Ceres & Vanrhynsdorp Correctional Centres building delays; Closed Circuit Camera Monitoring

Meeting report

The Chairperson gave an overview of the situation with the Ceres and Vanrhynsdorp Correctional Centres. The projects were still not complete two years after the expected delivery date. He asked for a progress report, the estimated completion date and the cost implications. The same situation had occurred at the New Kimberley Correctional Centre, with related cost increases. There were similar problems at Brandvlei, with a massive cost escalation.

Ceres & Vanrhynsdorp Correctional Centres: report by Department of Public Works (DPW)
Ms Ellie van der Hoven, DPW Director Projects, Cape Town Regional Office, said the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had requested additional accommodation for administrative staff and inmates because of the congestion in prisons. As a result, DPW had registered projects at the correctional facilities at Vanrhynsdorp and Ceres. A project manager was appointed for each project to lead the professional team which comprised engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. Consultants were appointed because of the urgency of the projects. Each had its own dedicated professional team. All team members were registered with their respective professional councils.

Ms van der Hoven said that DPW had advertised the tender for the Vanrhynsdorp project on 27 July 2007. The procurement strategy included the requirements for a Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) grading of 8GB or 8CE. A minimum contract participation goal of 20% was required.

The registered quantity surveyor had estimated the project cost at R219.9 million. This estimate was based on the Kimberley prototype. An adjustment had been included in the price. The tender was awarded for R192.8 million. The current expenditure was R275.7 million. After adjustments, this amounted to a variation of R27.1 million.

Three tenders had been received by 12 September 2007. One was declared non-compliant due not meeting minimum points for quality, and one was disqualified due to not having the required CIDB grading. The tender was awarded to the bidder with the highest points. This bidder had a CIDB grading of 8GBPE, and a participation goal percentage of 47.4%. The tender was accepted by the Bid Adjudication committee, and the tender was awarded on 12 October 2007. The site was handed over to the contractor on 7 November 2007.

The actual tender cost was R192.8 million. The current expenditure was R275.7 million. This was a variance of R82,8 million (30%). The costing model had been based on historical information such as the Kimberley project, and the cost of resources. The variance had increased due to additional requests from DCS, changes to specifications and a failure to account for topography and geographical location.

The tender for the development at Ceres had been opened on 25 April 2008, with the same procurement strategy as that for Vanrhynsdorp. In most cases the same procedure was followed. The pre-tender cost estimate was R212.6 million, and the actual tender amount was R182.7 million. The variance was R29.9 million.

Seven tenders had been received by 28 May 2008. Three of these had been disqualified. The tender with the highest points value had been successful. The contractor enjoyed a CIDB grading of 8GBPE, and the participation goal percentage was 43.7%. The tender was accepted by the Bid Adjudication Committee on 11 July 2008, and the site was handed over on 5 August 2008.

The current expenditure was R193.2 million, a variance of R10.5 million (5.4%). The variance had been caused by additional work requested by DCS and a failure to account for topography and geographical location.

There was some common ground between the two projects. The contract was in the Joint Building Contracts Committee format, and followed the basis of JBCC 2000 Edition 4.1 of March 2005. Special conditions of Contract DPW 04 EC applied. Three shortcomings had been identified. Sketch plan approval was obtained before tenders were invited but user changes occurred after the tenders were issued based on the experience gained in Kimberley. Enough time had to be allocated for the planning phase of a project. Risk assessment of tenders had to be comprehensive as the CIDB grading was correct, but the contractor might have limited experience in a certain field.

Ms van der Hoven identified five challenges:
▪ The time frame between approval of sketch plans and tender documentation was often too short. There was often pressure to get on site as soon as possible. This often resulted in detailed planning having to be done during the contract. DPW proposed that realistic time frames must be set and communicated. Over-optimistic expectations should be avoided.

▪ The geotechnical survey at the beginning of the planning phase was not comprehensive enough, and sometimes failed to indicate adverse soil conditions, rock formations, high water tables and other hindrances. She proposed that DPW must ensure that a comprehensive survey was carried out and that the number of trial holes should be increased to avoid surprise results.

▪ Standard drawings and documents already in existence were not comprehensive enough. Changes had to be made in the planning phase, and in these cases the lessons learned in the Kimberley phase were incorporated into the construction phase. She proposed that DPW and DCS should work together to develop comprehensive standard drawings and specifications, with changes only needed to adapt to a specific site and its requirements.

▪ When the tenders in question had been evaluated, the method of risk assessment of contractors was restricted to the CIDB grading. Quality criteria did not cover all issues. The DPW had since introduced a risk assessment concentrating on technical and contractual ability, and there was also a commercial risk evaluation. This should be enhanced by developing functionality criteria.

▪ Contractors who met all the criteria were often over committed to too many projects. This was a difficult challenge to resolve. DPW should engage with National Treasury to ascertain if a certain contractor was too heavily committed to other projects.

Ms van der Hoven said that the Brandvlei project had been handed over to DCS in 2011. The first phase at Ceres had been handed over, but the second phase was still not complete. The contractor was subject to penalties already, but the facility could not be handed over until it was complete. The same situation was prevailing at Vanrhynsdorp, where the contractor was also incurring penalties. Cost escalation stopped at the time that the contractual completion date was reached. This date might be adjusted with the approval of the DPW.

Ceres & Vanrhynsdorp Correctional Centres: input by Department of Correctional Services
Mr Robert van Anraad, Deputy Commissioner: Facilities, DCS, wished to add some points. DCS had learned lessons. The scope should be locked down when the tender was awarded to prevent variation days and the resulting delays. Second, facilities should be totally vacated at the start of the project. Having to move inmates around in a phased development prolonged the construction period and led to escalations. Site risks should be micro managed. Soil reports should be comprehensive, considering the variations in the water table and storm water risks. The capacity of the DCS Facilities department should be increased to monitor the design and construction phases. Inexperienced contractors should not be awarded two major tenders simultaneously.

Mr van Anraad wished to develop a prototype for a facility to accommodate 3 000 inmates, which could then be adapted according to particular site factors. Prototype drawings should be developed for 500 and 1 000 bed centres, which would shorten the design and documentation period. Due to its large footprint, the DCS was more at risk of being surprised by soil conditions. A combined exercise would be needed with DPW to plan better up front.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked what the unintended consequences would be.

Mr van Anraad replied that the time to take over and occupy facilities would be shortened. The issue of overcrowding had to be dealt with on an operational basis. This risk was being managed.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said there was an improvement as the Departments gained experience. However, Vanrhynsdorp was a horror story. The cost escalation was 30% of the original contract price. He highlighted aspects raised in the July 2012 progress reports, such as a re-measurement. A revised design was needed for steel table sets. R2.8 million was needed to replace floor finishes. He asked if these extra costs arose from the Kimberley experience. The cost of a security installation, at about R35 million, should have been anticipated.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked why the survey had not been done first. The contractor at Vanrhynsdorp had built on an area where it should not have. In terms of cost analysis, DPW had reported on a failure to report on topographical and geographical situations. She asked for an explanation.

Mr Selfe asked about the effect of extreme weather on the completion of projects. This had been put forward in both these cases, but had not been put forward in the Brandvlei project.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) was encouraged to hear that DCS was prepared to amend the original plan. However, it was concerning that the DCS was changing its plans when construction was already under way.

Ms van der Hoven said that she was not quite sure what had happened about the security installation at Vanrhynsdorp. She would have to verify the reason, but thought that the original estimate of R35 million had been increased to R36 million due to a change in equipment specification. The difference was R3.3 million. The revised steel table design did come from the Kimberley experience. It was determined that the tables must be more robust. DCS was also not satisfied with the floor quality at Kimberley, and had therefore requested the change. It was a costly exercise.

The Chairperson understood that DCS might change its mind during the project. However, changing the specifications might be seen as a form of manipulation. Tenders were awarded for a particular function, but these specifications were changed once the tender was awarded. Corruption was rife in the field of tenders. It should not be so easy to make changes. He asked if there was any form of recourse for the unsuccessful bidders.

Ms van der Hoven said that all tenderers bid on the same specification. If changes were made subsequently, which often happened in the building industry, there was no impact on other bidders.

The Chairperson said that certain tenders were tailor-made for specific bidders. Changing the specification during the project could benefit bidders who were chosen on a subjective basis.

Ms van der Hoven was satisfied that there was no manipulation regarding the change of floor specification. Construction was now indoors so no further weather delays were expected.

Mr Selfe said that the prevailing weather conditions were no mystery. Any contractor who knew the area would anticipate the weather.

Ms van der Hoven said that the current form of contract did make provision for an extension in the event of extreme weather conditions. A guideline of 42 degrees had been set for the termination of work. DPW would take these issues into account when awarding the contract.

Ms van der Hoven said that a geological survey had been done. However, the test holes were too widely spread and a waterlogged, clay soil area had been missed. Trial holes should be at shorter intervals to get a better picture of conditions below the surface. Account had not been taken of different water table levels depending on the season. The remoteness of the sites from major cities had not been taken into account, and had raised the prices due to the transport logistics. The needs analysis included the area to be covered, and often stopped there. The need had not changed. What had changed was the detail, regarding finishes and other detail.

Mr Peter Chiapasco, DPW Deputy Director-General: Inner City Regeneration and Key Account Management, said that there would always be variations. What should be determined was the level to be set. DPW had to consider if the change of the floor specification was within an acceptable variance. In some cases they could not be allowed.

Mr Obed Molotsi, DPW Chief Director: Projects, said that when a tender was awarded, 5% of the contract value was allowed as a variance to address technical challenges during construction. When the client wanted to change specifications, DPW set a threshold. The National Tender Board would have to consider greater changes. The contract allowed for a change of scope within 20%, after which the tender price would have to be renegotiated. This would pose problems for the ordering Department. There were times when a new element was introduced. Three quotations would have to be provided for this, and the associated quantity surveyor would have to approve the change. When suppliers were changed there was a valid concern. In the security industry there were a limited number of players. The original bidder might be excluded in favour of an alternative supplier. It was up to the contractor to negotiate a change of supplier. Fortunately there had been no legal action in these cases.

The Chairperson said that DCS was a security area, and many products were subject to patents. If tenders were tailored for that specific company which held the patent, the tenders were being designed for specific companies. These issues should be mitigated. There had been massive escalations. The door was open for manipulation, and this could not be allowed. Government could not allow projects to be delayed by such lengthy periods, especially with the current situation of overcrowding.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked if the revised dates had been received yet, and what these were.

Mr Mnguni asked how DCS would ensure that the scope of work would not need to be changed in future.

Mr Selfe asked what was meant by the statement that ‘project costs exceeded National Treasury limits’. He asked if these experiences could be used in order to have future prisons completed on time with a minimum of variances, with all bidders having an equal chance. He hoped that the same problems would not happen again.

Ms van der Hoven said that the new completion date for Vanrhynsdorp was November 2012. DPW would meet with the contractor the following week. One of the issues was the security system which needed to have a minimum running time. Regarding the financial report, Treasury had issued a regulation in 2011. Where the original contract value was exceeded by more than 20%, it had to be reported to Treasury.

Mr van Anraad said that during the site visit at Brandvlei, there had been similar discussions on increases and time frames. When the contract price was given, one did not see the contractual escalations allowed for. Simply comparing the original to the final price skewed the picture. There had been a substantial increase in the provision for solar heating, but this would allow for future operational savings. The challenges in Kimberley had been assessed. There had been challenges in the detailed documentation. The regional offices and consultants could not be blamed for this. DSC was working hard to ensure quality control. A scoping committee had been proposed. More detail should be finalised before the commencement of the project. On contractual issues, the JBCC contract was being used. This specified a contract period. Average weather conditions were used in determining expected completion dates, and there would be delays in the event of above average rainfall. DPW processes required an additional bidding period for the changed security system. There should be no unfair limitations. The award would be on the ability to meet a specification rather than for a certain person, but he appreciated that it was possible that it might happen. DCS was working on developing its oversight capacity. At present problem areas were not being addressed fully.

Mr Chiapasco was grateful for the opportunity to interact with the Committee. The prototype was still being adapted. The design for Kimberley was applied to three other prisons. It was clear that the detailed design should be completed beforehand.

Ms Ntsiki Jolingana, DCS Chief Operating Officer, noted the comments raised. She emphasised that the new generation facilities had brought challenges, but DCS took note of these as lessons learnt on the way forward. These mistakes should not be repeated.

The Chairperson said that there had been two meetings on this matter. He did not anticipate another meeting. However, a joint report would be needed by the end of November. The issue would remain on the Committee's agenda. Members would remain vocal on this issue.

Closed Circuit Television Monitoring Proposal
The Chairperson said that the proposal to use closed circuit television (CCTV) monitoring in correctional facilities had been discussed for more than a year. The use of this technology could improve service delivery. There could be no rehabilitation in an environment where human rights were being abused. Officials had raised challenges regarding staffing, and this technology would alleviate that problem. The Committee had discussed the issue with key stakeholders. There had been challenges of constitutionality, but the risks of not installing such cameras outweighed the risks to privacy. He had not heard any complaints from inmates. While nothing was cast in stone, it would be valuable to hear the opinions of the experts.

Ms Jolingana wanted to participate in the debate on the appropriateness of using television monitoring. DCS had not brought a formal presentation to the meeting, but was ready to share opinions with Members. The Department had not conducted a feasibility study on using the technology, and so had no formal management position. Some three weeks previously the Minister had commented on the issue, and promised to make an announcement. This had not yet been forthcoming, but a desktop analysis had been done. This research was still at an early stage.

Mr Umesh Raga, Director: National Legal Services, Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), apologised for not submitting a written response.

His colleague, Mr Lennard de Souza, JICS Manager: Inspections and Investigations, said that the Inspectorate supported any measure to increase the safety of inmates and DCS staff. The feasibility study still had to be done, including the capacity of DCS staff to operate the equipment. There was no expectation of privacy, particularly in communal cells. The exception would be ablution areas, but most suicide attempts occurred in these areas and full coverage would be needed for those on suicide watch. Images should not be made public.

The Chairperson said that these opinions would be considered. A way would have to be found to engage on the issue. Members were ready to deliberate on the issue, having received input from all stakeholders. The fact-finding process was complete.

The Committee would meet the following week with DCS to consider its quarterly performance report.

The meeting was adjourned.