Facts on awarding of outdoor video display screens tender
13 February 2026
The City of Cape Town absolutely rejects spurious allegations of fraud and corruption made by an unhappy unsuccessful bidder pertaining to the tender process of outdoor video display screens. This after an appeal and oversight process had been instituted. The unsuccessful bidder had also been advised to challenge the decision in court for further public and transparent scrutiny as the City followed all due process.
‘The City recognises the importance of public confidence in supply chain management. It therefore reiterates that it applies a procurement system that is fair, transparent, competitive, and compliant, and it will continue to act decisively against any substantiated wrongdoing. However, the untested public allegations of corruption and fraud made by an unsuccessful bidder, in circumstances where the appeal and oversight processes have been engaged, are misleading and harmful to institutional integrity.
‘The tender for outdoor screens went to tender more than once. The initial tender was cancelled because no responsive/acceptable bids were received in terms of supply chain regulations and procurement law which the City upholds,’ said the City’s Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Jacoby.
The City’s tender conditions expressly allow cancellation where no acceptable tenders are received, and in such circumstances the City is entitled to re-advertise.
The tender was then readvertised. In the re-advertised tender process, bids were evaluated in accordance with the tender conditions and procurement law and only responsive tenders may be considered for award.
The City received six bids in response to the tender of which five - including the bid from the unsuccessful tenderer - the latter bidder also driving the unfounded allegation agenda against the City - were found to be non-responsive. One bid was responsive. The City’s Bid Evaluation process determined that the appellant’s bid was non-responsive in terms of clause 2.3.7.2(c) of the tender document.
The bidder driving the allegations against the City, exercised their right of appeal in terms of section 62 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (‘the Systems Act’) on 11 September 2025, based on six grounds listed therein. The appeal authority acting in terms of the power vested in section 62 of the Systems Act, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Supply Chain Management Bid Adjudication Committee. Allegations of manipulation, if supported by credible evidence, would have been referred to the City’s Forensic Services for consideration should the appeal authority have been presented with such evidence. Such evidence was, however, not apparent during the S62 Appeal process. However, it is important to note that the appropriate legal recourse available to the complainant at this stage is to approach the High Court. The unsuccessful bidder was advised of this legal remedy repeatedly.
‘The City has cooperated with all requests for information through the appropriate governance and compliance channels.
‘Due diligence forms part of the City’s standard procurement assurance processes. A due diligence instruction letter was issued to the appellant during the evaluation process, indicating that the City’s appointed service provider would conduct the due diligence assessment and that the bidder was required to cooperate.
‘As the evaluation progressed and the appellant was later found non-responsive, the City proceeded in line with standard practice to conclude evaluations and assurance checks on the remaining responsive submission.
‘The City stands by its decision and is confident in having followed all due process, transparently and in good faith,’ said Jacoby.
End
Published by:
City of Cape Town, Media Office
