Minister and Department of Public Works briefing on Accessibility Programme, artisans & engineers recall, EPWP & incentive grant

Public Works and Infrastructure

03 June 2013
Chairperson: Ms M Mabuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Public Works (DPW), in the presence of the Deputy Minister, made three separate presentations to the Portfolio Committee. The first presentation, relating to the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), set out the efforts by the DPW to help municipalities to participate and access the incentive grant. The EPWP was aiming to implement public works projects using intensive labour, and create job opportunities and upskill people. It had originally been run as a Schedule 8 project, but because of low uptake it was decided to change it to a Schedule 6 to enable municipalities to access the grant on the basis of their achievements. They would receive 40% of project funding up front, with two further 30% tranches depending on how they performed and reported. Technical support of various kinds was offered to municipalities, including assistance with documentation. The EPWP projects were now being run in the infrastructure, environmental, culture and social service sectors and some of the projects were described, noting that 887 were current. Roadshows were held, and project visits were conducted to monitor EPWP compliance. There were now 274 municipalities accessing the grant. Members asked whether there was proper monitoring on compliance, as the situation on the ground showed some disparities from what was described in the presentation. The DPW was asked, in particular, how it monitored that labour-intensive methods were used, and how a balance was struck between creating job opportunities, and ensuring faster service delivery. They questioned what projects were running in the social sector, asked about lack of uniformity around wages, wondered if it would not make sense to try to correlate all similar projects being offered by other departments, and asked how poor planning and reporting was being addressed. They were critical of the fact that the 2% employment of disabled people targets were not met, although the Chairperson pointed out that many disabled people would not sign up for fear that they may lose their disability pensions, and urged the DPW to educate the disabled organisations that they would not, and urge involvement. Members also expressed concerns about ongoing corruption and said there seemed to be a problem in poor quality of road maintenance, and asked what DPW did to attend to certain issues, and how it was working with other departments. The Deputy Minister stressed that the questions raised important points, but that the DPW had been asked to confine its presentation to other specific issues. It was resolved that full written answers would be submitted to outstanding questions.

The second presentation outlined the DPW work to ensure accessibility of government buildings to the disabled. Upgrades were needed to old buildings, as new ones were built to be compliant, and the extent of the upgrades was detailed. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was itself attending to making all court buildings accessible. 451 projects were planned and 275 had been completed. 46 were cancelled, because they were only at planning stages by the time that a decision was taken to attend to more substantial renovations and the accessibility would be addressed then as part of the renovation projects. R120 million was made available, of which 44% was spent. DPW served on teams with other departments to ensure coordinated and integrated approaches. Whilst there were constraints, it was attending now to closer monitoring and making the necessary interventions. DPW was also attending to the Immovable Asset Register Verification, which would identify the needs. Some Members were critical of this presentation, saying that it seemed that DPW was not serious enough about the matter, as evidenced by poor progress to date. However, others were appreciative of the steps taken so far, but questioned how different sets of contractors could be appointed at the same time, and what the costs were, and whether consultants were necessary. They were also concerned that although the full budget appeared to have been spent the projects were not completed. DPW conceded that there was a backlog, and DPW was concentrating only on clearing that in the current year.  of consultants. She asked if any special skills were needed to verify accessible buildings that would warrant the appointment of consultants. They asked for a report on the non-functioning lifts in Parliament, and asked for quarterly updates.

The third report was in relation to the DPW initiatives to recall retired engineers, and the later turnaround strategy that further advertised for other specific-skill artisans and professionals. These initiatives were taken after it became clear that there was impaired technical capacity in the state, to execute the mandate of DPW. 219 posts were originally identified, but these were not funded. Initial funding was secured to fill 88 posts. There were 66 applications to the initial call, and 23 applications came from registered engineers. A later advert to recall retired construction project managers brought in another 64 applications, of which 20 related to specific disciplines. An in-sourcing programme was also being run to start the capacitation process, and these people were placed to deal with the priority clients’ projects. Other professional staff presently serving contracts for the Human Capital Investment Programme and Water Services had been retained. Members commended the strategy, asked for clarification on the numbers and funding, and asked about the age categories and when the decision was taken to include other non-employed professionals. They asked if those whose contracts would soon expire would be taken on, and how many of the posts were permanent. Again, the Chairperson requested quarterly reports.

Other issues were raised by Members, outlining their concerns with firms that were supposed to be assisting in the disability upgrades, which included exorbitant fees, and lack of performance against specifications. The DPW was also asked to investigate certain issues at Robben Island and to report back. 

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson commended the Committee on the successful debate on the budget vote, which she said was no doubt due to the unity that Committee Members showed, and their common aim.

She noted that there was a new Committee Member present, and asked him to introduce himself.

Mr Japie Van Der Linde (DA) introduced himself and said he was replacing Mr M Swathe (DA), who had been reassigned to another Portfolio Committee.

Mr Swathe thanked the Committee for its support and the opportunity to serve on this Committee over several months, and noted that he would be moving to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform. 

The Chairperson thanked and expressed appreciation to Mr Swathe for his immense contribution and cooperation.

Mr Jeremy Cronin, Deputy Minister of Public Transport, also said that he had worked with Mr Swathe for several years and supported the Chairperson’s remarks. He quipped that Mr Swathe had been “constructively oppositional when necessary”, but had provided sound contributions.

Department of Public Works briefings
Mr Mziwonke Dlabantu, Director General, Department of Public Works, noted that three officials from the Department of Public Works (DPW or the Department) would give the different sections of the presentation.

Progress made by the Department of Public Works in assisting the Low Capacity Municipalities to participate in the EPWP and to Access the Incentive Grant
Mr Stanley Henderson, Deputy Director General, Department of Public Works, noted that the essential elements of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) were that this programme was set up so that municipalities would implement public works operations, with technical support provided by the DPW. The projects should be implemented using labour-intensive methods, so as to create more opportunities for work. He reminded Members that, in order to accelerate the creation of work opportunities by municipalities, an incentive grant was introduced in the 2009/10 financial year, as part of EPWP Phase II. However, with effect from 1 April 2012, this incentive grant was changed from a Schedule 8 grant, that was performance-based, to a Schedule 6 grant, which was a mixture of planning and performance based grant.

He provided an insight into the kinds of technical support given to the municipalities by the DPW. Once projects had been commissioned, it was difficult to change them, and so it was very important to provide the right kind of technical support. The DPW would thus provide assistance in the identification of suitable projects for EPWP, job creation targets for projects, design and contract documentation, and identification of training needs. Furthermore, assistance was also provided with procurement processes, alignment of the contract document to EPWP, providing an enabling environment for EPWP through advice on contractor development and suitable wage rates, monitoring and reporting of EPWP projects, and mainstreaming EPWP in municipalities by giving assistance in developing EPWP policies.  

Prior to 1 April 2013, priority was placed on the Infrastructure and Environment and Culture sectors, but the scope of the EPWP projects had now been broadened to include the social sector. Projects implemented under the Infrastructure Sector included building and road maintenance, construction of low traffic volume roads, basic services, including water and sewage reticulation, sanitation, and pipelines (excluding bulk infrastructure). Projects implemented under the Environment and Culture Sector included tourism and cultural projects, waste management, parks and beautification, and implementation on sustainable land-based livelihoods. Projects implemented under the Social Sector included programmes in social services, health services, and community safety.

Mr Henderson added that Reorientation Workshops on the labour-intensive measures were held. Roadshows on the Integrated Grant were held in all provinces, and project visits were conducted to monitor EPWP compliance. Additional technical capacity was also appointed to support municipalities. All of these would ensure that low capacity municipalities could access the incentive grant. A total of 887 projects being implemented were visited across the provinces, with 526 projects being in the Infrastructure, and 361 in the Environment & Culture sectors. He tabled (see attached document) a list of where those projects were situated.

Mr Henderson reported that the number of municipalities accessing the EPWP Integrated grant had increased from 246 municipalities, in the 2012/13 financial year, to 274 municipalities in the 2013/14 financial year. The Incentive Grant was disbursed to all eligible municipalities in the 2012/13 financial year, with details shown.

Mr Henderson then outlined some of the proposals for the future operation of this grant.  Labour-intensive re-orientation workshops, targeting municipalities, would be held in all provinces in the 2013/14 financial year. Continued technical support would be provided to municipalities in order to improve the implementation of EPWP. Integrated grant workshops would be held to ensure that municipalities were well aware of the conditions of EPWP Integrated grant. Additional capacity would be appointed to support municipalities in the Eastern Cape, Free State and the Western Cape.

Discussion
The Chairperson drew attention to the situation in Limpopo, where it was discovered that people were not adequately trained on waste management, and that some had to pick up waste without wearing gloves. This was in contradiction to what the presentation stated, namely that officials from municipalities were trained on design, implementation and reporting.

The Chairperson asked what brand colour was used by EPWP, noting that although it had initially been yellow, green overalls appeared to be worn.

The Chairperson asked how one service provider could be providing service for three provinces.

Mr M Swathe (DA) asked what steps had been taken by DPW when it was discovered that the labour-intensive project requirements were not being observed in most areas, in the projects.

Mr Swathe noted that all provinces had received visits, but wanted to know how the information received by municipalities differed.

Mr Swathe wanted to know what would be done if it was discovered that the service providers were not paying the EPWP workers on time.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked how far the Department had gone with assisting in mainstreaming EPWP in municipalities.

Mr Sithole asked, in regard to the eligibility requirements, whether during the roadshows any mechanisms were formulated to emphasise these requirements.

Mr Sithole asked within what time frame another firm would be appointed to complement the officials in Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Free State.

Ms N Madlala (ANC) pointed out that no project was visited in the social sector, despite the fact that it was noted as being included in the EPWP’s funded projects. She also wanted to know the relationship with other departments like Arts and Culture, Environment or Health.

Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC) commended the presentation but desired more information about data capturing. She also needed clarity on the lack of uniformity in the EPWP wage.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked if there was any plan, on the ground, to implement the orientation workshops in other provinces, noting that only four provinces had been covered. She also asked the criteria used for EPWP allocation of funds to the provinces. Furthermore, she asked what interventions had been introduced to counter the poor planning and poor reporting which was previously identified in the provinces, and whether the DPW was assisting the municipalities that were unable to plan or report on time.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked to what extent the resolutions from the EPWP Summit had been implemented by the Department.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila sought clarity why only 274 municipalities were accessing the grant, instead of 278.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked for the names, and the cost of the two new firms that had been appointed.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila noted that during oversight visits by the Committee, lack of compliance was observed, especially with regards to transfer of skills. She urged that this should never be compromised and the DPW must ensure full compliance.

Ms C Madlopha (ANC) appreciated the presentation. She asked how the DPW would ensure that the alternative methods used, in social infrastructure, to fast-track service delivery did not hinder the labour-intensive plans of EPWP. She asked also how the EPWP would balance the need to fast-track delivery, and to create jobs, according to the minimum standard of working for a minimum of 100 days. She also asked what jobs had actually been created by the DPW, and whether, for instance, a job that lasted for two or four weeks would be considered as “a job created”.

Ms Madlopha noted that the 2% target for employment of people with disabilities had not been reached,  and she wondered if the Department had looked into the social development policy, so as to combat the challenge

Ms Madlopha said the forecasts for technical support were commendable, but it was not clear whether these figures were ongoing, or how far they went to the future.

Ms Madlopha asked for further explanation on what was meant by “contractor development” and “suitable wage rate”.

Ms Madlopha asked why only 70% of municipalities were covered during the site visit to KwaZulu-Natal, and wondered if this had to do with the sheer size of the province. She asked if DPW would deploy someone to the municipalities to assist with the issue of procurement, or whether, based on the training conducted in the municipalities, it was believed that municipalities were now empowered to make such specified procurements.

Mr N Magubane (ANC) expressed concerns on the inadequate and defective monitoring of EPWP projects, and particularly emphasised the ongoing issues of corruption. He asked how qualified the contractors were that were given tenders on road maintenance, pointing out that roads claimed to have been repaired still had obvious potholes. He also asked why were low traffic volume roads not being constructed in the rural areas, and what was planned by EPWP for bringing water in the rural areas, particularly citing areas where the land was dry, with lack of water, no toilets and broken reservoirs, which allowed for government property to become further vandalised.

Mr J van der Linde (DA) asked whether there was a correlation between the different projects of the different departments, and if, for instance, there was any one database that showed who was involved with EPWP, or the National Rural Youth Employment (NARYSEC) offered by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, or any other programme. He asked if the workers were employed on a rotational basis or were they the same people for each project, and also needed to know if the funding channels for EPWP were via the municipalities only, or other sources. He asked if it was possible for government to streamline the various programmes, so that they would be overseen by different bodies. He also asked the wage rates were uniform across the country, and if there was any distinction between rural and urban areas.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) remarked that it had been observed that stipends paid were not uniform, and that the urban workers were paid more than the rural workers. She wanted to know why.

Mr L Gaehler (UDM) commended the presentation, which had clarified many issues causing concerns in the past. However, he needed to know more about the assistance given to municipalities on the “contract document” and ensuring compliance with EPWP principles.

Mr Gaehler, referring also to previous concerns, said that prices obviously differed from one place to another and asked what system would be used to control the price fixing issues.

Mr Gaehler enquired about the involvement of the Department of Agriculture with EPWP.

Mr Gaehler asked for clarification n the development of Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) and the skills transfer.

Mr Gaehler also wanted to know what specific steps were being taken to repair potholes, pointing out that reports on paper sometimes differed substantially from what was seen on the ground.

Deputy Minister Mr Cronin noted that several very relevant and important issues had been raised. However, the brief to Mr Henderson had been quite specific as the DPW was asked to address the progress made in assisting the low capacity municipalities to participate in the EPWP programme, and to access the incentive grant. One encouraging point that the report had raised was that the grant could be accessed by the municipalities, provided that they presented a relatively implementable plan, and showed progress as the financial year proceeded. However, other issues should be evaluated, such as what would be the baseline measures, whether there could be any way to measure the impact of the workshops and training over the course of the year, labour intensity, and the impact and quality of the EPWP work. For example, when patching up potholes, blocked drains or failure to provide for runoff from rain, or lack of proper road maintenance, should all also be considered.

Mr Cronin conceded that obviously there was a problem with proper reporting from the municipalities, and said that there was a need to get some estimate of the percentage that were doing reasonably well as regards reporting, and what percentage were not reporting at all. Only then could the impact of the workshops be assessed, and any other reasons for poor reporting isolated.

Mr Cronin noted the comment on the disability targets, and said that DPW indeed needed to assess whether the work was having an impact on allowing the disabled to access work. However, he wanted to commend the Deputy Director General for the progress reported.

Mr Henderson appreciated the issues raised, and said he would try to answer as concisely as possible. He noted that EPWP was concerned with the lack of skills so there was a focus on training professional at all levels to implement, particularly the DPW officials. However, funding had been secured to ensure that workers could also have opportunities to be trained and upskilled.

Mr Henderson agreed that branding was important and visibility was important to establish corporate identity. The green overalls wee now being used.

Mr Henderson said that technical support was being given to service providers. Provinces had been grouped, into three groups, with three provinces in each. The costs of EPWP over a three year period amounted to almost R94 million for 278 municipalities. Technical support would be more closely monitored, in view of high cost of litigation, and to ensure that the EPWP did produce the desired results.

Mr Henderson explained that the incentive grant was initially a planning-based grant and had been disbursed on the basis of the report implemented the previous year. This process, however, discriminated against low capacity municipalities which could not meet the targets, due to lack of proper reporting. The grant was therefore changed to include performance-based achievements. Now, 40% would be disbursed upfront, with two subsequent tranches of 30% later in the year. DPW’s EPWP Unit would assist municipalities to access grants, but in cases where the implementing bodies did not comply after the first instalment of 40%, letters would be written to them, to inform them that the next instalment of 30% would be withheld until compliance and progress were seen.

Mr Henderson confirmed that the DPW did work closely with other departments to execute EPWP projects. This would be done without stepping on their mandate. Orientation workshops would be ongoing because they serve as part of the technical assistance rendered, not only for municipalities, but also for other public bodies. The upscaling of EPWP was an attempt to intensify service delivery and create more job opportunities. The duration of EPWP work opportunities was set as 100 days minimum or two days per week for 52 weeks. EPWP projects spanned durations spans of anything between six months and two years. 

Mr Henderson agreed that DPW had under-performed in failing to meet the disability targets of 2% employment for the disabled but said the DPW had now put in place measures to increase participation.

The Chairperson interrupted to clarify that some people with disabilities were reluctant to get involved with EPWP because they were afraid that they would lose their grants. This issue must be looked into, so as to foster participation from them without prejudicing their futures.

Mr Henderson replied that people with disabilities would not in fact lose their grants if involved with EPWP, but that the issue would be further explored, and the Committee would be given more feedback.  

Mr Cronin supported Mr Henderson, noting that one of the objectives of EPWP was to augment household income. The dignity of participation in work was also very crucial in EPWP, because many South Africans were excluded from getting any work experience, and EPWP offered that dignity of work participation.

Mr Dlabantu added that all the issues raised had been noted. Departmental policies would be aligned so as to create an impetus for the achievement of EPWP objectives.

Ms Madlopha added that since people with disabilities invariably belonged to their own organisations, it would be sensible for DPW to identify them, and visit them to explain and clarify the policies of EPWP and seek participation. 

Mr Henderson noted that more low volume roads would be constructed in rural areas. With regard to road maintenance, he said that in many instances, the potholes should not be filled, but it would make more sense to rebuild the roads. He noted that public toilets and reservoirs would be repaired or constructed in communities in which they were most needed. He noted, finally, that the achievements outlined were ongoing, and futuristic projections were not being made. Closer monitoring would be done.

Ms Madlopha proposed, and the Chairperson confirmed, that any unanswered questions should be responded to in writing.

Improving Accessibility to Government Buildings for people with Disabilities
Mr Peter Chiapasco, Acting Deputy Director General, Accessibility Improvement, DPW, stated that the aim of the Improving Accessibility programme was to ensure that state-owned buildings were accessible to people with disabilities. The Accessibility Programme was initiated in 2008/09, after a ruling from the first case brought before the new Equality Court in 2003. A quadriplegic practising attorney, Ms E Muller, had brought a case against the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD) and the Department of Public works, because she was unable to access court buildings and pursue her profession. DoJ & CD subsequently initiated a programme to make court buildings accessible to persons with disabilities. DPW also commenced with the implementation of accessibility measures in other state-owned buildings. This programme addressed old buildings that were non-compliant, although all new state-owned buildings were designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

The DPW relied on reports on statutory compliance and inputs from user departments to identify and prioritise projects. He noted that the requirements addressed in state-owned buildings were signage, parking, accessible routes from site to main entrance, appropriate doors and handles to allow for easy access into various parts of the building, ramps, lifts, toilet facilities and warning signs (as more fully amplified in the attached document).

The progress was listed. 451 projects had been planned, with 275 completed. The 46 cancelled projects were not terminated, but were overtaken by larger rehabilitation projects, and so in these cases, to avoid the situation where two contractors would be on site, the specific accessibility projects were terminated and instead absorbed as part of the major refurbishment. R120 million was made available, with expenditure amounting to R53 million or an average of 44% spent (Please see attached document for more detail).

Mr Chiapasco also noted that DPW was included in a team comprising representatives from the Department of Women, Children, and People with Disabilities (DWCPD) and other departments, to ensure a coordinated and integrated implementation of the accessibility programme. DPW was also a member of a Committee constituted of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) and representatives of various bodies of people with disabilities. Some constraints were experienced in implementing the accessibility programme, which included delays in the execution of programmes, caused by Departmental processes relating to budget approvals and issuing of procurement instructions, non-responsive bids, poor performance by contractors, and cancelled projects as a result of too many contractors on site. To address these challenges, the DPW proposed to monitor the current projects and their progress more closely, and implement interventions where necessary. Reports should be submitted, on a monthly basis, to senior management to enable it to assess progress and ensure interventions. The budget approvals and issuing of procurement instructions for the next financial year would be finalised before the beginning of 2014/15. The DPW’s Immovable Asset Register Physical Verification Project would verify the extent to which buildings are accessible.

Discussion
The Chairperson observed that from this presentation, it was obvious that not enough serious attention was paid to the implementing of this project.

Ms Madlopha commended the efforts of the Department in coordinating accessibility for the disabled. However she wanted to know what specific measures had been initiated to alleviate the constraints presented as a result of delays in project execution. It was noted that some projects were cancelled to avoid many contractors working on the same site, but she questioned how the situation of too many contractors had been allowed to happen in the first place, and asked what costs were incurred as a result of the cancelled projects or their re-incorporation into other contracts.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila expressed concern about the verification of assets, particularly questioning the appointment of consultants. She asked if any special skills were needed to verify accessible buildings that would warrant the appointment of consultants.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila said that the trends on project progress indicated that several projects remained uncompleted, but the budgetary trends indicated that all the budget had been spent. The projects said to be in the planning stage exceeded those completed. In 2009/10, the trends showed a total number of 190 projects, with 14 completed, and 61 at the planning stage, 107 under construction,6 cancelled, and 2 consultants, whereas, the budget showed that in the same year 73% of the allocated amount had been spent. She questioned how this disparity was possible.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila wanted to know which regions were being referred to as “other” regions where accessibility measures were implemented.

Ms Madlala noted that some departments were not user friendly for own staff, and asked if the DPW had any plans n this.

The Chairperson inquired about the 179 projects indicated, and where these might be reflected. She also commented that in the 2013/14 financial year, R25 million was targeted to be spent, but by 2014/15, it had reduced to R14 million, and by 2015/16 had reduced to R7 5 million. She asked for an explanation on this.

Mr Chiapasco replied that indeed there were indications that planning must be radically improved. The interventions therefore was that DPW would identify the project and issue the planning instructions before the end of December of a particular year. This would ease up on procurement delays. This year’s planning project instructions were not issued. This year had been earmarked to clear the backlog of existing instructions. Outstanding uncompleted projects would be finalised this year.  

Ms Madlopha insisted that she did not understand how the figures were just moving forward and accumulating.

The Chairperson was of the opinion that maybe this particular report should not have been presented, because there were many discrepancies in the reporting.

Mr Dlabantu agreed that, from the performance perspective, it did not appear that the project had been performing well. For this reason, the current plan was to monitor the projects closely on the ground. He said the Committee was welcome to look into performance on a quarterly basis.

Ms Madlopha said that this situation showed that there had been no value for money. It meant that the former Director General and former Deputy Director for this project had not been delivering as expected.

Ms Madlala proposed that in future, when issues like these were discussed, the strategic plan, annual performance plan and the report must be made available. She agreed with the suggestion that quarterly reports must also be submitted.

The Chairperson said that no report had been given as regards the non-functioning lift at the Parliament, and she was going all out to try defend the issue of the lift to people who were asking her questions.

Mr Chiapasco responded that he had noted all the issues raised, and was taking them most seriously. He would expedite the responses on all issues. He noted that the programmes on the budget table were funded by DPW, and not by the client departments. The DOJ&CD was funding its own programme for court upgrades. He also confirmed that, with regard to Asset Verification, no additional consultants would be appointed and instead those already engaged by DPW would be used.

Mr Chiapasco noted that there had been procurement challenges and other issues arising, as a result of trying to get the programme up and rolling, but assured Members that they would be addressed.

The Chairperson referred to the statement made that there was not accessible data of all offices. She pointed out that the Annual Performance Plan of 2013/14 stated that there were “100 accessible offices per Capital Works Implementation Programme”. She asked whether these projects would be completed.

Mr Dlabantu assured her that every effort would be made to actualise the targets.

Mr Chiapasco added that there were 129 projects that needed to be completed in 2013/14. He said that the estimate of completing 100 was cautious, but a firm commitment was made to that effect.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila wanted to be sure whether the 129 projects mentioned were old or new projects.

Mr Chiapasco replied that the 129 were the backlog from previous years.

Mr Dlabantu informed the Members that he had not seen the projects himself, but that he had been given the assurance that they would be completed. Quarterly reports would be given to that effect.

Mr Chiapasco assured the Members that the only projects cancelled were those that were only at the planning stage, not at the execution stage, so no costs were incurred. This would however be verified at the office.

Ms Madlopha asked what the role of MinMEC was.

Mr Chiapasco concluded that DPW’s Directorate for Occupational Health and Safety Act Compliance and the Gender and Disability Unit were working together to try to identify and prioritise facilities for upgrade.

Mr Sithole asked that how many buildings had been made accessible to disabled people across the country.

Progress Report on the Recalling of Artisans and Retired Engineers
Mr Mfezeko Gwazube, Acting Deputy Director General: Projects, DPW, presented the report on behalf of Mr Govender. He reported that both the past and current Minister had made a call for retired engineers to be recalled to assist the DPW. The context of the request was informed by the Technical Assistance Unit (TAU) Rapid Review that was conducted, which, amongst other things, had identified impaired technical capacity in the State to execute the mandate of the DPW.

As part of the turn-around implementation programme, 219 technical posts were identified in the approved structure but were not funded. In order to try to remedy that, initial funding was secured for the target of 88 posts out of 219, from National Treasury. He would outline the progress in filling those posts, and the bridging strategy of in-sourcing, pending a review of the structure to be responsive to the mandate of DPW and re-establishment of the State’s technical capacity.

The total number of applications received from engineers and artisans was 66, of which 23 applications came from registered engineers. A list of the responses received was tabulated and categorised. Some were registered, but some were not. The age groups were also reflected, as this would indicate the unemployed professionals who were not yet of retirement age.

The advert to recall retired Construction Project Managers was published on 28 April and applications were expected by 10 May. There were 64 applications received, of which 31 came from registered professionals and 20 related to specific indicated disciplines as set out in the advertisement (see attached document for further details).

He noted that the insourcing programme was initiated to capacitate professional services, to kick-start the Portfolio Management configuration within DPW, based on the framework of a value-based proposition framework with client departments, the re-configuration of the service delivery branches to support portfolio management, and capacity building.

He noted the progress so far in implementing the in-sourcing strategy. Resources had been seconded to the DPW, from elsewhere, to run the in-sourced teams, and to assist DPW in putting in place the medium to long-term contracts, pending its rebuilding. All regional offices that did not have sufficient professional services had been resourced, with professional in-sourced teams from firms. Joint Teams had been appointed for Phase 1 critical clients (who contributed to 80% of the State’s budgets and expenditure), with a view to rationalising, and building effective and efficient systems for the respective portfolios. Joint teams for Key Account Management (KAM) had been appointed, to rationalise front office engagements and enable the operations of portfolio management. This platform had been used to contract, by in-sourcing for the heads of Mechanical and Electrical professional services at the Head Office.

He summarised he progress on the placement of engineers and artisans. DPW may not fill all the 88 prioritised positions based on analysis conducted. CVs received as a result of the Minister’s call were to be considered to fill the balance of the 88 posts. A further 219 posts, that were not in the initial priority list of 88 vacancies, but which accounted for the total need of 131 posts, would be considered as part of Phase 2. This process should be concluded by end of June.

Applicants who forwarded their CVs following the advertisements for the recalling of professional were advised, by e-mail, also of the 88 posts. The DPW intended to build a database and pool of qualified applicants.

Professional staff who were already in the Human Capital Investment Programme (HCI) and Water Services people who were on contract while the review of the structure was being completed and subjected to government planning and budgeting processes, were retained.

Discussion
Ms Madlopha commended the Department for coming up with the strategy. She wanted a clarification as regards the outstanding numbers for whom funding was not received.

Mr Sithole expressed concerns and requested clarity on what was meant by the statement that DPW may not fill all the prioritised positions. He also needed clarification on the meaning of 1:1 ratio and 1:5 ratio as regards KAM directors.

Ms Madlala referred to the professionals within the age brackets of 33 – 59 and asked how they would be categorised, and if they too were regarded as retired professionals.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila pointed out that the total number of applications received was 66, with the total number of registered Engineers also listed, but 23 did not tally with the categories tabulated. She wondered if the insourcing strategy had been implemented or whether it was still in the planning stage. She also asked for clarity on the issue of the joint teams.

Mr Gwazube responded firstly on the funding. He noted that towards the end of last year, a plan was put in place to start the process. National Treasury was approached to assist with the funding. Part of the funding was received around December 2012, with an agreement that if it was judiciously spent, the balance would be released. There was a balance of priority posts still outstanding, because of not enough applications in respect of that list. It was then decided to consider the filling of the balance of all posts, trying to match those who met the requirements, with the budget, and all of those who still indicated that they were interested would be called in for interview. The call was initially made for retired engineers, but since the objective was to get capacity back into the public works sector, it was later agreed, with the full consent of the Minister, that calls would be put out to other unemployed graduates and professionals also.

Mr Gwazube explained that “KAM” stood for “Key Accounts Management”. It was a branch of the Department that oversaw the portfolio of clients. Presently, the Department of Public Works hade 51 clients, which would be overseen by KAM. As at the end of the financial year, appointments had been made, but the process was starting now.

He explained that the six joint teams were appointed, for the critical clients.  and the process was just starting.

On the issue of joint teams, 6 joint teams were appointed for the critical clients. Their primary objective would be to rationalize the portfolios of the six major clients to put in place a process whereby efficiencies would be realised in cost, quality, proper planning and execution.

Mr Swathe inquired about the terms of the advertisements and whether the people would be employed on a temporary or contract basis, or on a permanent basis. He also asked if individuals presently employed on a contractual basis, whose contracts would soon lapse, stood a chance of being reemployed into the new structure, and on what basis.

Mr Gwazube replied that the advertised posts were permanent positions. The number serving of current contracts that would be absorbed into full-time staff would however depend on the available budget. At the expiration of the 12-month extended contracts, it would be decided, on the basis of the available budget and available positions, whether these individuals would be recalled or not. They would, however, have to reapply.

The Chairperson suggested that quarterly reports should be given so as to monitor all the issues discussed.

It was noted that two concerns were raised by the disabled representatives about two consultants in Cape Town. One of the consultants, “Oregon” was not performing according to specifications. The other one, dealing with the High Court, was allegedly overcharging hugely. It was also noted, with great concern, that the reports on the investigations into matters at Robben Island had shown that R8 million was spent on fuel. There were other concerns about petty cash. Mr Dlabantu was asked to ensure that honest persons were deployed to check on these issues and give feedback.

Mr Chiapasco added that the disabled representatives also said that there were consultants whose fees amounted to about 45% of the funds released for projects. The quality of products and work done was also not up to scratch.

The Chairperson said that she had received a report that the staff at Robben Island were clocking off regularly at 12:00 noon. Reports were needed on this, and all other issues. She sought a commitment from the DPW that all the issues raised would be attended to, and quarterly reports given.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: