Search

Africa's Public Procurement & Entrepreneurship Research Initiative – APPERI

Tag

Defence Department

Armscor “bungling” leaves soldiers without necessary equipment in the DRC


Defenceweb.com

Written by Kim Helfrich, Tuesday, 08 October 2013

Two examples of lengthy delays in awarding defence equipment contracts involving millions of Rand have, for the present, made unlikely bedfellows of Defence and Military Veterans Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and shadow defence minister David Maynier.

The projects – Swatch, for a transportable camping system, and Porthole, for a high altitude parachute system – came to light in a sworn statement presented to the North Gauteng High Court last month. This was during an application by Lieutenant General “Mojo” Motau for reinstatement as Armscor chairman. He and his deputy, Refiloe Mokoena, were dismissed with immediate effect by the Minister in August. The court ruled both had to be reinstated, which is going to be appealed, Ministerial spokesman Sonwabo Mbananga told defenceWeb.

Maynier said court papers relating to Case number 51258/2013 provided clear evidence that Armscor “bungling” compromised the SA National Defence Force’s (SANDF) operational capability in the DRC.

“Both projects were delayed, for between 32 and 36 months, at a financial cost of R44 467 000 (Swatch) and R97 000 000 (Porthole) with the funding presumably ‘warehoused’ in the Special Defence Account. The bottom line is that, because of bungling at Armscor, SANDF soldiers do not have the equipment they need to execute their mission in the DRC,” he said.

Maynier also quoted what Minister Mapisa-Nqakula said during the August 14 meeting of the Armscor board as a further example of her frustration at the procurement agency’s inability to do its job.

“The biggest challenge we have right now as we deploy in the DRC is that our soldiers do not have tents, our soldiers have no parachute equipment. I mean there is just a whole list that was given to me and as Minister I think it would be totally irresponsible if I don’t put pressure on Armscor to at least do something about it. I can’t have a situation where we deploy our soldiers in the DRC in a very problematic area without the necessary equipment,” she is reported as having said at the Armscor board meeting.

Her remarks were supported by a statement from Department of Defence chief of defence materiel, Antonie Visser. He cited Swatch and Porthole as well as Vagrant, as unclassified projects of which details could be given to the court. Visser’s statement indicates he was asked by Secretary for Defence, Dr Sam Gulube, to prepare a report on various outstanding delays regarding the acquisition of defence equipment. The projects were Blesbok, Protector, Pantile, Swatch, Teamster, Bandsman, Vagrant, Porthole and Package.

“The projects and reports are classified but I have been permitted and requested to deal with three of the most important projects mentioned by the Minister in her letters terminating the appointments of the applicants (Motau and Mokoena),” his statement reads.

Project Vagrant is for the acquisition of protection technology for SA Air Force bases and deployed elements. It was approved by the Military Command Council in November 2004.

“After completion of the Armscor process to determine a preferred bidder, the Armscor submission was submitted to the Armscor board in November 2011 for approval to continue with the contracting process. There are varying reports as to whether the submission actually served at the board of directors or not. However, no decision was made thereon,” Visser’s statement reads in part.

Project Vagrant and other projects were the subjects of a Department of Defence/Armscor work session in June this year. According to Visser “both parties agreed to disagree” and the issues would go to the Secretary for Defence and the Armscor board to seek Ministerial intervention for a mutually acceptable agreement.

Project Swatch officially started in December 2010 when a request for information was issued for the supply of a transportable camping system. Offers were received and an evaluation made after which it went to the Armscor board on three occasions without any decision being made.

The project study report for Porthole was approved in November 2010 and a request for proposals from industry went out in June 2011.

“After more delays a submission finally served at the Armscor board in February 2012. The board did not approve the bidder due to non-BBBEE compliance.”

Maynier again quotes Mapisa-Nqakula at the August Armscor board meeting adding he will be asking “hard questions about Armscor’s failure to implement defence acquisition projects, vital to the SANDF’s mission in the DRC” when the Armscor board appears before the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans this Thursday.

“The Minister’s frustration with Armscor’s bungling is evident when she states ‘millions upon millions of Rand budgeted by the Department of Defence for the acquisition of defence materiel are not spent annually, with the result that the Department will find it increasingly difficult to justify more funds being made available to it for acquisition’,” he said quoting Mapisa-Nqakula.

South Africa: DA to Submit a PMB Forcing Transparency On Arms Deals


AllAfrica.com

PRESS RELEASE

Tomorrow the Arms Procurement Commission begins public hearings into what appears to be the biggest corruption scandal in the history of South Africa.

One of the effects of the arms deal scandal was to destroy any scrutiny and oversight of future arms deals by Parliament.

Stung by the political fallout from the arms deal scandal, the Defence Department now refuses to disclose any detailed information about armaments acquisition to Parliament.

There is a complete lack of transparency on current Defence Department armaments acquisition programmes.

The fact is that we know less about arms deals now than we did a decade ago.

The Defence Department’s White Paper on National Defence for the Republic of South Africa (1996) requires the department to:

“… publish an annual Acquisition Master Plan to indicate all new acquisition projects required for political approval from the minister and to inform the Joint Standing Committee on Defence“; and

“… publish a medium-to-long-term Defence Requirements Statement to guide long-term technology and industrial planning”.

Moreover, the Defence Department’s Defence Material Division’s Policy, Process and Procedures for the Acquisition of Armaments in the Department of Defence (“DAP 1000”) is very clear about parliamentary oversight stating:

“The relevant parliamentary committee(s) on defence will have an oversight function to provide guidance to the DOD with respect to the relevant facets of its acquisition programmes. The oversight function will include guidance to the DOD with respect to timing of tenders, counter trade obligations, and acquisition prioritization. The DOD will submit bi-annual and ad hoc reports to the relevant Committee on Defence on all acquisition activities. The DOD will keep the relevant Committee on Defence abreast of developments in all its cardinal acquisition programmes, and will inform the relevant Committee on Defence at all relevant stages of such acquisition.”

However, for at least the past four years, the Defence Department has failed to produce any of these reports.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: