a fair amount of work with the public sector I should be concerned, but that isn’t the phrase that interests me.  Take a look at “procurement supplies at uncompetitive prices”.  This simple phrase effectively affirms Treasury’s view on the PPPFA and the preference points’ ratio.  In the space of a few words Pravin has shot down guru jungle and other lobbyists who chant an “empowerment at all costs” mantra.  So much for sir jungle of jim proclaiming that the PPPFA should be scrapped altogether or insisting on a 60:40 regime.

Which brings me to what I really want to write about – the PPPFA.  I’ll consider it my public sector, public service duty to list a few little known facts about this mysterious act.  The PPPFA is just another one of those pieces of legislation that is badly understood and very poorly implemented.  And it is remarkably short too. 

Here are a few observations.

1)    It is applicable to those entities contained in schedules 2 and 3 of the PFMA and those contained in the MFMA (I have put up this list on the Caird website). You will notice that certain SOEs contained in schedule 2 do not use the PPPFA at all – Eskom, Telkom, ACSA (who the hell advised these guys – it is the biggest mess I have ever seen) etc.  It could be that they are not subject to the PFMA and have not been removed from the list or that they don’t know.  You will know pretty quickly if the PPPFA is at play because it will present you with a fifth hand photocopy telling you what preference points are expected for that bid.

2)    It is not a filtering tool for government procurement.  In other words if a bidder does not get a single preference point they cannot then get excluded from the entire bid process (bid is the correct word by the way).  The rules state that the preference points section and the tender section need to be evaluated separately and then the points are added together and the bidder with the highest number of points should win.  (This doesn’t apply to PPPs at the RFQ stage – as a general rule certain empowerment criteria must be met in order for a bidder to be considered for the RFP phase)

3)    The state does not need to use the PPPFA for every bid.  This would add unnecessary administrative paperwork (another of Pravin’s bugbears) in the case of goods and services that can only be procured from outside the country.  Section 3 of the act states

3. Exemption.-The Minister may, on request, exempt an organ of state from any or all the provisions of this Act

(a) is in the interests of national security;

(b) the likely tenderers are international suppliers; or

(c) it is in the public interest.

4)    As a general rule the PPPFA kicks in from contracts worth R200k. Below this figure three written quotes will suffice (actually above R30k). However I have heard that this is not a hard and fast rule – a figure of up to R500k can be contemplated before the PPPFA is used. 

I’ll dig up more information and post it up here.  My next instalment is a little discourse on King III and BEE.

PPPFA regulations and irregular fonts

I tweeted that the DTI and Treasury had just released the new PPPFA regulations for comment.  We  have until the 14^th of September, 2009 to send our comments to either JAN Breytenbach or HML Malinga.  I suppose this post could be regarded as my opinion.  If you want jungle’s opinion you’ll find it here.  I especially love his recommendation for a 60:40 system.  He must have been advised by the person (and I know who she is) who drafted the GPG’s procurement policy all those years ago.

I was expecting a lot more from this document.  The hype that has surrounded it over the last five years has set it up to be something a lot grander than it actually is – all it really is, is an endorsement of BEE scorecards.  A rather safe compromise that may shed a fair amount of light on the dti’s attitude to BEE, which is more orientated towards compliance than actual transformation.

The most significant features

• 80:20 rule is extended to all contracts below R1million
• 90:10 for contracts above R1million
• Preference points are awarded on the basis of BEE score – with different sliding scales for 90:10 and 80:20 rules
• Historically Disadvantaged Individual (HDI) status and RDP goals are no longer used in determining preference points
• (And I quote paragraph 13) Bidders SHOULD NOT be disqualified or regarded as non-responsive for being a non-compliant B-BBEE contributor.  Under such circumstances bidders will score no points for their B-BBEE status
• Treasury wants BEE scorecards and only those issued by SANAS agencies (you know that drivel)
• Paragraph 11(1) provides for local manufacturing – for specific industries (identified by the DTI) where the award of bids to local manufacturers are of critical importance, such bids may be advertised with a specific bidding condition that only local manufacturing products will be considered.  (Keywords to consider here – blackwashing, code series 1200 and the man from WKRP)
• The regulations state (strangely because the codes don’t) any certificate substantiating the B-BBEE status level of a bidder must be based on the findings of the previous year’s financial statements of the relevant enterprise.
• You’ll still need a tax clearance certificate to do business with the government.

What I think

1. A scorecard is going to become the thing you need to do business.  But that’s all you’ll need.  Black ownership is no longer relevant unless it actually contributes significantly to the scorecard, and we all know that QSEs can rustle up 100 points without any ownership.
2. At best, the state will be able to measure their procurement.  They will not be able to target certain types of businesses – this goes back to section 217 and practice note SCM 2 of 2006 (prohibition of set asides).
3. The rigid nature of allocating preference points is going to have a negative impact on the people they are intended to benefit.  By insisting on an accredited BEE scorecard they will end up prejudicing all those entities that cannot get a scorecard done because there aren’t enough verification agencies or because an agency doesn’t service their area.  The press is going to have a field day with this when that poor black person in Polokwane gets 80 points for price and functionality and no preference points – and the white-owned business gets a total of 82 points because they got seven preference points.

The solution

Judging by Rob’s reluctance to insist on only accredited verification agencies we can assume that he doesn’t believe in them or that there aren't enough to cater for the demand.  This means that the two systems need to run in conjunction until scorecards become more prevalent.  Maybe the 2001 regulations should be used for the 80:20 system exclusively and both for the 90:10 rule. 

Broad-based BEE scorecards are extensively used in Public Private Partnerships – so there is some conditioning in certain government departments.

(t)roshcan I mean, (t)rashcon actually what I really mean is Roshconfused

My mood is often dictated by the performance of the Proteas.  I am pleased to announce that I am in a vilely foul mood.  Ponting declared at tea time on day 3 leaving our esteemed team to either bat for almost two days or hit five hundred and something runs in that time.  Brilliant captaincy from the Australian - now with Smith out of the game with a wounded finger, can the remaining 10 batsmen pull it together to force a draw.  I watch the live scorecard on Cricinfo.com anxiously.  Luckily for my mood I managed to find a streamed recording of one of the last gigs Peter Green ever played with Fleetwood Mac.  If I ignore the tragedy that is Green and revel in the music, my pissed-offness diminishes.

My last post had a sort of postscript where I mentioned something about an alleged Sun International procurement practice.  I received a very friendly call from Sun International asking me where I heard about this - they maintain that it isn't the case.  I told the guy to send me an email clarifying it and I'd post it up here.

Seeing that this blog does have the potential to shake things up a bit I thought I'd have a little go at a BEE declaration form that was sent out by Roshcon.  I tried to find it on their website and to be fair to them the one tender I did find had this written about BEE

Roshcon has implemented a program of economic empowerment in its procurement strategies. In this regard, service providers are required to indicate their involvement, current and planned, with black business and professionals.  This will form an important part of the evaluation criteria to be used.  If your company is BEE compliant, please provide us with a rating certificate, or any other supporting documents as per score cards requirements (sic).

You can read this in numerous ways - but you must remember that Roshcon belongs to Eskom and it is breath of extremely fresh air to see them ask this question.  By the way, a strong rumour suggests that Eskadaat 6 is going to be phased out by May this year.

The second page of this document then contains a BEE Declaration Form and this is where it gets very exciting.  It definitely belongs to Roshcon because that word is mentioned twice on the page. 

Let us start on paragraph 2.1.2 and I quote

(Company name) is/is not a Black Economic Empowered Supplier as defined by the Affirmative Procurement Act and as per the DTI Codes of Good Practice

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT SENTENCE MEAN?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Firstly - what is the Affirmative Procurement Act?  I think we all know that they actually mean the PPPFA, even though nowhere in that act do they refer to the terms Affirmative Procurement Act.  If you want to split hairs  - the word "affirmative" doesn't even appear in the act at all. It seems that this is a relatively common mistake - even that esteemed seat of learning, UKZN missed the bus on this one.  This is plain inexcusable.

AND THEN IF THEY HAVEN'T CAUSED ENOUGH CONFUSION

 They then suggest that the "Affirmative Procurement Act" and the DTI Codes of Good Practice have the same definition.  I'm bowled over!   Surely it can't be that they haven't read any of the acts/regulations/codes?  I was fortunate to meet with Lourens Mare of the Jewellery Council the other day and he gave me this document from the DTI which shows the difference in definitions.  Topically enough, our man jungle has got himself an new acronym and is going to go to JZ to get him to align the PPPFA and B-BBEE Act - I'd love to post the link but the Times website is kaput.

And now onto paragraph 2.1.4

(Company name) shall continue to be a black supplier and or/Historically Disadvantaged South African Company, for the duration of this contract  with Roshcon

This is not so difficult to understand if you read the English.  But is this what they mean? We all know that HDSA as defined by the PPPFA includes white women.  I was flummoxed at this one - I didn't know what to advise the client that sent me this form.  They are a white-woman owned company but if this is disclosed after the contract is signed will they be disqualified because they aren't black?

Then it really gets confusing - paragraph 3.

Should (company name) for any reason cease to be a Black Economic Empowered company as per the DTI codes, after being awarded a contract, ROSHCON shall in its sole discretion be entitled to .......... sue for damages, or cancel the contract

What are we talking about here?  Paragraph 2.1.3 clearly states that "BEE owned status is determined by, amongst other (sic) by the following elements" and then it lists a series of elements, some of which look like they belong in the codes, the rest are derived from anecdotal references to empowerment. 
That being noted can we be sure that a BEE companyis a broad-based scorecard-bearing thingamajig or a black-owned company?

I'm confused by this declaration form and this is my business.

Again - I throw it out to anyone.  Can you help us with this?  Or is this an old document that should not have been attached to the tender?  Either way it has to go.

Empowerdex/FM top empowerment companies

It's annual empowerment feature time.  The April 4 (2008) issue of the FM had a special empowerment supplement.   A JV between the FM and Empowerdex, the supplement stands out as the best one so far.  The cynic in me is desperately trying to find fault with this issue - but I can only find small typo and editing problems that aren't worth mentioning.  The full list of the top 188 companies is here.

I should mention however that much of this information is NOT verified.  A source told me that they had been interviewed over the phone and submitted what they believed they had achieved.  Effectively a self-rating.  (The methodology is discussed in the introduction).
I am going to use these scores in my own assessments with my clients, as will many other verification agencies.  So we have a self-assessment endorsement from the great protagonist of  independent verification.

Brian Leroni asked me what the average score was in the top 50.  It is 64.1.  This does seem quite high but perhaps the larger the company the easier it is to achieve these targets.  I wonder what jungle jim would have to say about this.  Amongst his many (often amusing but always infuriating) utterances is that the targets of the FSC are too lenient.  Is he going comment in a similar vein?

On the subject of jungle.  I presented at a conference recently and got there early because he was speaking.  I was singularly unimpressed.   He spoke to the audience as if there were no white people present and rambled on about how black people should pronounce their names correctly.  But he did say a few things that concerned me greatly.

1. We should get rid of the PPPFA.  In order to do this you would have to change the constitution.  A singularly dof idea - see Bright below.
2. He and the department of labour have decided that all QSE's must include EE in their scorecards.  He maintains that the scorecard will be rejected if it is not included.  I wonder how he is going to do this.  The labour department has yet to go to court over their Comair allegations and they had such a watertight case too.  I have added Comair to my Google alerts and nothing has come up. 

It is this lack of consideration for law that makes things very difficult for me.  If a law is passed then you are expected to live by it.  A person who declares that certain laws or conventions just be scrapped without any consideration for the constitution should be censured. 
A fantastic example is that of our northern neighbours.  I have been watching this very closely because I believe that once Bob and his cronies are removed Zim has the most amazing potential.

I was listening to Redi Direko interviewing Bright Matonga (ZANU-PF propagandist).  I have heard some nitwits in my life, but never anything that compares to this one.  He is often compared to Comical Ali (that Iraqi Information Minister who maintained that Baghdad was not under threat) because he continues to preach the ZANU-PF message of provocation etc.  There are so many absurd comments coming out of his mouth (you don't have to coax them out of him but you do have to ask him to shut up between sentences because you might die laughing) but the best one is the threat of white farmers coming to invade their land.  I haven't seen any pictures of a bunch of white farmers astride their wheat threshers and Massey-Fergusons on the Zambian border waiting to invade.

Oh - Bright (can't imagine why he was called that) has a farm too.  He took it from a family called Schulz in 2002.  What makes this story more bizarre is that Bright married a white English woman called Anne who apparently accused the Schulz family of stealing her land.  You can read the ridiculous story here.

I wouldn't like to be in Bright's shoes (ever really) when Mugabe and co lose power.  Because I have my doubts whether he will find Zimbabwe a hospitable place at that point.  I just hope that our government doesn't offer him or any of the other ZANU hoodlums asylum here.

The corporate way

Government procurement is a complex beast - full of regulations and accountabilities and the like.  Private procurement is different.  This tender notice is in this morning's Business Day (page 13).

GijimaAST is looking for a courier company. The tender conditions are very different to the PPPFA.  And I quote:

GijimaAST does reserve the following rights without prejudice:

• The right to change the RFP scope and or requirement;
• The right not to make any award based upon any submission;
• The right to withdraw this RFP at any point and at any time;
• The right not to award the RFP to the lowest priced submission;
• The right to award the RFP without having to furnish any reasons of any kind to any party; (an application of "the judges' decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into" - my emphasis)
• The right to disqualify late or incomplete, or unduly authorised submissions, or submissions not meeting the RFP stipulated criteria.
• The right to reject or disqualify any submission in the event of any direct contact with GijimaAST or its staff in order to potentially gain an unfair advantage.  Contact may only be made in line with the directives contained in the RFP (similar to competition entry forms "competition not open to staff members and their immediate families")

There is no legislated recourse for jilted tenderers in private tenders - I'm sure there might be civil remedies available.

If you are considering going to tender - it would be a good idea to incorporate these into the tender.