Questions and Replies

Reply:

1. (a) Basil Read Limited

(b) Contract NRA N.001-270-2013/1: NATIONAL ROUTE 1 SECTION 27: THE POLOKWANE EASTERN RING-ROAD PHASE 2 : NEW CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN KM 10.5 AND KM 25.4

The project came to a halt because Basil Read Limited fell into severe cash flow difficulties early in 2018 and went into voluntary Business Rescue on 15 June 2018 in terms of applicable legislation.

(c) Commencement date was 1 December 2015.

(d) Halted on 15 June 2018.

(e) Total cost of the construction at award was R 561 919 579.46 excluding Contingencies, Contract Price Adjustment, Rise and Fall, and VAT.

(f) R 403 000 000.00 excluding VAT. Up to end October 2018.

2. Yes, the original contract includes penalties of R80 000 per day excluding VAT for late completion. Penalities become applicable only after the contractural end date has been reached.

3. Yes, the Project will be completed. Under Business Rescue Legislation SANRAL has to provide Basil Read Limited with the opportunity to complete the construction. However if the Business Rescue process fails, SANRAL will follow the contractural procedures and engage with with the guarantor to step-in and make sure that the Project is completed successfully.

 

Reply:

a) (i) Specifications for the replacement of corroded rails have been approved and a tender is expected to be issued in January 2019. Appointment of the supplier is planned for the first quarter of the 2019/20 financial year.

As part of the KZN Re-Signalling Project, all stations from Pinetown to Bellair were recently signalled and commissioned.

(ii) Timeframes for replacement of the rails will be seven months from date of delivery of the rails.

(iii) The total amount of is R103 million has been prioritised from the MTEF capital allocation in the region.

b) (i) The Pinetown line has additional lighting and security in the main stations with no permanent security but has high volumes of commuters and high crime hot spot. PRASA did a full renovation of stations including halts on the line, during 2016/17 and repaired them again in the 2017/18 financial year.

(ii) This is a going maintenance activity with no timelines.

(iii) The cost estimated to repair the vandalized electrical work amounts to R280,000 for Seaview Station and R650,000 for Sarnia Station. The budget for security on this line is R136,000 per month.

Reply:

1. (a) (i) Road use on Gauteng e-tolling system is measured in terms of total individual transactions at all Toll Gantry locations. Please see table below for the Transactions Paid (aa) versus the Total Transactions (bb) in a month.

(a) (ii) Road use on Gauteng e-tolling system is measured in terms of total individual transactions at all Toll Gantry locations. Please see table below for the Paid % in a month.

Transactions	Paid Transactions	Total Transactions	Paid %
Dec-13	20,785,542	53,003,201	39%
Jan-14	25,079,987	60,093,598	42%
Feb-14	26,308,532	61,275,089	43%
Mar-14	27,772,020	66,566,742	42%
Apr-14	27,670,060	66,005,652	42%
May-14	28,840,313	69,524,695	41%
Jun-14	27,620,694	68,070,263	41%
Jul-14	28,864,702	73,105,125	39%
Aug-14	28,346,546	73,710,373	38%
Sep-14	27,176,734	72,779,790	37%
Oct-14	28,448,201	78,214,190	36%
Nov-14	25,969,036	74,337,111	35%
Dec-14	21,328,075	67,223,456	32%
Jan-15	22,400,799	69,249,776	32%
Feb-15	22,931,526	71,629,658	32%
Mar-15	24,244,365	80,003,523	30%
Apr-15	21,394,927	72,664,902	29%
May-15	23,036,505	76,951,582	30%
Jun-15	22,909,536	74,975,032	31%
Jul-15	25,301,965	80,642,609	31%
Aug-15	24,467,085	77,919,932	31%
Sep-15	26,697,723	77,605,567	34%
Oct-15	27,938,500	82,326,471	34%
Nov-15	27,054,182	80,290,924	34%
Dec-15	23,624,266	72,805,287	32%
Jan-16	24,573,362	73,257,559	34%
Feb-16	26,733,544	79,066,173	34%
Mar-16	26,402,052	80,007,973	33%
Apr-16	26,275,066	79,992,761	33%
May-16	27,621,133	82,293,707	34%
Jun-16	27,063,279	80,464,054	34%
Jul-16	27,157,391	83,677,522	32%
Aug-16	26,707,601	82,447,442	32%
Sep-16	27,443,254	85,039,339	32%
Oct-16	27,197,586	85,772,379	32%
Nov-16	27,259,360	85,106,234	32%
Dec-16	22,657,693	75,664,235	30%
Jan-17	23,358,303	75,596,764	31%
Feb-17	24,063,244	77,147,835	31%
Mar-17	26,886,316	86,732,583	31%
Apr-17	23,129,194	77,126,837	30%
May-17	26,482,251	86,221,226	31%
Jun-17	25,152,145	82,555,665	30%
Jul-17	26,020,789	87,141,156	30%
Aug-17	26,222,692	87,224,633	30%
Sep-17	25,075,823	85,216,222	29%
Oct-17	26,054,251	88,279,240	30%
Nov-17	25,815,329	87,712,942	29%
Dec-17	21,374,274	77,973,117	27%
Jan-18	22,191,182	78,445,802	28%
Feb-18	22,743,772	79,692,925	29%
Mar-18	23,751,346	85,614,183	28%
Apr-18	22,216,963	81,085,686	27%
May-18	24,143,853	87,426,578	28%
Jun-18	23,063,671	84,761,844	27%
Jul-18	23,567,230	87,581,258	27%
Aug-18	23,303,900	87,920,771	27%

(b) Please see table below that reflects the projected cashflow and actual cash receipts from account holders. All payments are deposited into SANRAL’s bank accounts which are audited by the Auditor General. The toll operator was appointed through an open tender process. It is a locally registered company with local and international shareholding. SANRAL is not privy to the agreements with their shareholders and the handling of losses and/or profits. The toll operator is compensated in terms of their tendered rates for services provided under the contract and does not receive a share of the toll revenue. To render the required services under the contract, they currently employ 1029 people of which 1024 or 99.5 % are South Africans.

Month	Actual Income	Forecast Income
Dec-13	R63 455 430	R37 290 000
Jan-14	R98 610 974	R66 670 000
Feb-14	R94 017 402	R74 430 000
Mar-14	R107 586 423	R93 930 000
Apr-14	R113 428 985	R85 050 000
May-14	R116 865 284	R114 310 000
Jun-14	R119 516 621	R117 530 000
Jul-14	R108 740 225	R131 280 000
Aug-14	R100 003 412	R137 480 000
Sep-14	R87 741 205	R124 390 000
Oct-14	R75 199 510	R68 400 000
Nov-14	R64 871 679	R57 000 000
Dec-14	R72 350 461	R34 200 000
Jan-15	R44 962 429	R45 600 000
Feb-15	R61 398 683	R45 600 000
Mar-15	R67 672 141	R45 600 000
Apr-15	R60 816 286	R45 600 000
May-15	R75 717 000	R45 600 000
Jun-15	R77 980 230	R54 735 730
Jul-15	R81 557 505	R54 735 730
Aug-15	R73 530 822	R119 586 705
Sep-15	R59 411 220	R60 000 000
Oct-15	R63 583 365	R60 000 000
Nov-15	R71 546 170	R60 000 000
Dec-15	R61 356 654	R115 000 000
Jan-16	R86 241 110	R135 000 000
Feb-16	R66 470 717	R145 000 000
Mar-16	R80 287 535	R105 000 000
Apr-16	R125 000 000	R130 000 000
May-16	R110 658 054	R101 000 000
Jun-16	R65 330 000	R101 000 000
Jul-16	R62 223 000	R101 000 000
Aug-16	R61 276 860	R101 000 000
Sep-16	R68 100 000	R101 000 000
Oct-16	R71 400 000	R101 000 000
Nov-16	R72 461 000	R65 000 000
Dec-16	R30 802 706	R65 000 000
Jan-17	R84 825 000	R65 000 000
Feb-17	R55 325 172	R65 000 000
Mar-17	R66 466 277	R65 000 000
Apr-17	R64 327 952	R69 000 000
May-17	R56 013 668	R86 000 000
Jun-17	R59 142 222	R65 000 000
Jul-17	R68 459 234	R65 000 000
Aug-17	R57 787 465	R65 000 000
Sep-17	R59 443 095	R65 000 000
Oct-17	R72 781 413	R65 000 000
Nov-17	R68 702 155	R65 000 000
Dec-17	R16 548 442	R65 000 000
Jan-18	R84 302 761	R65 000 000
Feb-18	R61 735 537	R65 000 000
Mar-18	R56 577 112	R65 000 000
Apr-18	R63 421 845	R65 000 000
May-18	R62 028 447	R65 000 000
Jun-18	R46 545 853	R65 000 000
Jul-18	R73 700 653	R65 000 000
Aug-18	R39 851 834	R65 000 000
Sep-18	R50 364 399	R65 000 000

2. The current phase of the Gauteng Open Road Tolling (GORT) project was the first phase of approximately 200km. An additional 150 km of new freeways were envisaged as part of the next phases of the GFIP.

The roll-out of new freeways in Gauteng is dependent on the Government’s final decision on the infrastructure funding mechanism, including that of e-tolling for any further extension in Gauteng and in the other provinces.

The of the roads and timelines will become clear once Government has decided on infrastructure funding mechanism as indicated in above.

(3) Interim requirements have been developed and accepted by the acting CEO of the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications in accordance with Section 22 (2) (c) of the Legal Metrology Act.

(a) Contained in the interim requirements of the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications for more detail (Copy can be provided if required).

(b) The equipment has been type approved in accordance with the interim requirements and a type approval certificate was issued on 16 May 2018 after conclusion of the type approval process.

(4) The measuring instruments are subject to regular verification at periods not exceeding 12 months (refer to the Interim technical requirements for further detail). It is noted that initial verification was successfully completed as part of the type approval process.

(5) The instruments were imported legally. There were no requirements published as technical regulations for the type of equipment that are used on the GFIP gantries in terms of the Trade Metrology Act and initially the equipment was not considered to fall within the ambit of the Trade Metrology Act. After the new act was published, SANRAL discussed the way the equipment operates with the NRCS and the agreed process as described above in paragraph (3) and (4) was developed.

Reply:

a) Total number of accidents that occurred on the N1 between Bela-Bela and Polokwane

(i) As from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 there were = 102 Fatal crashes

(ii) Since 1 April 2018 there were = 69 Fatal crashes

b) The total number of persons who were killed in each case

(i) As from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 there were = 178 Fatalities

(ii) Since 1 April 2018 = 134 Fatalities

c) Causes of fatal crashes

Most of the fatal crashes occurred due to the following crash types:

i. Single vehicles overturned

ii. Head-on

iii. Accident with pedestrian

iv. Head-rear

d) Actions taken by the department

(i) road users abide by all road rules - The Department through the RTMC has deployed traffic officers on the route in support of efforts that have been put in place by the Limpopo Province. This is to ensure visibility as deterrent but also to enforce traffic laws and regulations. The focus is on the following offences: speed, seat belt, overload, cell phones and reckless and negligent driving amongst others.

In addition to this, the RTMC has also intensified its road safety education and awareness programmes on the said route. These includes, amongst others, having activations at the taxi ranks targeting drivers and passengers before they embark on their journey, educational road blocks, handing out information pamphlets at the tollgates, and information exhibitions that encourage road user behaviour change.

(ii) Reduce number of fatal accidents -Based on the absolute figures, there is a slight reduction in the number of fatal crashes and fatalities when comparing the two (2) financial years (2016/17 and 2017/18).

Reply:

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

(a) Installations have been requested and are being processed. It requires new cable ways to be provided which was not in the original scope hence the delays.

(b)(i) Camera installations will be completed before the end of the financial year.

(ii) Parking is technically reopened for peak days only when capacity runs out. The official re-opening will be done, as the airport has had 3-meter-high fences installed. Foot patrols have been improved by adding in 6 security officers which can suffice until the cameras have been installed.

(aa) and (bb) Plans are underway to officially reopen the parking before the December 2018 school holiday 2018.

Reply:

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

a)  The SACAA has issued aerodrome licences to two airports in Nelspruit, namely (i) Nelspruit Municipal Airport and (ii) Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport. SACAA has an oversight obligation over these airports in terms of the mandate conferred by the Civil Aviation Act, No 13 of 2009. The SACAA must ensure that airports comply with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Regulations as promulgated.

b) There are no MoU’s in place between the SACAA and Airports Company South Africa in relation to the two airports referred to under (a).

c) Not Applicable

Reply:

a) The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), manages its property portfolio through its property management division; Corporative Real Estate Solutions (CRES). PRASA CRES has five (5) regional offices located in Eastern Cape, Western Cape, KwaZulu Natal, Gauteng South and Gauteng North.

Regional offices conduct, on a periodic basis, station condition assessment to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of compliance and functionality of the Railway stations facilities. The assessments include ongoing visual assessments for cleanliness, safety compliance and functionality particularly for Super and Core railway stations as these stations carry the highest commuter numbers.

b) Consolidated data relating to dates and outcomes on condition assessments is attached as Annexure A for Super and core stations.

c) Consolidated data relating to dates and outcomes on condition assessments is attached as Annexure A for Super and core stations.

d) Refer to the response in (a).

e) Station improvements, Preventative and Corrective maintenance plans have been put in place by the respective CRES regional offices in line with established programmes.

f) The Station improvements, Preventative and Corrective maintenance plans are executed by the respective CRES regional offices.

g) Planned timelines vary for each of the programmes (Station Improvements, Preventative and Corrective Maintenance) depending on the size and scale of work required for each of the station projects).

Reply:

a) All lines where Metrorail trains are running, are electrified and this is done through electric motor coaches with plain trailers (coaches without motor unit). The only exception is the Eastern Cape services in East London and Port Elizabeth. Here the plain trailers (coaches) are pulled with diesel locomotives.

Mainline Passenger Services coaches (sleepers and sitter coaches) are pulled with diesel locomotives.

b) The status of these lines is as it were since the start of the South African Rail Commuter Corporation. Transnet can provide exact details.

c) The cost for diesel in MLPS was R33,964m for 2017/18 and for Eastern Cape Metrorail R39,158m for the same period.

d) PRASA does not own the lines which are not electrified and therefore cannot respond on this.

e) Not applicable for PRASA.

Reply:

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

(1)(a) The terrorist attacks in the landside area of Brussels Airport on 22 March 2016 and Istanbul Airport on 28 June 2016, has brought aviation security sharply into focus from all aviation stakeholders, governments and the media. Ensuring the security of the traveling public is a top priority for ACSA. The appropriate authority has defined “landside.” To include areas of mass gathering inside or close to the terminal, where there is a regular concentration of people. There is collaboration with the appropriate authority responsible for civil aviation security matters and other security agencies to conduct risk and vulnerability assessment of Airports to determine if any adjustments to current security measures are warranted. This requirement is contained in our National Civil Aviation Security programme that allocate responsibilities to state agencies. Engagement with the National and Airport Security Committees on appropriate measures to implement on specific threat scenarios.

i)Metal barriers and bollards are being used to prevent drive-in attacks

ii) The separation of vehicle drop-off and pickup areas from the terminal building

iii) Relocation of vehicle parking close to the terminal building to open areas further from the buildings

iv) Management of crowds around the landside areas to reduce gatherings of meters and greeters has been implemented.

v) Security considerations have been considered for Access areas such as balconies, terraces or windows that open, close to the terminal building where an active shooter or bomber might have access to crowded public areas by enhancement of patrols and CCTV surveillance.

vi) Airport Workers & passenger awareness & communication, there is a continuous reminder through the public-address system to passengers and visitors to be vigilant and report unattended baggage or suspicious behavior.

vii) Security awareness training is provided for all Airport workers (both airport and non-airport employees, including those not involved directly in security) to recognize suspicious behavior, and provide a simple and quick means to report it.

(b) Airports Company South Africa is not obligated under any legal grounds to implement the restricted road access. This road is under the jurisdiction of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality. The municipality is charged with this legal responsibility. The management of O.R Tambo International Airport has raised its concerns and suggested that the airport controls the access and egress onto the airport frontage roads.

(i) Aviation-specific security regulations focus on the airside spaces (non-public spaces of airports accessible only to air passengers who hold a valid boarding pass and to security cleared staff). These regulations are designed to prevent unlawful interference with air transport. Landside spaces (airport spaces accessible to the general public) are subject to general security regulations enacted by national civil aviation authority. It is therefore up to the national civil authority to review and coordinate with airports to identify the appropriate measures that match their specific threat scenario.

(ii) A new set of standards regarding landside security are included in Amendment 15 to Annex 17 (April 2017) which require States to ensure that landside areas are identified, that measures are established to mitigate and prevent attacks based on a risk assessment, that measures are appropriately coordinated, and that responsibilities are allocated within a State’s national civil aviation security programme.

(iii) Accompanying this standard is guidance material within Doc8973, ICAO Security Manual, which provides additional information on how measures might be implemented. DOC 8973 states that no vehicle shall park within 50 meters from the terminal building.

(iv) The following list provides some best practices in detection, deterrence or mitigation of landside threats that reflect current ICAO guidance material and other industry best practices.

(v) Consider infrastructure and airport design features to mitigate the threat from attack. These might include:

(vi) bollards, flowerpots and other structures to prevent drive-in attacks

(vii) the separation of vehicle drop-off and pickup points from the terminal

(viii) Reduce access areas (such as terraces) where an active shooter or bomber might have access to crowded public areas.

(c) Studies was conducted by a traffic consultant in accordance to municipal by laws

(d) Public participation will be done prior to implementation

(e) Workable alternatives are,

(i) the separation of vehicle drop-off and pickup points from the terminal

(2) whether he has been informed that the Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) has been in contact with the SA National Airport Parking Association (Sanapa) and that Acsa has given Sanapa an undertaking to participate in the process regarding the proposed road closures;

(a) none

(3) whether he has been informed of the current form of intimidation being conducted against parking operators by Acsa and the Ekurhuleni metro police, who allegedly are having cars picking up and dropping passengers at the entrances towed and stored, and that this has the result of random removal and storage of the cars of bona fide users of the pickup and drop-off points; if not, will he conduct an investigation in this regard; if so, (a) why is this happening and (b) what steps will he take in order to ensure that individuals are given a reasonable time to pick up or drop off passengers?

i) Acsa and the Ekurhuleni metro police, doesn’t intimidate parking operators at the airports. In terms of ICAO Doc 9873 and national civil aviation program vehicles cannot be left unattended on the roadway and within 50 meters from terminal building.

Acsa must ensure adequate road marking and appropriate signages in accordance to road ordinance act.

Reply:

BUSINESS COFFEE TELEVISION ADVERT

a) The Business Coffee advert flighted from 27 May 2018 to 30 June 2018 on mainstream television stations.

b) The cost to produce the business advert was R10 376 558.00 and the cost for flighting the advert was R9 628 113.00. The advert was also placed on Youtube for additional views. The advert has longevity and will be used again in 2019.

c) An approved strategy guides SANRAL’s marketing and communications and it was informed by and consistent with the National Communication Strategy Framework. SANRAL strives continually to improve our communication engagement with members of the public, to inform them of our work and increase understanding of what the SANRAL brand represents. The good reputation of SANRAL is invaluable to our ability to play a role in promoting national investment, growing the economy and creating jobs. 

We have endeavored to present a comprehensive picture of how we deliver on our mandate to assist road users. The business coffee concept was developed to reinforce the universal truth of how interconnected our lives are, even the everyday things that we may overlook are the products of an interconnected network of people, business, and products that are all woven together by a vast system of national roads. SANRAL manages 22 214km of roads throughout South Africa. These roads are the driving force of South Africa that contribute to the GDP of the south African economy.

Business relies on the infrastructure of the roads to drive the economy. SANRAL has a responsibility to ensure that it delivers roads that are well designed, constructed and maintained. This safely engineered infrastructure aids in the driving experience; assists in prolonging the wear and tear of cars and trucks using these roads and enabling users to get themselves and goods to their intended destinations. This advert is pertinent in the current environment of needing to stimulate economic growth by investing in infrastructure.

The coffee ad was powerful and in line with SANRAL’s Horizon 2030 strategy. The commercial demonstrates the role and impact of road infrastructure in supporting businesses both large and small.

The commercial took the agricultural sector as an example and demonstrated through the harvesting and logistical transportation of coffee beans, bringing them to market and eventually at the consumer's hand to enjoy. It also reaffirms SANRAL’s slogan of beyond roads, as roads are not an end in themselves but a means to improving people's lives.

d) The performance is tracked using the industry performance planning tool that provides the performance of the campaign which is reach, frequency and impact, as indicated below. The campaign was tracked against viewership statistics supplied from the performance.

Audience : AGE 15+ ALL ADULTS (ADS15) U: 34 801 000, S:8134
Total Viewers	TVR	CPP 30"	Total CPP	Reach %	AveFreq
177 058 800	507,13	R10 109	R12 656	70,9%	7,2
Audience AGE 25+, HH INC R 14 000+, U:4 438 000, S:1010
Total Viewers	TVR	CPP 30"	Total CPP	Reach %	AveFreq
12 855 360	289,82	R17 689	R22 145	50,2%	5,8

TVR (television rating) – % of the people / target audience watching the programme/TV

Total TVR – total number of television ratings bought

30” CPP – cost per point for a 30” advert

Total CPP – cost per point for the against target audience.

Reach % - % number of the target audience reached

Ave.Freq – number of times the planned target audience has been exposed/seen the message.

ROAD SAFETY TELEVISION ADVERT

a) The Road Safety 365 TV advert flighted from 23 September 2018 to 8 October 2018 on both Mainstream and Community television stations.

b) The cost for producing the advert was R8 227 302.90 and the cost for flighting on both Mainstream and Community television was R3 037 807.60. The advert was also placed on Youtube for additional views and will is scheduled to fight again in early 2019.

c) Road safety is still one of South Africa’s biggest challenges. Every year 1,24 million people die in the world due to road crashes. South Africa contributes to the highest number of injuries and fatalities due to crashes on the roads. 60% of these victims are young people between ages 15 – 35 years of age. In addition to the effect on the economy it robs the country of skills and future leaders and affects economic growth. Bad and irresponsible behavior cannot be changed without all stakeholders working together (i.e. DOT, roads entities, the public, civil society groups, schools and more). So, when we look at a SANRAL Road Safety Campaign, we look at it from a ‘partners’ view. We see it as SANRAL contributing to the fight against road crashes and fatalities in SA. We look at other campaigns that have the same objectives in mind – and then see how we can add a different voice, a different point of view – that may resonate with South Africans.

While other campaigns are focused on the Easter and Festive Season periods, SANRAL’s approach is that of a year-long campaign. When other campaigns use gory visuals and scare tactics to make their point, we look at a more emotional, more ‘adult’ approach but also relatable to different target audiences – hence the theme of the legacy left by parents for their kids. That as ‘adults’ we should be mindful of our actions as they may encourage the next generation of drivers to do as we do.

The objective of the campaign is to:

• promote safe road practices and behaviour amongst South Africans when travelling on the roads throughout the year.
• increase road user engagement and personalise the message to the road users.
• encourage all road users to respect the rules of the road – they are there for your safety.

As we reframe ‘road safety’ in the hearts and minds of South Africans, we are also reminding them of the results of irresponsible behaviour on our roads. The legacy element – even if you are not a parent but an aunt or uncle, your nieces and nephews also look up to you.

d) The performance is tracked using the industry performance planning tool that provides the performance of the campaign which is reach, frequency and impact, as indicated above. The campaign was tracked against viewership statistics supplied from the performance.

Please note that community TV reach will always be low due to broadcast footprint, especially if it’s compared to the national tv channels that have a bigger foot print and cover almost 99% of the population.

MainstreamTV
		Audience : AGE 15+ ALL ADULTS (ADS15) U: 34 978 000, S:8153
Total Viewers	TVR		CPP 30"	Total CPP		Reach %	AveFreq
44 749 244	127,94		R10 530	R12 779		47,7%	2,7
		Audience AGE 25+, HH INC R 14 000+, U:4 297 000, S:960
Total Viewers	TVR		CPP 30"	Total CPP		Reach %	AveFreq
4 757 462	110,73		R12 166	R14 298		45,8%	2,4
Community TV
		Adults 15+ years
Total Viewers	Total TVR		Total CPP R	30Sec CPP		Reach %	Avg Freq
2 574 785	7,36		62, 784	41, 856		3	2,5
		AGE 25+, HHINC R14 000+
Total Viewers	Total TVR		Total CPP R	30Sec CPP R		Reach %	Avg Freq
428 694	9,74		47, 463	31,642		1,8	5,4

Reply:

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

(1)(a) After consideration of the first forensic report, the Board agreed that a second report be obtained. The Open Water report was concluded in January 2018 and the previous Board constituted a Board Sub-committee to review the report. The sub-committee met in February 2018, discussed the report and a recommendation was made to the Board in this regard. However, before this could be discussed at a Board meeting, the term of office of the then acting chairman expired and two Board members resigned. That left the Board with two Non-Executive Directors and one Executive Director, namely the Chief Executive Officer. The matter was then held over for the new Board to be appointed.

(b) After the appointment of the new board, the forensic reports have been considered by the Audit and Risk Committee (“ARC”). A Board ad hoc committee constituted by two members each from the Remuneration and Nominations Committee and ARC has been tasked with working on these reports and external advice has been sought in this regard. It is envisaged that the matter would be concluded soon.

(2)(a)(i) The Board members cited various reasons, information of which can be forwarded on request.

(ii) The Minister has appointed six Board members who have assumed their directorships with effect from 1 September 2018. The Board Chairman has subsequently been appointed with effect from 9 November 2018.

(b) In terms of clause 13.1.1 of ACSA’s Memorandum of Incorporation (“MOI”), the Board shall, at all times, consist of a minimum of three directors and a maximum of twelve directors, of which a majority shall be non-executive directors. The decisions taken by the Board have been taken by a fully constituted board in terms of the MOI.

Reply:

(a) The Pilot project for (i) learner drivers and (ii) license applicants was launched on 30 August 2018

(b) At Centurion Driving Licence Testing Centre (DLTC), Tshwane. The service was the rolled out to other DLTCs from 01 September 2018.

(c) The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), one of the entities in my Department, monitors the success through daily reports of the number of slots booked online versus the number of slots of walk-in applicants. Further thereto the RTMC in close co-operation with the Gauteng Department of Transport, monitors the calls logged via its 24-hour call centre and addresses issues raised as soon as practically possible - although the majority of these calls were resolved by guiding the applicant through the process.

Since the end of September (30 days after the introduction of the service), the number of slots booked online has exceeded the walk-in applicants daily.

(d) The system has a 99.99% uptime and availability and there are always slots available throughout the Gauteng province, albeit it might not be at the applicant’s most preferred DLTC.

Reply:

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

(a) According to the South African Geographical Names Council Act (Act No. 118 of 1998) the Minister of Arts and Culture is responsible for the approval of geographical names after receiving recommendations from the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC). The SAGNC is only responsible for geographical features of national concern including, but not limited to, towns/cities, suburbs and any form of human settlement, post offices, stations, highways, airports and government dams. The SAGNC is also responsible for natural landforms like mountains, hills, rivers, streams, bays, headlands and islands. Since airports are administered by National Department of Transport through the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) it is within their mandate to process their renaming through the South African Geographical Names Council

(b)(1) The Minister/Department of Transport through ACSA should initiate consultation in relation to the proposed changes or coordinate any of such process from the public or any stakeholder.

2. A notice in terms of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000 (where an intention to change the names will be stated clearly and the public will be asked to comment). At the same time there should be consultation with all affected families whose names will be used to give written permission for use of those names and they can also advise on the format in which names should appear on signage (if some of the airports will be named after people). ACSA should also consider staging public hearing around the affected airports, any municipality around each of the affected airports can be an ideal venue and a partner for this exercise.

3. Once all the inputs have been collected the South African Geographical Names Council’s application forms should be completed taking into consideration the inputs from the public and then taken to the relevant Geographical Names Provincial Committees (e.g. if the Airports in Gauteng then Gauteng Provincial Committee, KwaZulu-Natal then KZN Geographical Names Committee, Eastern Cape the Eastern Cape Geographical Names Committee etc.) for processing.

4. The relevant Provincial Committees will then forward the application forms to the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC) after they have checked that the applications comply with the guidelines as stated in the Handbook on Geographical Names. For example, checking if the name is not offensive or a duplication of an existing one etc.

5. The South African Geographical Names Council will then take a decision on the form or forms of names and recommend them for the Minister of Arts and Culture’s approval.

6. Once the names have been approved by the Minister, they will then be published in the Government Gazette which will mean that they are official. The Department of Transport and ACSA will then have to implement the official names as soon as possible. This can take form of events to unveil the names and installing proper signage.at the airports and on relevant roads.

(c) Public notices proposing the renaming of Cape Town International Airport, Port Elizabeth International Airport, Kimberly Airport, and East London Airport were published in May 2018.

(d) All government departments, provincial governments, local authorities, the SA Post Office, property developers and any other body or person may apply for a name change through the South African Geographical Names Council.

(e) Public notices proposing the renaming of Cape Town International Airport, Port Elizabeth International Airport, Kimberly Airport, and East London Airport were published in May 2018.

(f) The process can take up to 4 months from submission of application for name change to the National Geographical Names Council if there are no legal challenges and objections.The renaming process may be further lengthened or delayed depending on the individual circumstace of each application. The Council meets three times per year.

Reply:

Before responding to the question, I deemed it prudent to refer the honourable Alberts to the provisions of section 91(2) of the National Road Traffic Act, 1993 which provides as follows

“91. Delegation by Minister and MEC

(2) The MEC concerned may –

(a) delegate to any other person any power conferred upon him or her by or under this Act; and

(b) authorise any other person to perform any duty assigned to the MEC by or under this Act,

and may effect such delegation or grant such authorisation subject to such conditions as he or she may deem fit.

From my reading and interpretation of section 91(2) as outlined above, it would appear authority of the MEC goes beyond delegation by him or her of the competencies to issue permits but also include “…. any power conferred upon him or her under this Act”

Furthermore, may authorise any other person to perform any duty assigned to the MEC by or under this Act.

Reply:

1. (a) Nyoni Projects was appointed through open tender process on 23 February 2016 to complete the roadworks at both the Mhlali and Mvoti River crossings, with an estimated completion date of 22 February 2017. The Contractor had experienced significant cashflow problems and went into business rescue on 3rd October 2017. After various meetings between Nyoni Projects, the Business Rescue Practitioner and SANRAL, SANRAL terminated the Nyoni Projects contract on 14th February 2018 after their liquidation. SANRAL had requested National Treasury to approve a deviation to appoint the second lowest tenderer. National Treasury did not approve this, but instead approved that all previous tenderers be invited to submit a price to complete the outstanding works. This process has since started to source the service providers to complete the project.

(b) (i) 22 February 2017

(ii) A date has not been set since the new contractor has not yet been appointed due to unresolved matters with National Treasury. A total of ten months is required to complete the works.

(2) (a) (i) R15 678 620.13 (Excl. VAT)

(ii) For nine months from February 2018 until October 2018, a total of R 562,962.00 (Excl. VAT)

(iii) Latest estimate R65 764 304.37 (Excl. VAT)

(b) As the construction company has been liquidated, the Performance Guarantee to value of R5.7 million was paid by the guarantor to SANRAL for the non-performance by the contractor in fulfilling his obligations to complete the contract.

3. As indicated the company Nyoni Projects (Pty) Ltd has been liquidated and are no longer in existence.

(a) The directors of Nyoni Projects (Pty) Ltd were Macloud Nyoni (Managing), Sibongile Nyoni (Financial), Gugulethu Samantha Nyoni

(b) Identity Numbers:

Macloud Nyoni (Managing) - 660313 5567 084

Sibongile Nyoni (Financial) - 670928 0895 082

Gugulethu Samantha Nyoni - 920601 0812 083

Reply:

Provincial bus services are operated by private operators but subsidized by government through contracts entered between provinces and these operators. The peak number of subsidized buses per province is as follows:

Province	Number of buses
Eastern Cape	553
Free State	257
Gauteng	2423
Kwazulu Natal	1393
Limpopo	830
Mpumalanga	601
North West	581
Northern Cape	54
Western Cape	1087
TOTAL	7779

Reply:

1. (a)(b) The Department of Transport does not own artwork by Government.
2. (a)(b) Falls away

Reply:

a) Reasons that the rental for accommodation at train stations has been increased are:

• Tenants at all stations entered into Lease Agreements as prescribed by the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa’s (PRASA) Leasing Policy for the use of such premises.
• The rentals paid at the station are market related and are negotiated and agreed upon with the tenant on a lease document signed by both parties.
• PRASA’s lease agreements provides for a rental escalation which occurs at the anniversary of each agreement.
• Such annual rentals escalation are market related researched and determined by the approved registered property valuers serving in the property sector.

b) Date of rental increase:

• Law of contract prescribes the lease agreement to have a start and end date to be a valid contract.
• Each contract will clearly indicate when the lease shall be due for escalation on the annual anniversary of each lease.
• Lease commencement dates will differ from lease to lease depending on when the agreed use of the property is envisaged to take place.

c) The impact of the increased rental on tenants and potential tenants are:

• Payment of increased rental based on escalation rates which is aligned to inflation and increased rates and taxes as well as electricity, the tenants will consider and adopt cost effective ways of doing business.

Reply:

Department

(a)(i) The Department of Transport has not borrowed any money from the People’s Republic of China since 1 April 2018.

(ii) None of the Entities borrowed money from the People’s Republic of China since 1 April 2018.

(aa) The Department and its entities have not borrowed any money from the People’s Republic of China over the past three years.

(bb) As per response above.

(b) As per response above.

(c) As per response above.

(d) As per response above.

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

Airports Company South Africa did not borrow money from any entity in the People’s Republic of China in each of the past three financial years and since 1 April 2018.

Air Traffic and Navigation Services SOC Limited (ATNS)

Not applicable to ATNS.

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

NIL (i) N/A (ii) South African Civil Aviation Authority did not borrow any amount from the People’s Republic of China (aa) N/A (bb) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A.

Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA)

The (a) (ii) Cross-Border Road Transport Agency did not borrow any amount from any entity in the People’s Republic of China (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2018 and (b), (c) and (d) are therefore not applicable.

Road Accident Fund (RAF)

The (a) (ii) Road Accident Fund did not borrow any amount from any entity in the People’s Republic of China (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2018 and (b), (c) and (d) are therefore not applicable.

Road Traffic Management Corporation

The (a) (ii) Road Traffic Management Corporation did not borrow any amount from any entity in the People’s Republic of China (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2018 and (b), (c) and (d) are therefore not applicable.

Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA)

The (a) (ii) Road Traffic Infringement Agency did not borrow any amount from any entity in the People’s Republic of China (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2018 and (b), (c) and (d) are therefore not applicable.

South African National Road Agency Limited (SANRAL)

The (a) (ii) South African National Road Agency Limited did not borrow any amount from any entity in the People’s Republic of China (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2018 and (b), (c) and (d) are therefore not applicable.

Railway Safety Regulator (RSR)

(a) No amount was borrowed by the RSR from any entity in the People’s Republic of China,

(aa) in any of the past three financial years, and

(bb) since 1 April 2018;

(b) Not applicable, refer to (a)

(c) Not applicable, refer to (a)

(d) Not applicable, refer to (a)

 

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

(a) No amount was borrowed by PRASA from any entity in the People’s Republic of China,

(aa) in any of the past three financial years, and

(bb) since 1 April 2018;

(b) Not applicable, refer to (a)

(c) Not applicable, refer to (a)

(d) Not applicable, refer to (a)

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PRSA)

(ii) The Ports Regulator does not have borrowing powers in terms of legislation and has not borrowed from any institution in the past and has no plans to borrow in the medium term.

(aa) N/A

(bb) N/A

(a) N/A

(b) N/A

(c) N/A

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA)

Not Applicable as no amounts were borrowed from any entity in the People’s Republic of China

Reply:

(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)
PRASA Railway Train Station	Number	Date not being used	Reason for not being used	Current use
Ireagh	1	2010	Train service rationalised	None
Rolle	1	2010	Train service rationalised	None
Cottondale	1	2010	Train service rationalised	None
Acornhoek	1	2010	Train service rationalised	None
Hoedspruit	1	2010	Train service rationalised	Restaurant Lease
Zeerust	1	2015	Train service rationalised	None
Vryburg	1	2015	Train service rationalised	None
Total	7

Note: The above information only reflects PRASA properties. All these stations were identified for transfer with Main Line Passenger Service in 2009 from Transnet. These stations are on the Kaapmuiden-Hoedspruit line or Johannesburg-Mafikeng-Kimberley line. Stations not in use is not the same as being decommissioned.

2. (a) The option to link King Shaka International Airport (KISA) via the existing North Coast Rail

Corridor was considered along with other rail alignment options during earlier planning activities because of its proximity to KSIA. It was however not preferred, because such a service would result in lengthy journey times and inability to compete effectively with other modes of transport.

(b) As mentioned in (a), the option of linking to the North Coast Rail Corridor was not preferred. In addition, the passenger demand for such a service in the short term, is considered relatively low from a passenger rail perspective. A road-based feeder service from Verulam and/or Tongaat stations is considered more viable in the short term to provide access to KISA from the North Coast Line.

In the medium term, a more direct rail connection to KISA, with potential of linking to current and new growth areas in the northern section of eThekwini, is considered more viable.

(c) The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa concluded a conceptual planning study in 2015 around potential rail linkages to KISA and surrounds.

(d) The outcome of the study in 2015 is in support of (2)(b).

Reply:

1. (a) VEREENIGING INTERMODAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITY

CONTRACT NUMBER DRT: 24/07/2013

PRASA appointed the consulting engineers (AECOM/Khuthele Projects (AECOM)) to execute designs for the following:

• Vereeniging Station
• Commercial development around Vereeniging Station
• Vereeniging Intermodal Facility

(b) (i) PRASA has set aside R15 million for the fees of the project. The fees include for the following:

• Professional Services for Stages 1 to 6;
• Environmental studies
• Occupational Health and Safety; and
• Specialised professional services (e.g. Geotech, etc.)

(ii) The amount spent to date is R13,508,685-00, being for designs and construction supervision, as well as Occupational Health and Safety monitoring for the Intermodal Facility.

(c) (i) The main contractor appointed by the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport ( GDRT) for the construction works, is Moreteng Investments CC.

(ii) GDRT Contractor: Moreteng Investments CC

Registration number: 2005/004671/07

Sub-Contractor: FlyBrotherSA CC

Registration number: 2010/133800/23

PRASA Consultant: AECOM/Khuthele Projects Pty (Ltd)

Registration number: 2010/013644/07

(d) The works are currently ongoing and are measured at 83% progress. However, due to contractual disputes between GDRT and the contractor, the works have been suspended since 7 September 2018.

(e) The completion date will only be known once the contractor is back on site.

2 (a) PRASA has not lodged any dispute with a service provider.

(b) Not applicable.

3. (a) Not applicable as no disputes were lodged by PRASA.

(b) Not applicable as no disputes were lodged by PRASA.

Reply:

(1)(a) Imvubu Aviation Services Pty (Ltd)

(b) The initial specifications by the Department of Transport (DOT) was for two Antonov 124 cargo planes and one passenger aircraft plane. However, only one Antonov 124 was commissioned and paid. The Antonov’s were identified to transport mortuary trucks, other light support vehicles, equipment including tents, luggage etc. and 10xPAX to Lagos, and to additionally to this original cargo, include the remains identified for repatriation on the return to South Africa.

The passenger aircraft was identified to transport a maximum of 100 passengers.

(c) The total amount paid was R16 448 200.00 for one Antonov 124 cargo plane

(d) Mr Mawethu Vilana, acting Director-General, Department of Transport, in his capacity as Accounting Officer approved the award.

(e) Approval to deviate from inviting tenders was granted by the Accounting Officer in terms of Section 16A6.4 of the Treasury Regulations.

Following an Inter-Ministerial Committee and a Health Cluster Technical Team meeting, specifications were drafted as determined by the SA Military Health Services (SAMHS) and the Department of Health (SG/D MH OPS/R/311/2/15 dated 2 October 2014).

Numerous aviation service providers were approached and six quotations for each of the initial requirements were received (2 x Antonov and 1 x Passenger Aircraft). Three companies were disqualified due to non-tax compliance, incorrect specifications etc.

The qualifying bids were:

a) 2 x Antonov 124

Service Provider	BEE Score	Cost per Item	Total Cost	Rank
HCR Ilanga Aviation Solutions	8	1 755 600 USD (R 19 438 900)	3 511 200 USD (R 38 877 800)	3
SRS Aviation	8	1 601 607 USD (R17 938 000)	3 203 214 USD (R 35 876 000)	2
Imvubu Aviation Services	8	1 485 500 USD (R16 448 200)	2 971 000 USD (R 32 896 400)	1

b) 1 x Passenger Aircraft

Service Provider	BEE Score	Total Cost	Rank
HCR Ilanga Aviation Solutions	8	268 923 USD (R2 977 650)	3
SRS Aviation	8	131 650 USD (R1 457 700)	1
Imvubu Aviation Services	8	215 883 USD (R2 390 360)	2

*USD/ZAR exchange rate used on 18 October 2014 during evaluation calculated at R 11.0725.

The approved requirement was reduced to one Antonov 124 and an official order to that effect was issued on 5 November 2014 for R 16 448 200.00.

(f) The initial specifications by DOT was for two Antonov 124 cargo planes and one passenger aircraft plane. However, due to numerous factors, including cost, only one Antonov 124 was approved and paid by the DOT.

The Antonov 124 was tasked to transport eight vehicles and specialized equipment to Lagos to assist in the repatriation of the remains of South Africans and to return with said remains, vehicles and equipment.

Amongst the eight vehicles transported were four Forensic Pathology Trucks from the Department of Health that are specifically designed to handle bodies in disaster situations.

Nigerian authorities officially handed over positively identified mortal remains of seventy-four South Africans to Minister Radebe at the Sam Ethnan Air Force Base, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria on Saturday 15 November 2014.

The Antonov 124 departed from Nigeria on the evening of Saturday 15 November 2014 and arrived home in South Africa on the morning of Sunday 16 November 2014. A formal reception ceremony was hosted on Sunday 16 November 2014 at the Air Force Base Waterkloof to receive the remains of the South Africans who had perished.

(2) No irregularities were found.

Reply:

Department

Financial period	Number of employees outsourced from private companies and/or contractors	Name of Company	Amount employee was paid
2015/2016	2	(i) Affirmative Portfolios (ii) Akasia Personnel Consultants	(i) R112 532.80 (ii) R1 095 863.44
2016/2017	1	Akasia Personnel Consultants	R977 300.01
2017/2018	1	Akasia Personnel Consultants	R833 395.47
1 April 2018 to date	0	none	none

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

The question requesting information about those employees that are paid by ACSA but were insourced from private companies by ACSA, has reference.

Airports Company South Africa confirms that there are no employees on the payroll of the company

that we have insourced from external private companies. This means there are no employees on our

payroll who were outsourced to Airports Company South Africa by private companies.

Air Traffic and Navigation Services (ATNS)

(aa) N/A

(bb) ATNS doesn’t have any employees that have been outsourced from private companies.

ATNS has 29 employees currently employed on a Fixed Term Contract

(aaa) 2017/2018 financial year: 15

2016/2017 financial year: 21

2015/2016 financial year: 10

(bbb) 2018/2019 YTD: 35

(ii) N/A

(b)

Employee Number				Position Description	Cost to Company (A)
1				Instructor: Air Traffic Services	R 918 493,00
2				Regional Director: Africa	R 2 044 720,00
3				Instructor: Air Traffic Services	R 918 493,00
4				ATCO2: KN	R 772 357,00
5				ATCO3: EL	R 918 493,00
6				Instructor: Air Traffic Services	R 918 493,00
7				Administrator: L & D	R 245 067,00
8				Specialist: Operational System	R 1 176 329,90
9				Project Manager: Business Mark	R 760 000,00
10				ATCO3: CT	R 918 493,00
11				Billing Contracts Administrator	R 398 329,91
12				Billing Contracts Administrator	R 377 122,78
13				Administrator: Foreign Billing	R 377 122,78
14				Accounts Payable Administrator	R 350 042,47
15				Chief Executive Officer	R 4 261 269,00
16				Manager: Finance	R 969 680,00
17				Assistant: Company Secretary	R 780 000,00
18				Consultant: HR (Bruma & ATA)	R 1 195 955,00
19				Executive: Human Capital	R 2 073 000,00
20				Security Guard	R 143 253,03
21				Secretary: Departmental IT	R 293 582,00
22				Accountant: Fixed Assets & Pro	R 620 595,00
23				ATCO3: CT	R 918 493,00
24				ATCO1: PM	R 515 662,00
25				ATCO1: LE	R 497 476,00
26				ATCO3: PE	R 918 493,00
27				Instructor: Air Traffic Services	R 918 493,00
28				ATCO3: JS	R 831 994,00

 

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

(a) (i) A total of 18 employees using 9 different companies have been outsourced from private companies (bb) by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (aaa) over the past three years and (bbb) since 1 April 2018. (ii) The names of each of the companies used and (b) the related amounts are listed below:

List of Outsourced Employees

Cross Border Transport Agency (CBRTA)

(a) The (i) (bb) Cross-Border Road Transport Agency did not have employees that were outsourced from private companies and/or contractors in the past three financial years.

(bbb) In September 2018, two (2) employees were supplied by (ii) Nyalu Communication to provide cleaning services. The company quoted an amount of R13,000 for the service to be rendered by the two cleaners per month for a period of three (3) months. (ii) Not applicable.

Road Accident Fund (RAF)

The (a)(i)(bb) Road Accident Fund (RAF) outsourced[1] a total of (aaa) 68 employees in the past three financial years, and (bbb) 8 employees since 1 April 2018, and (ii) the name of each private company or contractor is:

1. AC Consulting
2. Affirmative Portfolios
3. Astute Advisory
4. Core Focus
5. Dalitso
6. Deloitte
7. DNS
8. EOH
9. Human Communications
10. Impela Alliance
11. Investong Group
12. KPMG
13. Morvest Human Capital Management
14. Moshitoa
15. Nexus Forensics
16. Ntirho Human Capital
17. Phaki Personnel
18. Price Waterhouse Coopers
19. Resolve
20. Teleresources
21. Toro Human Capital

(b) the amount that each employee is, or was, paid is not known to the RAF in those instances where the salary payment to the employee is, or was, made by the private company or contractor, and, in those instances where the RAF made, or makes, the salary payment to the employee the RAF is prevented from divulging this information which constitutes personal information of the employee in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No. 2 of 2000.

Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA)

1. One (1)

(aa) One (1)

(bb) One (1)

(aaa) None

(bbb) One (1)

(ii) Thapelo Kharametsane Attorneys R42 000

Road Traffic Management Corporation Agency (RTMC)

See table below for response

Cleaning Services
Answer to aaa) Financial Period	Answer a) Total Nr. of employees	Answer to a)(ii) Name of Contractor	Answer to b) Average Annual Cost per Employee	Location	Comment
2015/16	9	Samagaba Cleaning Services	R46 902,80	Head Office	Contract Ended 31 August 2017
2016/17	9	Samagaba Cleaning Services	R54 355,57	Head Office	Contract Ended 31 August 2017
2017/18	8	JR 209 (Blue Star Trading)	R35 591,24	Head Office	Contract start date is 01 September 2017 and was ended 31 May 2018. All cleaning personnel were absorbed.
2017/18	10	Global Cleaning services	R83 234,84	Natis Offices	Contract Commenced 06 April 2017 and was ended 31 March 2018. All cleaning employees were absorbed.
2018/19	8	JR 209	R35 591,24	Head Office	Contract start date is 01 September 2017 and was ended 31 May 2018. All cleaning personnel were absorbed.

Security Services

Answer to aaa) Financial Period	Answer a) Total Nr. of employees	Answer to a)(ii) Name of Contractor	Answer to b) Average Annual Cost per Employee	Location	Comment
2015/16	8	Vimba Security	R135 554,02	Head Office	Contract ended 31 March 2017
2016/17	8	Vimba Security	R135 554,02	Head Office	Contract ended 31 March 2017
2017/18	8	Royal Security	R155 967, 83	Head Office	Contract ended 31 July 2017
2017/18	8	JR 209	R150 945,32	Head Office	Contract still in place
2017/18	16	Mafoko Security	R185 674,62	Natis Office	Contract still in place
2017/18	20	Eldna Security	R99 749,10	Boekenhout Traffic College	Contract still in place
2018/19	8	JR 209	R150 945,32	Head Office	Contract still in place
2018/19	16	Mafoko Security	R185 674,62	Natis Office	Contract still in place
2018/19	20	Eldna Security	R99 749,10	Boekenhout Traffic College	Contract still in place

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA)

RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER: 2928
Question	Response
What is the total number of employees that have been outsourced from private companies and/or contractors	31
By his department	Not applicable
Each entity reporting to him?	SAMSA
In the past three financial years?	2016 - 27, 2017 - 1 and 2018 - 3
Since 1 April 2018	2
What is the name of each company or contractor?	Legadima Personnel Sanda HR Solutions Intrinsic Isiwe Chartered Accountants FD Centre Manpower Only the Best Talent Guru The Prestige Cleaning Services Mamchira Projects Business System Services Lunobo Cleaning Construction Advance Cleaning
What amount is each employee paid?	Legadima Personnel - 411,776.09 Sanda HR Solutions - 358,316.75 Intrinsic - 158,609.74 Isiwe Chartered Accountants - 249,600.00 FD Centre - 1,194,214.11 Manpower - 257,964.90 Only the Best - 157,865.36 Talent Guru - 515,605.50 The Prestige Cleaning Services - 553,001.24 Mamchira Projects - 59,865.35 Business System Services - 63,880.20 Lunobo Cleaning Construction - 85,959.89 Advance Cleaning - 77,463.44

Railway Safety Regulator

(bb) The Railway Safety Regulator does not make use of any outsourced employees.

(aaa) (bbb)(ii)(b) Falls away

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

1. (i) The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) does not make use of outsourced employees. PRASA would, through Supply Chain Management processes, sources service to be provided such as security services, where labour is part of the overall cost. These service providers have the employees assigned to PRASA in their books and on their payroll.

(aaa) 2015/16 2,963

2016/17 2,977

2017/18 2,361

(bbb) 2018/19 2,980

PRASA furthermore supports SMME’s and Co-operatives where communities are empowered through station cleaning and horticulture services. For the current year 593 job opportunities have been created. A list of these co-operatives is also provided.

(ii) Security Companies

 

Company

Sinqobile Equestrian

Futuris Guarding Systems

Hlanganani Protection Services

Changing Tides Security

Vusa Isizwe Security Services

Vimtsire Protection Services

Royal Security

Enlightened Security

Afri-Guard

R1

Supreme Operations

Comwezi

Chippa

Sechaba

Chuma

Illiso

Ilanga Security

Ibhubesi Security

Enlightened

Royal Security

Ilanga

Enlightened

Comwezi

Vusa-Isiswe

Scheme Security

WorldWatch

Advanced Detachment

Co-Operatives for Station Cleaning and Horticulture

Mantswe Akgakala Le Motewana

Nithandane Makhosikazi

Bokamoso Cleaning Primary Cooperative

The Tabernace Porimary Cooperative

Uzwano Cooperative Limited

Pro Knit Primary Cooperative

Masego Trading Cooperative

Phakamani Mzontsundu Primary Cooperative

Mphempe Ya lapisa Cooperative

Eich Women in Public Transport Cooperative

Mantswe Akgakala Le Motewana

Masego Trading Cooperative

Ikakgeng Cooperative

Phambili bomama

Masiyasiya

Parents Power

Orange Farm Cultural Cooperative

Uthando Cooperative

Bakubung Cooperative

Kgalaletstang Cooperative

Hamisi Cooperative

Lethokuhle Cooperative

Likhothwayo

Hamisi Cooperative

Nan Primary Cooperative

Eich Women in Public Transport Cooperative

Neo Entle Cooperative

Mocheko Cooperative

Mashudu Cooperative

Sediba-Sa Lefa Multi-Purpose Co-operative

Pfaranani Primary Co-operative

Susavusiwana Co-operative

Bright Mind Co-operative

Predianet Construction and Projects Co-operative

Tirisano Multi-Purpose Co-operative

Dedicated Collegues Co-op

Hardworkers co-op

Cabangusebenze co-op

Anny main primary co-op

Izinkwezeli co -operative ltd

Rainbow primary co-op

Blossen co-operative ltd

Umshanelo wakwazulu co-op

Snade co-op ltd

Majiya multipurpose co-op

Abamtoti womens co-op

C-nesipho primary co-op

Cikizisa construction @farming co-op

Wayforward primary co-op

Ezasenanda trading co-op

Isizanathi primary co-op

Silindokuhle co-op

KwaMashu progress

Inkotha yedube co-op

Sibambene co-op

Asibonge farming co-op

Abasadi primary co-op

Sanelisiwe co-op

Czwesonke farming co-op

Mlonyeni primary co-op

Elohim primary co-op

Ntandokuhle trading

Abaphikeleli co-op

Mzansi wethu co-op

Kathuthuyasi primary co-op

Khaya thingo co-op

Beauty Petros primary co-op

Grace co-op

Nozibele nonkulomo livestock

Barack co-op

BNNZ primary co-op

Sihamba phambili primary co-op

Amangwazi co-op

Iintokozoeh cleaning co-op

Thondolubanzi primary co-op

Khehlengane primary co-op

Sandile co-op

Abundance co-op

Magaye trading Enterprise

Nkeshezane Trading Enterprise

Manthuli Transport PTY Ltd

Lion Primary Co-op

Yolitha Productions Co-op

Unako Primary Co-operative Limited

Lithemba Projects Co-operative

Lukhanyo Primary Co-operative

Khanyisa Services Primary

1. The contracts with suppliers require that they pay legislated rates for the industry and in case of security the PSIRA rates.

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PRSA)

1. (i) (bb) The Ports Regulator of South Africa did not outsource from any private companies

or contractors in the past three financial years.

(aaa) (bbb)(ii)(b) Falls away

South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL)
Financial Year (aaa)(bbb)	Total Amount paid by SANRAL (a)(i)	Total Number of Employees (i)	Name of outsourcing company(ii)	Name of each Employee (b)	Amount paid to each employee (b)
2015/16	R624 808.74	36	1.G Lison Personnel	Employee 1	R893.76
			2.Masibambane Recruitment	Employee 2	R351.12
			3.Kelly	Employee 3	R8 474.76
			4.MPC	Employee 4	R5 894.36
			5.Ikamva	Employee 5	R2 616.62
			6.Affirmative portfolios	Employee 6	R134 488.71
			7.Adcorp Workforce	Employee 7	R408.18
			8.Azola Human Capital	Employee 8	R478.86
				Employee 9	R913.55
				Employee 10	R284.49
				Employee 11	R194.37
				Employee 12	R155.50
				Employee 13	R291.56
				Employee 14	R194.37
				Employee 15	R395.81
				Employee 16	R240.31
				Employee 17	R816.36
				Employee 18	R602.55
				Employee 19	R252.68
				Employee 20	R2 163.70
				Employee 21	R8 790.37
				Employee 22	R12 004.20
				Employee 23	R14 593.50
				Employee 24	R2 433.97
				Employee 25	R539.55
				Employee 26	R191.83
				Employee 27	R946.10
				Employee 28	R540.63
				Employee 29	R71 224.98
				Employee 30	R660.40
				Employee 31	R6 489.45
				Employee 32	R9 234.00
				Employee 33	R5 171.04
				Employee 34	R2 052.00
				Employee 35	R640.47
				Employee 36	R329 184.63
2016/17	R1 206 712.67	70	1.Afrizan Tes	Employee 1	R906.30
			2.G Lison Personnel	Employee 2	R2 797.01
			3.Masibambane Recruitment	Employee 3	R14 180.44
			4.Pakanyo Trading	Employee 4	R1 436.40
			5.Tasiso Consulting	Employee 5	R2 049.75
			6.Kelly	Employee 6	R2 335.60
			7.MPC	Employee 7	R346.13
			8.Ikamva	Employee 8	R3 155.42
			9.Affirmative portfolios	Employee 9	R159 318.46
			9.Adcorp Workforce	Employee 10	R1 457.78
			10.Azola Human Capital	Employee 11	R4 351.85
			11.Dante personnel	Employee 12	R8 600.93
			12.Morvest Human Capital Management	Employee 13	R4 646.51
				Employee 14	R330.43
				Employee 15	R137 822.58
				Employee 16	R4 817.93
				Employee 17	R325.13
				Employee 18	R193.05
				Employee 19	R602.55
				Employee 20	R5 646.40
				Employee 21	R816.35
				Employee 22	R41 511.48
				Employee 23	R2 896.12
				Employee 24	R26 527.59
				Employee 25	R158 624.99
				Employee 26	R325.13
				Employee 27	R1 091.07
				Employee 28	R116.62
				Employee 29	R349.87
				Employee 30	R4 753.75
				Employee 31	R9 781.20
				Employee 32	R28 343.25
				Employee 33	R444.60
				Employee 34	R437.76
				Employee 35	R611.33
				Employee 36	R296.51
				Employee 37	R296.51
				Employee 38	R1 423.29
				Employee 39	R524.16
				Employee 40	R6 862.05
				Employee 41	R1 918.40
				Employee 42	R179.85
				Employee 43	R755.37
				Employee 44	R2 170.05
				Employee 45	R878.53
				Employee 46	R1 025.84
				Employee 47	R120 983.16
				Employee 48	R15 985.85
				Employee 49	R5 423.21
				Employee 50	R14 741.27
				Employee 51	R93 476.40
				Employee 52	R45 262.00
				Employee 53	R5 833.63
				Employee 54	R8 947.39
				Employee 55	R1 094.00
				Employee 56	R2 187.00
				Employee 57	R2 736.00
				Employee 58	R12 852.43
				Employee 59	R8 421.41
				Employee 60	R7 978.18
				Employee 61	R8 421.41
				Employee 62	R9 307.87
				Employee 63	R8 421.41
				Employee 64	R4 432.32
				Employee 65	R3 989.09
				Employee 66	R3 989.09
				Employee 67	R4 432.32
				Employee 68	R4 432.32
				Employee 69	R510.06
				Employee 70	R164 572.55
2017/18	R1 403 483.71	53	1.Masibambane Recruitment	Employee 1	R1 178.76
			2.Phanda Personnel	Employee 2	R1 157.10
			3.Ricoware	Employee 3	R410.40
			4.Tasiso Consulting	Employee 4	R23 942.40
			5.Kelly	Employee 5	R312.25
			6.MPC	Employee 6	R1 405.11
			7.Ikamva	Employee 7	R6 574.56
			8.Adcorp Workforce	Employee 8	R1 484.28
			9.Dante personnel	Employee 9	R1 987.88
			10.ETS Professionals	Employee 10	R38 255.20
			11.Morvest Human Capital Management	Employee 11	R38 875.86
				Employee 12	R568.98
				Employee 13	R410 569.08
				Employee 14	R98 952.00
				Employee 15	R6 574.56
				Employee 16	R6 574.56
				Employee 17	R44 104.32
				Employee 18	R1 313.28
				Employee 19	R17 896.32
				Employee 20	R12 044.75
				Employee 21	R276.19
				Employee 22	R103 745.53
				Employee 23	R1 893.86
				Employee 24	R1 657.13
				Employee 25	R463.16
				Employee 26	R631.29
				Employee 27	R1 893.86
				Employee 28	R37 344.37
				Employee 29	R21 378.69
				Employee 30	R26 926.17
				Employee 31	R496.24
				Employee 32	R82 753.12
				Employee 33	R959.40
				Employee 34	R5 602.66
				Employee 35	R477.22
				Employee 36	R7 888.16
				Employee 37	R12 483.30
				Employee 38	R6 710.86
				Employee 39	R4 651.20
				Employee 40	R1 574.42
				Employee 41	R2 907.00
				Employee 42	R43 436.05
				Employee 43	R45 209.66
				Employee 44	R6 205.25
				Employee 45	R6 205.25
				Employee 46	R443.23
				Employee 47	R443.23
				Employee 48	R443.23
				Employee 49	R443.23
				Employee 50	R6 669.00
				Employee 51	R51 300.00
				Employee 52	R195 856.77
				Employee 53	R9 933.32
2018/19	R105 923.90	16	1.Masibambane Recruitment	Employee 1	R5 423.00
			2.Phanda Personnel	Employee 2	R833.75
			3.Kelly	Employee 3	R37 918.40
			4.Khulisa connection	Employee 4	R5 301.00
			5.MPC	Employee 5	R5 888.00
			6.Izilamani group	Employee 6	R3 312.00
			7.Warrior Talent Holdings	Employee 7	R4 554.00
			8.Adcorp workforce	Employee 8	R21 576.30
				Employee 9	R310.50
				Employee 10	R1 231.20
				Employee 11	R3 817.54
				Employee 12	R1 527.02
				Employee 13	R10 337.94
				Employee 14	R2 646.83
				Employee 15	R554.24
				Employee 16	R692.18
Total	R3 340 929.02	175			R3 340 929.02

1. ↑

Reply:

1. Please see Table 1 below for the expected (forecast) versus realized (actual) income.
2. Payments are made by an account holder who assumes responsibility to pay the account for the registered vehicles, which can be an individual, a corporate, or a combination. The person/entity that sets up the account does not complete a “field” to indicate if it is a corporate or individual user. As a result, the SANRAL toll system does not record whether a vehicle is registered (or owned) by an individual or a corporate user and the information requested cannot be directly extracted from the toll system. Should more details be required the Member of Parliament is welcome to visit SANRAL Head Office in Pretoria.
3. Table 2 below provides, for each month, the number of tags that have been activated and deactivated from December 2013 to date. The table does not reflect the tags registered prior to the December 2013 date, such as the tags that were already in use on the Bakwena route. Tags are deactivated for various reasons, which include the following:

• Movement of tag to a new vehicle
• Movement of vehicles and tags between accounts, e.g. Public Entity and Key accounts
• Deregistrations, etc

Table 1: GFIP expected (forecast) versus realized (actual) income

Table 2: e-Tag Activations versus Deactivations

Year	Month	Tags Activated	Tags Deactivated
2013	December	348382	22667
2014	January	165030	23480
	February	112086	18424
	March	87814	18731
	April	70082	17578
	May	62602	18419
	June	65643	19330
	July	51642	19357
	August	40810	18739
	September	34834	22980
	October	31604	17940
	November	25614	17144
	December	18833	12155
2015	January	24856	17406
	February	22443	15280
	March	21656	16827
	April	18924	15425
	May	22663	17850
	June	29217	17329
	July	36139	19312
	August	30274	21768
	September	30685	19336
	October	32080	18070
	November	24631	15287
	December	18624	12945
2016	January	29676	16615
	February	30536	16897
	March	31193	20179
	April	29310	19458
	May	34520	21343
	June	28130	19711
	July	32300	16475
	August	27270	16852
	September	28881	20350
	October	30733	16361
	November	26566	59163
	December	21566	84980
2017	January	30497	17699
	February	29186	16936
	March	28355	28654
	April	19699	17387
	May	24736	18799
	June	24399	16537
	July	29388	17478
	August	29138	17409
	September	26645	16760
	October	31358	17295
	November	29733	15409
	December	21410	12567
2018	January	29016	19675
	February	28005	16357
	March	21786	18216
	April	21571	16997
	May	22334	20042
	June	24091	14923
	July	29719	16678
	August	26140	16107
	September	27454	15749
	October	31005	16733

4. (a)The Contractor (ETC) incurred R4,6m on legal fees up to August 2018.

(b) The Accounting Policy of SANRAL, which is in line with IFRS, determines that the impairment assessment is done on an annual basis. As such the trade receivables balance is calculated, audited and published annually. Table 3 below reflects the audited trade receivables for the requested financial years:

Financial Year	Toll debtors (R’million)
2018	10 840.4
2017	8 798.4
2016	6 620.1
2015	4 935.3
2014	951.3

Table 3

5. SANRAL’s toll operator is not re-issuing summonses. The summonses that have already been issued will be amended to include new debt (if required) but will not require re-issuing. Therefore, we respond as follows:

a) Not applicable as the re-issuing summonses is not required.

b) Not applicable refer to a).

c) Not applicable refer to a).

Reply:

1. Statistics on direct claims lodged prior to December 2012 are not available, as stand-alone direct claims units were only established throughout the Road Accident Fund (RAF) during the 2012 -2013 financial year. From December 2012, statistics on direct claims were were reported on separately from other claims. The following information regarding the number of claims that have become prescribed in the hands of the RAF (claims lodged and, or, prosecuted personally by a claimant who elected not to use the services of an attorney or elected to terminate the services of their attorney) since 1 December 2012 for each month of each year according to (a) percentage and (b) absolute numbers (total) from the year 2012 up to and including the latest statistics for 2018;

Financial Year	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December	January	February	March	Total
2012/13									1	1	2	3	7
% of the total of claims prescribed during the year									14%	14%	29%	43%	100%
2013/14	6	3	1	3	9	10	2,066	8	2	1	664	121	2,894
% of the total of claims prescribed during the year	0.2%	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%	0.3%	0.3%	71%	0.3%	0.1%	0%	23%	4%	100%
2014/15	1	14	4	2	1,716	3,974	178	-	-	36	201	112	6,238
% of the total of claims prescribed during the year	0.0%	0.2%	0.1%	0.0%	28%	64%	3%	0.0%	0.0%	1%	3%	2%	100%
2015/16	4	2	3	13	7	6	38	39	7	32	14	3	168
% of total% of the total of claims prescribed during the year	2%	1%	2%	8%	4%	4%	23%	23%	4%	19%	8%	2%	100%
2016/17	7	60	21	16	77	5	18	5	6	3	1	6	225
% of the total of claims prescribed during the year	3%	27%	9%	7%	34%	2%	8%	2%	3%	1%	0.4%	3%	100%
2017/18	3	3	22	272	8	12	4	7	4	3	5	1	344
% of the total of claims prescribed during the year	1%	1%	6%	79%	2%	3%	1%	2%	1%	1%	1%	0%	100%
2018/19*	3	3	44	53	10	49							162
% of the total of claims prescribed during the period	2%	2%	27%	33%	6%	30%							100%

2) the overall reasons, amongst others, for the prescription of the claims in each month, are claims that prescribed in the following circumstances: while awaiting the judgment in the case of Mvumvu and Others v The Minister of Transport and the RAF (Case CCT 67/10); awaiting the completion of medico-legal reports by medical experts; delays in obtaining confirmation of appointments for assessments for medico-legal reports; delays in obtaining completed medical reports from hospitals; awaiting necessary information from claimants or service providers; files not sent to Regions by consultants prior to prescription of the claim; administrative issues such as incorrect registration, miscommunication between the regions; where direct claimants have subsequently elected to instruct an attorney and summons is not issued before prescription and where claimants failed to provide correct contact information, or contact information subsequently changed and the claimant failed to inform the RAF;

3) The RAF has implemented a Direct Claims Policy with effect from 15 February 2016. The purpose of the Direct Claims Management Policy, amongst others, is to regulate the internal management of Direct Claims to ensure that the rights of Unrepresented Claimants are protected; to ensure that the risks to the RAF are managed; and finally, to manage conflicts of interest that may arise. The Direct Claims Policy provides for consequence management in the event of non-compliance.

Reply:

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has put the following plans in place to remedy the (a) financial,

In the longer term the design of the system of road accident compensation must change to address the fact that the existing system is unaffordable, with income not matching expenditure. To this end the RABS Bill, which is currently before the Portfolio Committee on Transport, will address the future financial viability of road accident compensation by ensuring a balance between funding and benefits. In the interim, the RAF has implemented a Cash Management Strategy to ensure that available funding is distributed in an equitable and fair manner. This has since evolved to cash management in the ordinary course of business, which is reviewed in response to the business environment. The RAF ensures that it communicates with service providers to ensure they are kept abreast of developments where necessary. The RAF seeks to ensure that any funds that are not committed due to general savings or delays in procurement, are allocated to the settlement of claims, where possible. The RAF has engaged with stakeholders such as National Treasury and the Department of Transport to ensure awareness, to present status updates and to seek solutions. In addition, the RAF has sought to implement measures to minimize the interruption caused by attachments of the RAF’s bank accounts.

(b) administrative and

The existing system of road accident compensation is administratively complex. Fault has to be proven and benefits are not defined, which results in delays in establishing liability and the quantification of claims, often resulting in disputes and protracted litigation, in which the intermediaries have a direct and substantial financial interest. The RABS Bill addresses the shortcomings by, inter alia, providing for defined benefits, on a no-fault basis, paid directly to beneficiaries, in a structured manner, ensuring wider cover, especially to the poor. The RABS Bill further seeks to reduce the administrative complexity inherent in the current system which will see less involvement by intermediaries and more money reaching the intended beneficiaries of the system. In the interim, the RAF addresses improved administration through, inter alia, the RAF’s Annual Performance Plan for the 2018 - 2019 financial year, which addresses the RAF’s administrative challenges by, amongst others, providing for: initiatives aligned to efficient processing of claims; initiatives aligned to providing accessible services: initiatives aligned to effective financial management; initiatives aligned to optimising ICT functionality; initiatives aligned to improving people management; initiatives aligned to RAF transformation; and initiatives aligned to an assured control environment.

(c) governance difficulties currently being experienced by the Road Accident Fund

The previous Board was dissolved by the Minister of Transport and an Interim Board was appointed to address governance challenges. The process to appoint a permanent Board has commenced. The process to appoint a CEO re-commenced two months ago.

Reply:

The Department of Transport has no access to the contractual issues and Supply Chain Management Process of the Kwa-Zulu Natal Department of Transport. The Honourable Member may re- direct the Question the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of Transport in Kwa-Zulu Natal, Honourable Mxolisi Kaunda.

Therefore Question (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) fall away.

Reply:

(a)(i)I was never influenced by any person and/or (ii) nor influenced any of the department’s employees to take any official administrative action on behalf of any (aa) member, (bb) employee and (cc) acknowledges to have met the close associates of the Gupta family during the SABC/TNA morning breakfast shows where I was a guest on the shows.

Reply:

1. Reports are requested in line with the Safety Management System (SMS) and this entails one (1) report per year. Reports are submitted per discipline, i.e. Perway, Level Crossings, Stations, Electrical, Signalling and Telecoms. The status of the submission is outlined as per the attached annexure.

1. See attached annexure
2. See attached annexure

(aa) See attached annexure

(bb) For 2018/19, information was not available or PRASA Rail was awaiting Regional inputs. The Railway Safety Regulator has advised that reports would be submitted by 30 September 2018.

1. (i) & (ii) See attached annexure

1. (i) & (ii) See attached annexure

1. (i) & (ii) Reports were requested. However, due to PRASA’s internal challenges with a lack of continuity in various areas, reports were not submitted. Furthermore, it should be noted, for the same reason that PRASA is lagging in providing the RSR with the requested information, the RSR has now made the reports requirement of the safety permit which was recently issued to PRASA.

PERWAY

No.	(aa) Year	(a)(i) No. status reports requested by RSR (per Discipline)	(a)(ii) Report Issued by PRASA	(d)(i) & (ii) Comments report not issued or late submission	(b)(i) No. Maintenance reports requested by RSR	(b)(ii) Report Issues by PRASA	Comments report not issued or late submission	(c)(i) Other Report	General Comment
1.	2013/14	16	12	No historical records	4	4	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.	2014/15	16	12	No historical records	4	4	n/a	n/a	n/a
3.	2015/16	16	12	No historical records	4	4	n/a	n/a	n/a
4	2016/17	16	15	No historical records	4	4	n/a	n/a	n/a
5.	2017/18	16	15	Awaiting info ration from regions	4	4	n/a	n/a	n/a

LEVEL CROSSINGS

No.	(aa) Year	(a)(i) No. status reports requested by RSR (per Discipline)	(a)(ii) Report Issued by PRASA	(d)(i) & (ii) Comments report not issued or late submission	(b)(i) No. Maintenance reports requested by RSR	(b)(ii) Report Issues by PRASA	Comments report not issued or late submission	(c)(i) Other Report	General Comment
1.	2013/14	12	4	No records	4	4	n/a	n/a
2.	2014/15	12	4	No records	4	4	n/a	n/a
3.	2015/16	12	4	No records	4	4	n/a	n/a
4	2016/17	12	4	No records	4	4	n/a	n/a
5.	2017/18	12	7	Awaiting information from Regional offices	4	4	n/a	n/a

STATIONS

No.	(aa) Year	(a)(i) No. status reports requested by RSR (per Discipline)	(a)(ii) Report Issued by PRASA	(d)(i) & (ii) Comments report not issued or late submission	(b)(i) No. Maintenance reports requested by RSR	(b)(ii) Report Issues by PRASA	Comments report not issued or late submission	(c)(i) Other Report	General Comment
1.	2013/14	4	0	Not yet available	4	4	n/a	n/a
2.	2014/15	4	0	Not yet available	4	4	n/a	n/a
3.	2015/16	4	0	Not yet available	4	4	n/a	n/a
4.	2016/17	4	0	Not yet available	4	4	n/a	n/a
5.	2017/18	4	0	Not yet available	4	4	n/a	n/a

ELECTRICAL

No.	(aa) Year	(a)(i) No. status reports requested by RSR (per Discipline)	(a)(ii) Report Issued by PRASA	(d)(i) & (ii) Comments report not issued or late submission	(b)(i) No. Maintenance reports requested by RSR	(b)(ii) Report Issues by PRASA	Comments report not issued or late submission	(c)(i) Other Report	General Comment
1.	2013/14	8	0	Asset information not available yet/Historical info not available	8	2	Substations Information not yet available from Regions	n/a
2.	2014/15	8	0	Asset information not available yet/Historical info not available	8	3	Substations Information not yet available from Regions	n/a
3.	2015/16	8	0	Asset information not available ye/Historical info not available	8	2	Substations Information not yet available from Regions	n/a
4.	2016/17	8	1	Asset information not available yet//Historical info not available	8	2	Substations Information not yet available from Regions	n/a
5.	2017/18	8	2	Asset information not available yet	8	4	Substations Information not yet available from Regions	n/a

SIGNALLING

No.	(aa) Year	(a)(i) No. status reports requested by RSR (per Discipline)	(a)(ii) Report Issued by PRASA	(d)(i) & (ii) Comments report not issued or late submission	(b)(i) No. Maintenance reports requested by RSR	(b)(ii) Report Issues by PRASA	Comments report not issued or late submission	(c)(i) Other Report	General Comment
1.	2013/14	4	4	n/a	4	3	Information not available from the Regions	n/a
2.	2014/15	4	4	n/a	4	3	Information not available from the Regions	n/a
3.	2015/16	4	4	n/a	4	3	Information not available from the Regions	n/a
4	2016/17	4	4	n/a	4	3	Information not available from the Regions	n/a
5.	2017/18	4	4	n/a	4	3	Information not available from the Regions	n/a

TELECOMS

No.	(aa) Year	(a)(i) No. status reports requested by RSR (per Discipline)	(a)(ii) Report Issued by PRASA	(d)(i) & (ii) Comments report not issued or late submission	(b)(i) No. Maintenance reports requested by RSR	(b)(ii) Report Issues by PRASA	Comments report not issued or late submission	(c)(i) Other Report	General Comment
1.	2013/14	4	0	Historical records not available	4	1	Historical records not available	n/a
2.	2014/15	4	0	Historical records not available	4	1	Historical records not available	n/a
3.	2015/16	4	0	Historical records not available	4	3	Information not available	n/a
4	2016/17	4	0	Historical records not available	4	3	Information not available	n/a
5.	2017/18	4	4	n/a	4	3	Information not available	n/a