Tactical Software Systems (TSS) and the Department of Justice are moving ahead with the implementation of a R90 million, three-year, e-Justice tender after the case brought against them by GijimaAst was dismissed with costs in the Pretoria High Court.
GijimaAst sought the court's intervention after it felt the department had improperly awarded the contract to TSS in July last year. TSS, which owns TSS Managed Services, has been supplying the Department of Justice with month-to-month services pending the outcome of a ruling in the Pretoria High Court, as a contract between the parties was never finalised.
"We are delighted with the ruling and excited that we can now progress in delivering the level of service we intended to deliver to the [department] at the outset of the tender," says TSS Managed Services MD Jehan MacKay.
GijimaAst had also approached the court to prevent the agreement between TSS and the department from being concluded, implemented or acted upon. It also asked the court to declare that it would be unlawful for the parties to enter into a month-to-month agreement.
The ruling says GijimaAst also requested "an order interdicting and restraining the third respondent [TSS] from providing any distributed services and integral support to the first respondent [the department]".
Precarious position
Thabo Sakasa, acting manager of service provision, information and systems management at the department, told the court in documents, which are in ITWeb's possession, that it notified TSS that it was successful on 28 July 2005.
"The final agreement became available for signature by the director-general on Friday, 29 July 2005." However, the director-general indicated he would look at the agreement over the weekend.
This placed the department in a precarious position, Sakasa said, as the current service contract was due to expire on Sunday. "The department was facing a calamitous situation if it were to be left without a service provider. The main problem was that, if security systems were to be breached, the entire system would rapidly collapse."
Sakasa approached GijimaAst "to establish whether a short-term solution could be provided". The company, at that stage AST, indicated this was unlikely, but would revert with an answer. As a result, TSS was approached to provide emergency month-to-month services, which it has been doing to date.
GijimaAst FD Carlos Ferreira disputes this, saying all the company's contracts have an exit strategy in place and there was never any threat that services to the department would be suspended.
Unconvinced
The ruling says both AST and TSS had successfully tendered to be placed on the department's preferred supplier list.
Judge G Webster wrote: "It is my understanding of the facts that all the service providers who had been short-listed for the specific skills or services in the region would be invited to quote for the required service or skill."
This would then result in a service level agreement between the department, the State IT Agency and the provider, he said. However, GijimaAst did not make the second cut and, between 28 June 2005 and 15 August 2005, "unsuccessfully" sought reasons for the tender being awarded to TSS.
Webster, in his decision, found GijimaAst had not resolved whether it had a prima facie right, had not convinced the court that it would suffer irreparable harm, and the department could not be hampered by the requirement that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim interdict.
Ferreira says the company will examine the ruling before making any decision going forward and will provide further comment once this has been done. However, he did comment that it was strange that an interim interdict took a year before a decision was handed down.
Related story:
Court rules against GijimaAst
Share
