Reply:

The information required involves a lot of stakeholders whom we are still engaging. Therefore in order for us to provided accurate information we will need more clarity from them. A comprehensive reply will follow soon.

 

Reply:

(a) Services procured and payments made by his Department

According to supply chain records at the disposal of the Department, which were sourced and verified against the ERP systems, no services were procured from:

(i) Bell Pottinger.

(ii) No services were procured from any other public relations firms.

(aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), (ee), and (ff) Not Applicable

 

(b) Public Entities Reporting to the Department

(i) All the public entities reporting to the department of public works namely:

Independent Development Trust (IDT), Agrement South Africa (ASA), Council for Built Environment (CBE) and Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) did not procure any services nor did they make payments to Bell Pottinger or any other public relations firms.

(ii) Only the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) procured services from other public relations firms

Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) in the 2016/17 financial year end, procured services from and/or made any payments to Blackmoon advertising and Research (Pty) Ltd and Litha Communications (Pty) Ltd, public relations firms for the following services and costs:

bb) 1,615,673.39

 

(aa) & (ee) Services procured	Blackmoon and Advertising (Pty) Ltd	Litha Communications (Pty) Ltd	(dd) & (ff) Total paid
	(cc) Detailed breakdown of costs
Design, layout & printing of Annual reports	504,232.37	85,215.00	589,447.37
Design and layout of internal newsletters	52,119.66		52,119.66
Design, layout and printing of external newsletters	71,139.14	70,548.40	141,687.54
Design, layout and printing of poster, invitation cards and programmes	12,950.40		12,950.40
Reprinting of existing documents	497,472.24	97,059.60	594,531.80
Research, conceptualising and writing of articles	33,143.51		33,143.51
Advertising in different media	-	-	-
Corporate gifts sourcing and branding	100,218.08	28,371.75	128,589.83
Photography	37,324.74	25,878.50	63,203.24
(bb) Total cost	1,308,600.14	307,073.25	1,615,673.39

 

Reply:

(a) No. The Department of Public Works

    (i) has not procured any services from the Decolonisation Fund.

   (ii) no payments were made to the organisation stated above

Thus, responses to (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), and (ff) fall away.

(b) (i) None of the Public Entities reporting to the Department of Public Works has procured any services to the Decolonisation Foundation.

(ii) No payments were made to the Decolonisation Foundation.

Thus, responses to (aa) (bb) (cc) (dd) (ee) and (ff) fall away.

 

Reply:

1. Yes, Erf 81 situated in Tamboerskloof, Cape Town, Western Cape falls under the care of National Public Works Department.

2. The property is being considered for transfer to the Department of Defence, which has requested that this property – as well as all other Endowment properties – be returned to the Department of Defence for their own use. The property is an Endowment property owned by Department of Defence and is under the custodianship of National Department of Public Works.

3. The property is intended to be used by the Department of Defence for their own needs.

Reply:

1. Yes, there are properties that are let out to non-governmental tenants.

  (a) As at 31March 2017, there were 1175 surplus properties let to non-governmental tenants;

  (b) These properties are leased to non-governmental tenants such as churches, private individuals, companies, not for profit organisations, etc.

  (c) These properties are spread across the country in all provinces and various municipalities (refer to attached annexure A).

2. Lease agreements were signed with these tenants. However, there are instances where the lease agreements have since expired and are in the process of being renewed.

The department embarked on Operation Bring Back (OBB) specifically to ensure all properties of state are accounted for and utilised appropriately. The department has a team which is visiting all properties to ensure they are secured, and any illegal occupants engaged and that all leases are regularised. For vacant properties, and expired leases, the department advertised these properties to ensure that we achieve legal occupation speedily, not all the expired leases have been renewed, as this is an ongoing process.

The rental amounts vary for each property as per the attached annexure.

(a) Further details with respect to the leased properties are as per the attached annexure.

Reply:

The information required is being collected from various Divisions and stake holders which in turn must still be collated and verified so as to provide an accurate information. Therefore a consolidate response will be provided soon.

Reply:

1. a) The National Department of Public Works is the custodian of the Jonkershoek Forest Reserve Farm 352 and the unregistered portion 4 also known as “Op-die-Bult Jonkershoek”

(b) The National Department of Public Works is currently negotiating with the Stellenbosch Municipality to assume responsibility for the human settlement of former forest workers by means of the disposal of the property to that municipality.

(2) No, currently there are no funds available for the maintenance of the general infrastructure and houses of the settlement, hence negotiations with the
Stellenbosch Municipality to assume responsibility for the settlement.

(3) (a) 18 formal structures have been confirmed at Op-die-Bult, with 123 households recorded in the broader Jonkerhoek Mixed Use Precinct. These
figures are from the time when the property was returned to Department by the South African Forestry Company Limited (SAFCOL) acting on behalf of
the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

(b) (i) No funds have been spent on the infrastructure

(b) (ii) No funds have been spent on the houses

(4) (a) The Department is currently negotiating with the Stellenbosch municipalityto take over the properties together with their inhabitants as it is best-placed to provide appropriate standards of human settlement

(b) Yes, it is envisaged that the Department will hand over the properties to the Stellenbosch Municipality for management of the human settlement according to prescribed standards.

(5) The National Department of Public Works aims to transfer the land to the Stellenbosch Municipality. Other relevant Departments e.g. Department of
Human Settlements, COGTA, Department of Rural Development etc. will then be drawn in as an intergovernmental team to assist with housing and
infrastructure in formalising the settlement in terms of their core function.

Reply:

The Department of Public works manages accommodation requirements of national departments through the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE). Included in this mandate is the provision of accommodation through state owned and leased properties, construction of new accommodation, major refurbishment of existing properties and management of municipal services.

State-owned accommodation charges are billed quarterly in advance in line with the devolution framework principles developed at the time of establishment of the PMTE. The process that is followed to recover monies relating to private leases, municipal services, Client Infrastructure spending (Capital allocation) and other recoverable infrastructure projects (referred to as PACE and CA) is as follows:

 

• PMTE pays lessors, contractors and municipalities on behalf of user departments;
• At the end of the month, the recoverable costs are consolidated per client;
• Invoices are then issued to clients in arrears;
• User departments have 30 days to settle debts in terms of the PFMA;
• However, in practice this gives rise to 60 days delay in matching the expense with the revenue.

As at the end of March 2017, R2, 854 billion was outstanding from national departments (Annexure: A) and R195 billion from other organs of state (Annexure: B).

In line with established inter-governmental cooperation principles, the PMTE has regular interactions with user departments for the recovery of outstanding debts and is assisted by the National Treasury where additional funding is required.

 

Reply:

1. (a) Breakdown of total costs from date of handover of 18 Mark Street, Stellenbosch

Year	Security	Clearing of the property	Municipal Services	TOTAL
2014	R25 792.90	R2 207.80	R27 955.98	R55 956.68
2015	R136 060.32		R29 194.85	R165 255.17
2016	R271 804.00		R30 037.87	R301 841.87
2017	R17 329.00	R30 453.50		R47 782.50
YTD	R450 986.22	R32 661.30	R87 188.70	R570 836.22

Since the handover, the property has been secured with shutter boards and the
rubble that was present on the property has been removed.

(b) The property was handed back to the Department on 10 July 2014’.

(c) No, given the condition of the property, it has not rendered any income during the period.

2. (a) The Department has received offers for the use of the property and is currently in the
process of evaluating the offers. As part of evaluating the offers received, the Department
will have concluded the condition assessment of the property by 15 May 2017.

  (b) The estimated cost to restore the property will be available following the conclusion of the condition assessment.

3. No request has been received from the Stellenbosch Municipality for transfer of the property.

4. The Department has received offers for the use of the property and is currently in the process of evaluating the offers. The Department is aiming to have a decision made on the offers by 31 May 2017.

Reply:

The department is still trying to collate all the relevant information from other Divisions and Provinces in order to give accurate response which will soon be provided.

Reply:

(a) None.

(b)(i), (ii) Not applicable.

Reply:

Minister of Public Works:

The Department does not intend to repair, upgrade or renovate any property on the President’s private property at Nkandla.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable.

Reply:

Minister of Public Works:

(a) The Department has not conducted any comprehensive building condition assessments regarding infrastructure repairs, except for an assessment of the structural damage to one of the security features at the private residence of the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal. The South African Police Service (SAPS) conducted a physical assessment of the security features at the said premises.

(b) The Department has not conducted any maintenance assessments of the security upgrades at the private residence of the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal. The position is that the Department will assess and consider such if requested and permitted by the owners if necessary.

(a)(i) The assessment of the structural damage to one of the security features was conducted on 29 June 2016 and the physical assessment of the security features was done by the SAPS on 30 March 2015.

(a)(ii) The assessment of the structural damage to one of the security features was done by the Department and the physical assessment of the security features was done by the SAPS.

(a)(iii) Not Applicable

(a)(iv) Regarding the assessment of the structural damage to one of the security features, there was no indication that there is more infrastructure repair required. Regarding the physical assessment of the security features done by the SAPS, the question should be addressed to the SAPS.

(a)(v) A cost estimate has not been done regarding the repair of the structural damage to the said security feature. Regarding a cost estimate relating to the physical assessment of the security features done by the SAPS, the question should be addressed to the SAPS.

(a)(vi) The work on the infrastructure repairs to the said security feature has not commenced. Regarding work relating to the physical assessment of the security features done by the SAPS, the question should be addressed to the SAPS.

(b)(i) – (vi) Not Applicable.

Reply:

(a)

(i) The Special Investigating Unit referred evidence of possible criminal liability against three former officials of the Department of Public Works who were involved in the Nkandla matter to the relevant Prosecuting Authority. None of the three former officials were criminally charged, as the National Prosecuting Authority declined to prosecute any of them.

(ii) None.

(iii) None.

(b) The total remuneration earned by each of the specified officials from 1 April 2011 until the time of termination of the services was:

• R2 398 851.00 (01/April/2011 to 30/June/2013);
• R2 450 384.25 (01/April/2011 to 31/October/2012); and
• Nil (the employee was not in the employment of the Department in the past five financial years from 01 April 2011 to 31 March 2016).

Reply:

Minister of Public Works:

The above questions are not applicable to Independent Development Trust (IDT) and Agrement South Africa (ASA).

In terms of:

Council for Built Environment (CBE)

Parliamentary Question	Departmental Response
(1) Whether there is any position of (a) Chief executive officer, (b) Chief financial officer and/or (c) Chief operating officer that is currently vacant in each entity reporting to him	a) Yes (b) No (c) No (However the incumbent has been moved to act as the CEO and her position temporarily occupied by the Manager: Regulations and Legal Services.)
(i) If so; how long has each specified position been vacant	(i) The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position has been vacant since suspension of the former CEO on 31 March 2015 and The COO position has been occupied by an acting official since 11 November 2016.
ii) what is the reason for each vacancy;	(ii) The former CEO was suspended since 31 March 2015. The Chief Operations Officer (COO) position is not vacant, however due to her appointment as the Acting CEO, the Manager: Regulations and Legal Services was appointed to act as the COO.
(2) Have the vacancies been advertised;	The position of the CEO will be advertised in the month of April 2017 .
(a) if so, were interviews done and	(a) Not Yet.
(b) on what date will the vacancies be filled;	The process will be finalised by 31 July 2017.
(3) (a) what is the total number of persons who are currently employed in the specified positions in an acting capacity	(a) Only two (2) officials are currently acting in the specified positions. The COO who is currently the Acting CEO and the Manager: Regulations and Legal Services who is Acting as the COO.
(b) for what period has each person been acting in each position and	(b)The Acting CEO was appointed effective as from 1 April 2015 to date and the Acting COO has been acting since 11 November 2016 to date.
(c) has any of the specified persons applied for the positions?	(c) The position has been advertised yet.

 

 

In terms of:

Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB)

Parliamentary Question	Departmental Response
(1) Whether there is any position of (a) Chief executive officer, (b) Chief financial officer and/or (c) Chief operating officer that is currently vacant in each entity reporting to him	a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes
(i) If so; how long has each specified position been vacant	(i) The position for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has been vacant since 28 February 2015. The position for the Chief Financial Officer has been vacant since 01 February 2017. The Chief Operating Officer position for CIDB has been vacant since 09 November 2016 after approval of the new macro structure;
ii) what is the reason for each vacancy;	(ii) The former CEO’s contract was terminated by the Board due to performance issues. The CFO’s position is vacant due to resignation. The COO’s position is a new position
(2) Have the vacancies been advertised;	(2) Yes, the CEO vacancy has been advertised. No, the CFO position will be advertised on the 31st May 2017 and No, the COO position will be advertised on the 31st May 2017.
(a) if so, were interviews done and	(a) No, according to the project plan, interviews will start from 18 April onwards.
(b) on what date will the vacancies be filled;	(b)The anticipated date of appointment of the CEO is 01 July 2017.
3(a) what is the total number of persons who are currently employed in the specified positions in an acting capacity	3(a) Only one (1) official. The Acting CEO. The other positions are still vacant to date.
(b) for what period has each person been acting in each position and	(b) CEO position has been vacant for 2 Years 2 months CFO position has been vacant for 2 months COO position has been vacant for 6 months
(c) has any of the specified persons applied for the positions?	(c) None of the officials applied. The CEO recruitment / head hunting process is still underway.

Reply:

a) (i)The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) referred evidence for possible criminal action against three (not 44) former senior officials of the Department of Public Works and one contractor involved in the Nkandla matter to the relevant Prosecuting Authority. The latter declined to prosecute the three officials and the enquiry against the contractor is apparently still pending.

(ii) The SIU instituted a civil claim (not 15 cases) against Makhanya Architects, the principal architect in the Nkandla matter, in the KwazuluNatal High Court. The proceedings are pending.

(iii) The Special Investigating Unit referred evidence for possible disciplinary action against 12 (not 64) employees of the Department of Public Works who were involved in the Nkandla matter to the Department. The Department instituted disciplinary actions against all 12 of the employees. One employee pleaded guilty and he was found guilty of misconduct. The penalty was suspension without pay and a final written warning. One of the employees passed away. The disciplinary hearings against the remaining ten employees have commenced.

b) The names of twelve officials that were subjected to disciplinary hearings cannot be disclosed until the cases have been finalised.

(c) (i) and (ii) 11 employees are still employed by the Department.

(d) Six employees received performance bonuses

(e) Total amount received in each case during the period from 1 April 2012 to March 2017:

R28 702 87

R11 205.66

R60 766.85

R42 097.35

R57 210.65

R22 759.97

Reply:

No. The Department of Public Works has not procured any services from:

(a) Mr Mzwanele Manyi.

(b) Progressive Professionals Forum.

(c) the Decolonisation Fund; and or

(d) the Black Business Council.

Therefore no payments have been made to the person and organanisations in question.

(I), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) Fall way.

Reply:

(1)

(a) and (b) No.

(2) (a) and (b) No.

(aa) and (bb) Fall away.

Reply:

a)(i)(ii)

Name of Company	Company Registration Number
Minenhle Makhanya Architects -	Reg. No 2007/116878/23
Igoda Projects -	Reg. No. 1999/026799/07
Otis -	Reg. No. 1948/030021/07
SA Bullet Resistant Glass Company -	Reg. No. 1981/008671/07
Pro-Hydraulics -	Reg. No. 1991/032516/23
Mustapha Cachalia Engineering -	Reg. No. 2000/011218/23
Ramcon -	Reg. No. 2002/003039/23
Ibhongo Consulting -	Reg. No. 2002/022359/23
Ilangalethu Consult / R/G Consulting -	Reg. No. 2003/086502/23
Bonelena Construction Enterprise and Projects -	Reg. No. 2005/07916/23
E Magubane -	Reg. No. 2006/056588/23
Betafence Projects SA -	Reg. No. 2010/019623/07
CA Du Toit -	Reg. No. 1971/001759/07
Moneymine 310 CC -	Reg. No. 2002/06532/23

b) The department of Public works has not placed any supplier on the restricted supplier database, however, the Department of Public Works has started a process to place suppliers on the restricted supplier database where there is evidence that the supplier has breached the SCM policy and/or the National Treasury Regulations.

c) According to the records at the disposal as sourced from the ERP system of the Department from 1 August 2014 to date, 8 of the 14 specified companies have been contracted by the Department, namely:

Name of Company	Company Registration Number
Otis -	Reg. No. 1948/030021/07
Pro-Hydraulics -	Reg. No. 1991/032516/23
Mustapha Cachalia Engineering -	Reg. No 2000/011218/23
Ilangalethu Consult / R/G Consulting -	Reg. No. 2003/086502/23
Bonelena Construction Enterprise and Projects -	Reg. No. 2005/07916/23
E Magubane -	Reg. No. 2006/056588/23
CA Du Toit -	Reg. No. 1971/001759/07

Reply:

(i) The Minister of Public Works

(a) and (b) Make & Model	(c) Price	(d) Date purchased
BMW X5 F15 XDrive 4.0D	R918 459.61	12 November 2015

(ii) The Deputy Minister of Public Works

(a) and (b) Make & Model	(c) Price	(d) Date purchased
Volkswagen Touareg 3.0 V6 TDI	R709 484.00	21 November 2014
BMW F10 535i	R681 432.34	01 January 2015

(bb) No motor vehicle has been purchased since 01 April 2016.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

1. The Department of Public Works (DPW) budgeted an amount of R3.5 million in terms of Prestige logistical services for the 2017 State of the Nation Address (SONA) and opening of Parliament event. The DPW spent only R2.7 million from the budgeted amount, thus making the savings of about R800 000.

2. The Department did not disburse any other financial resources for the SONA apart from what was budgeted. Instead, the Department realised savings through the insourcing of staff from its workshops and horticulture services, as well as the Expanded Public Works Programme. The savings were made against the backdrop of austerity measures that were introduced by Government in recent years.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(1) (a) The property situated at 18 Mark Street in Stellenbosch falls under the Property

Management Trading Entity (PMTE) of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and within the ambit of our Cape Town region.

(b) Mr Frederick Johnson is the Cape Town Office Regional Manager.

(c) This property was allocated to the South African Police Service (SAPS), who in turn allocated the property to an SAPS official. I am informed that the property was vacated in November 2013.

(d) (i) and (ii) The official to whom the residence was allocated reportedly vacated the property following a burglary in 2013. The DPW was, however, not notified of this. As the custodian of all State-owned properties at national level, the DPW allocates accommodation to User Departments based on their specified requirements. The allocation of residential accommodation to be occupied by officials, however, remains the prerogative of the User Department. No agreement therefore exists between the Department and the actual individual occupying the property. The User Department only informed the Department that the occupant had vacated the property in June 2014. During the handback, an inspection of property was conducted by the Department, and it revealed that the property had been abandoned and as a result had been severely vandalised and structurally damaged.

2. Yes.

(a) The decision on whether to refurbish, let, dispose of, or demolish property will be based on the outcome of a condition assessment and a feasibility study.

However, in the interim, all openings to the property in question are in the process of being secured with shutter boards and the removal of rubble from the premises has commenced.

(b) The process of cleaning and securing the site expected is set to be completed in March 2017.

(3) (a) (b) The PMTE is confronted with many cases of damaged property as part of the legacy of a Department of Public Works, which lacked the requisite skills and capacity to manage a huge property portfolio. As part of the DPW’s Turnaround Strategy initiated in 2012, the Department began the process of giving effect to a Government decision to operationalise the PMTE. This process would ultimately lead to the PMTE being established as a Government component, empowered to make decisions commensurate with the professional approach to the management of the massive DPW property portfolio.

The recent completion of a reliable and credible Immovable Asset Register (IAR) has enabled the PMTE to be more effective in managing the national Government property portfolio. This includes, inter-alia, verification, location, high-level condition assessments and identification of significant components and users of the properties. Taking into consideration the extensive nature of the DPW portfolio (92 593 properties), this was an almost impossible task in the past. The PMTE is now, for the first time, able to make informed and calculated investment decisions in line with our goal of optimizing our property portfolio.

_____________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

Yes, the Department of Public Works has obtained the required authorisation before commencement with the current project.

The Built Environment and Landscape Committee of Heritage Western Cape, a public entity whose mandate is to identify, protect and conserve the heritage resources of the Western Cape Province, after extensive and comprehensive consultations with both the project consultants and the Department of Public Works Heritage Advisory Services Unit, as well as scrutiny of written reviews and proposals submitted by an independent team of specialist heritage consultants, issued authorisation to systematically undertake various repairs, renovations and restorations at and on the Tuynhuys and Good Hope Buildings.

The South African Heritage Resources Agency, in October 2014, endorsed the previous Heritage Western Cape’s Records of Decision and gave the necessary approval to continue with the completion of the outstanding repairs, renovations and restorations.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

The stated legal action undertaken by the Department of Public Works, where the bank in question intervened as a Respondent has now been settled between the parties. The bank in question has agreed to withdraw its opposition to an order of the court dictating that the lease agreement in question be declared void ab initio.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

a) (i) The Norms and Standards for Category 111 clients are being developed.

(ii) The Department has been in the process of consulting various stakeholders.

(iii) There are no plans to gazette.

(iv) Parliament, as a Prestige Client, will be given an opportunity to see the draft Norms and Standards.

b) Once the process outlined in (a) above has been completed the Service Level Agreement with Parliament will be developed.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) Yes,

(b) No.

(i) The draft Public Works Property Management Empowerment Policy was developed and submitted to the Property Sector Charter Council to solicit inputs from the Property Industry.

(ii) The Property Sector Charter Council is in the process of coordinating the information flow from the Property Industry and once the process is concluded, the final draft Public Works Property Empowerment Policy will be submitted to the Executive Authority for approval. It is envisaged that this process will be concluded in the 2017/18 financial year.

(c) No.

(i) The Department has initiated the amendment of the State Land Disposal Act of 1961 through a policy discussion document issued in 2015. Since the development of this Act is the joint responsibility of the NDPW and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, discussions were held between the two departments. The review of the Act will form part of the development of a Public Works White Paper, which will encompass the Public Works functional area of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence.

(ii) The White Paper process will commence in 2017 and it is envisaged that the amendment of certain existing legislation and the drafting of new legislation as an outflow of the Public Works White Paper will be undertaken in 2019.

(d) No.

(i) A task team comprising of representatives from the national and provincial Public Works departments was formed to review and refine the guidelines. The refinement of the guidelines is still underway.

(ii) Upon endorsement by the Public Works Technical MinMec and MinMec structure, the draft guidelines shall be submitted to Executive Authority for approval. It is expected that this process will be finalised in the 2017/18 financial year.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) (i) The Department of Public Works (DPW) has a dedicated internal Unit to investigate reported allegations of fraud, corruption and serious maladministration within the Department. From the 2009/10 financial year to date the Unit has received 363 cases for investigation purposes. Of the total number of cases reported, 320 cases were finalised. 32 cases are currently at various stages of investigation.

(aa) (bb) (cc)

See attached Fraud Allegation Register from 2009/10-2016/17 Financial Years of the 320 completed cases.

(b) (i) External Forensic Investigations

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has conducted investigations in the DPW in terms of 5 Presidential proclamations – the oldest proclamation was published on 30 July 2010 and the most recent one was published on 20 July 2015. The SIU reports to the President, but they provide the DPW with findings from their investigation for the purpose of instituting corrective measures, including disciplinary action against any official where there is prima facie evidence of misconduct. Where SIU findings point to possible criminal activities, the SIU reports such evidence to the South Africa’s law enforcement agencies for further action. When the SIU finds that funds have been usurped they institute civil proceedings on behalf of the DPW to recover the lost funds. The DPW is notified of this action prior to it being taken. However, the SIU does not provide its full reports to the Department, as it reports to the State President.

DPW ENTITIES

For Agrément South Africa (ASA) No internal or external forensic reports have been completed since 01 January 2009 to date.

	Council for Built Environment (CBE)
(a)(ii)	Internal Forensic Reports
	(aa)	(bb)	(cc)
	2 employees that were implicated.	Case relates to misconduct on Supply Chain procedures, Corporate Governance issues, Recruitment procedures and HR investigations.	The dates are from July 2014 to May 2015.
(ii)	No external forensic investigations were commissioned
	Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB)
	Internal Forensic Reports
(a) (ii)	(aa)	(bb)	(cc)
	15 employees that were implicated.	Cases relate to non-compliance with procedures, bribery and theft.	The dates are from February 2009 to September 2015

IDT

(a) (ii)

There are two different types of forensic reports that the Independent Development Trust (IDT) has dealt with during the period 01 January 2009 to 28 September 2016. The first type is a forensic report, which results from an investigation commissioned internally by IDT, but facilitated by external forensic investigators. The second type is a forensic report which is an outcome of a forensic investigation externally commissioned and whose outcome has a bearing for the IDT in one way or the other. These two types of forensic reports are listed in the table below:

LIST OF INTERNAL FORENSIC REPORTS

(a)(ii)

Internally commissioned, but externally facilitated forensic investigation reports

(aa)	(bb)	(cc)	Name of investigator/s
Alleged fraudulent claims by service provider for IDT Limpopo: Social Programme	Fraudulent Time sheet and irregular claims	15 April 2015	PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
Alleged irregular payment to a service provider at Mpumalanga (IDT) Regional Office (MPL)	Irregular Payments at Rob-Ferreira Hospital	27 Sept 2012	PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
Forensic Accounting investigation into Irregularities at IDT relating to wasteful expenditure	1. Questions raised about the achievement of project deliverables and how much was paid for each of the following deliverables: Progressive Woman Movement of South Africa (PWMAS) workshop; Re Tlisa Diphetoho (RTD) initiative; The business Case Review for the Transformation initiative; The Legacy project; The CEO awards; and The involvement of Fabulous Weddings	15 September 2016 (At the time of finalising this reply the final report had not yet been considered by the IDT Board)
Procurement Irregularities at the KZN IDT relating to Mobile Classrooms	Review the tender process followed by IDT in appointing Tedsons and JT Cabins as a service provider	15 Sept 2016	National Treasury
Procurement irregularities at the IDT relating to Destiny Group, Nkwali and Bursary	Investigation into the procurement of services of the Destiny Group, Transfer of Mr Nkwali and Awarding of bursary to Ms Xhala	15 Sept 2016	National Treasury
Alleged Irregularities at the IDT relating to the KZN Department of Arts and Culture	Verification of the Bid process followed in the appointment of Masakhane (Contractor) for the construction of Vulamehlo Library	15 Sept 2016	National Treasury
Alleged Irregularities in respect of Projects undertaken for the KZN: DoH	Review procurement process for Addington Hospital maintenance and verification of the bid evaluation process followed and investigation of the circumstances that led to the clinics not being completed and determine how much was paid previously for the 3 projects	15 Sept 2016	National Treasury

LIST OF EXTERNAL FORENSIC REPORTS

IDT

(b) (ii)

Externally commissioned and facilitated investigation report/s with outcome affecting the IDT

(aa) Name of the Report	(bb) Subject matter	(cc) Date of conclusion	Name of investigator
Alleged irregularities in the procurement of service providers at Department of Correctional Services	Prisons Fencing Project	June 2016	National Treasury

______________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(1) Yes

    (a) None.

    (b) Falls away.

    (c) Falls away.

    (d) (i) and (ii) Fall away.

(2) All HODs have signed performance agreements.

     (a) Falls away.

     (b) Falls away.

(3) No. All HODs have signed performance agreements, but no performance bonuses were paid due to the fact that the Department of Public Works is still undergoing a 7-year Turnaround programme that started in 2012.

     (a) Falls away.

     (b) Falls away.

______________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(1) The Department of Public Works (DPW) is currently not conducting maintenance to the buildings at the homestead of the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr J G Zuma, situated in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal Province. As indicated in a previous reply to a similar Parliamentary question, the DPW has placed four general workers, employed on contract for three years, at the President’s homestead at Nkandla. Their main duties are to clean up and maintain the gardens at the State Domestic Facilities adjacent to the President’s homestead. These are facilities that are used mainly by the South African Police Services (SAPS). However, there has been an expense that has been incurred of R10,611.89 through the purchase of materials for maintenance work done on the VIP guard house at the homestead.

(2) The Department will be responsible for the maintenance of all security measures, which were installed in the homestead and general maintenance of all State properties; e.g. the Clinic, Pilot house and the houses for SAPS members.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(1) In May 2015, the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) filed a review application challenging the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) decision.

• On 25 November 2015 the CIDB filed its heads of arguments followed by the lawyers of the employee in question a week later.
• The matter is ready for hearing and both parties are waiting for the Registrar of the Labour Court to allocate a hearing date.

(2)(a) The Infrastructure Delivery Management Toolkit (IDMT) has its origins in 2001 when the National Treasury commissioned a review of the poor performance of provincial infrastructure delivery systems resulting in the establishment of the Infrastructure Delivery Improvement Programme (IDIP) and the Toolkit. The National Treasury enlisted the support of the National Department of Public Works (NDPW), the Development Bank South Africa (DBSA) and the CIDB as partners to the IDIP. The CIDB was responsible for the management of the content of the Toolkit, the hosting of the Toolkit on the CIDB website, and providing support and training on its implementation and rollout, where necessary.

The idea underlying the imperative of having the IDMT was to address the need for a documented body of knowledge and set of processes that represent generally recognised best practices in the delivery of infrastructure. It was to be focused on the delivery and life cycle management of public sector infrastructure. The Toolkit was therefore designed as a valuable resource to provide a national common knowledge base and set of practices to assist in delivering these services in a manner that is effective, efficient and consistent across provinces and departments. The Infrastructure Delivery Management System (IDMS) and the Toolkit have evolved over the years since their inception in 2004.

(b) In the past the IDMS and the Toolkit were revised and enhanced every three to four years, but National Treasury identified a need to separate the supply chain for goods and services from the supply chain for infrastructure to unblock some of the infrastructure delivery management chain challenges. As a result, the revision and enhancements of the IDMS and Toolkit had to be delayed to allow for the development of the Standard for Infrastructure Procurement and Delivery Management (SIPDM). The SIPDM is a National Treasury regulatory instruction issued in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 [Act No. 1 of 1999] (PFMA), and it will assist in ensuring support for the implementation of the IDMS.

The current 2010 edition of the Toolkit enhancement and revision is being reviewed under the auspices of National Treasury. The enhancements and revisions will focus on the following:

• aligning the existing 2010 IDMS with the Standard for Infrastructure Procurement and Delivery Management (SIPDM);

• aligning the current linear depiction of the IDMS to the new IDMS Control Framework, which emphasises the linkages between core delivery processes;
• incorporate institutional capacity building approaches, methodologies and toolkits;
• simplify existing delivery management processes and deliverables;
• provide for the development and incorporation of Standard Operating Procedures from provinces;
• standardise the ‘Supporting Information’ requirements;
• capture and incorporate best practice methodologies and examples;
• develop an information technology platform to serve as the single source for infrastructure delivery related information (i.e. an Infrastructure Delivery Management Body of Knowledge (IDMBOK));
• incorporate local government infrastructure delivery requirements (where possible).

Once the enhanced IDMS and Toolkit are complete, they will be hosted on the CIDB website until such time that the prototype information technology platform is developed by National Treasury.

(3) The top six areas of the CIDB culture study are as follows:

1. Remuneration
2. Learning and Development
3. Leadership
4. Structure
5. Service Orientation
6. Innovation

The CIDB’s plans to address the above are as follows:

CIDB has embarked on an organisational development methodology (OD exercise) which is a step-by-step process for assessing and re-shaping the structure and positions within the CIDB to better meet its strategic and operational goals. The integrative OD project plan is made up of 12 phases aimed at addressing not only the six top areas of concern as identified by the organisation culture study, but also areas for development as identified in the organisational architecture pilot study, CIDB five year review, 2016 employee engagement survey, etc.

Dimensional areas such as structure, leadership, learning and development and remuneration form the pivotal points of the organisation-wide OD exercise. CIDB had to first align the ‘hard issues’, i.e. mandate, strategy, processes, systems, structure and harmonise them with ‘soft issues’, i.e. culture, values, leadership, management style, communications, creativity and innovation. All these dimensions are addressed in the detailed OD project plan. For example, there is an exercise to review the existing processes and to develop the recommended business processes, dysfunctional aspects of work flow, structures and systems, and realignment with the envisaged operational realities/goals are aspects which are being attended to. There are also plans to digitise core business processes. Once this is done, it will assist the CIDB flow of communication, productivity and innovation as well as alleviate fraud and corruption.

In addressing learning and development issues, CIDB is in a process to finalise a new competency framework in order to be able to design the most appropriate competency assessment tools matching the competency framework for each level of employees. Once the competency gaps have been identified, the most appropriate training strategy based on the assessment gaps and outcomes will be developed. The development of the career-pathing framework is part of the training strategy design. It will further improve employee satisfaction, client satisfaction and service excellence. Furthermore, the newly developed training and development policy is also used as a vehicle by employees to continuously improve their competencies and academic up skilling.

In addressing some of the structure related soft issues, plans are also ahead to allocate tasks, reporting relationships and levels to provide means of achieving full CIDB alignment between people aspects and functions, or technical aspects. This will be addressed in the implementation of the structure design criteria and the new CIDB operating model.

Other related areas being addressed are job profiles, job evaluation and remuneration.

The OD exercise is seen by CIDB as a systematic approach for fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes, eliminating non-value adding activities to achieve improvements in performance and productivity, efficiency in operational costs and turnaround times, customer service, quality and alignment of processes with the strategy.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works:

(a) For security reasons I cannot provide the name of the Member of the Executive Council in this Parliamentary reply. I however can provide the name to the Honourable Member in confidence. Please get in touch with my office as indicated in the letterhead. Information relating to addresses of Members of the Executive is considered as confidential for purposes of making it easy for the South African Police Service to provide an unfettered protection service to the office bearers.

(b) The occupant started to use the specified residence in April 2010.

(c) The market value of the specified property is currently R8 000 000.00.

(d) The specified property was acquired by the Government on 24 December 2009.

(e) The total price paid for the property is R6 270 000.00.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) The Department of Public Works did not spend any amount on the (i) Africa News Network 7 channel in the 2015-16 financial year and since 01 April 2016.

See below the details of the amounts spent by the Department of Public Works on advertising in the 2015-16 financial year and since 01 April 2016 to date.

No	Name of the advertising campaign	Medium	Amount
1.	Handover of the Haines Park in Vryburg	SABC radio outside broadcast	R171 000
2.	Budget vote (Post budget vote)	Community radio stations phone in programme	R428 840
3.	Expanded Public Works Programme Artisan Development programme profiling	SABC radio Outside broadcast	R114 000
4.	Social sector conference	SABC radio Outside broadcast and Community radio stations	R91 200
		Community radio stations	R176 640
5.	Anti-fraud Campaign	SABC Public Radio Services (11 Radio stations)	R1 504 252.08
Total: R2 485 932.08

From 01 April 2016 to date:

No	Name of the advertising campaign	Advertising Medium	Amount
1.	Bela-bela Career Expo	SABC radio outside broadcast	R140 000
		Capricorn FM (Commercial radio station)	R140 000
2.	Public Employment Programme visit to EPWP Project in KwaZulu-Natal	SABC radio stations	R285 200
3.	Post Budget vote campaign	Community radio (phone in programme)	R398 840
Total	R964 040

(b) (i), (ii) (aa) & (bb), (iii), (iv) (aa)& (bb), (aaa) & (bbb)

None of the four entities reporting to the Department of Public Works namely, Council for the Built Environment (CBE), Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), Independent Development Trust (IDT) and Agrèment South Africa (ASA), has spent on advertising in the specified media.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) Formal qualifications for the Department of Public Works’

      (i) Not Applicable

     (ii) Acting Chief Financial Officer qualifications are as follows:

• Bachelor of Commerce Degree
• Honours Degree in Accounting Science

(b)

(i) Director-General qualifications are as follows:

• Bachelor of Commerce Degree

(ii) Not applicable

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works:

Yes, the Department of Public Works (DPW) did submit all documents and other pieces of information in its possession that were required by the National Treasury. The latter received full cooperation from the DPW in the transmission of the documents. Before the Publication of the National Treasury Report the DPW was not informed about any incompleteness of documentation submitted to the National Treasury.

A newspaper article that appeared in the Sowetan of 28 June, 2016, erroneously created the impression that the DPW had attempted to stifle the investigation by the National Treasury. In the latter’s report, which was submitted to the Constitutional Court on 27 June, 2016, there is neither a statement nor allegation whatsoever that the DPW withheld information or documentation in its possession from the National Treasury or its consultants.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) The Council for the Built Environment (CBE) annual report states that a total of 213 complaints were received during the year under review. However, after an auditing process the correct number of 218 complaints was recorded. The Built Environment Professional Councils (BEPCs) do take disciplinary action against registered persons alleged to have violated any of the six Acts of Law governing the operations of BEPCs, as well as their respective codes of conduct. They are also empowered to take action against any person whose conduct is regarded as posing a danger to the health and safety of the public within the realm of the built environment.

The reasons for disciplinary cases relate to:

• Improper conduct;
• failure of registered persons to perform professional services within a reasonable time frame;
• professionals undertaking professional work while their registration is suspended;
• competency/design errors; and
• non-compliance with the Code of Conduct.

(b) Most of the cases took more than 90 days to complete. The average time from the date of lodgment to the date of finalisation of cases for the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) is 180 days. The turnaround time is acknowledged as a challenge. This is mainly due to the high cost of investigations and conducting of disciplinary cases. Another challenge is that of a lack of legal resources within the BEPCs. BEPCS are then forced to source the assistance from lawyers outside the organisation.

(c) Out of the 218 complaints received, 131 (61%) complaints were finalised, while 87 (39%) were still in progress and 8 were withdrawn.

(d) The BEPCs’ disciplinary or accountability processes vary from one another. For instance, a matter may be closed without sanction or disciplinary action may be taken. Sanctions can take a number of forms and may be imposed singularly or in combination.

(Please see Annexure A and B for specified outcomes per case)

Penalties include:

• Reprimand or censure: reprimand and censure are similar in that they are official records, indicating that a licensee has been disciplined. They may, in themselves, not hamper one’s ability to practice, but may be imposed along with other penalties.
• Citation: the BEPC of the registered person may impose a fine or order of bargain, in lieu of making a formal accusation.
• Cease and desist order: an order to stop a particular activity or else face a penalty.
• Warning: this can be accompanied by stipulations or specific requirements.
• Mandated continuing education.
• Remediation: an attempt to correct practice and promote safety; it may define terms for the registered person to be reinstated in good standing.
• Referral to an alternative-to-discipline programme.
• Probation: during probation, the registered person may or may not be permitted to practice. If the registered person is permitted to remain in practice during the period of probation, it is with terms and conditions or restrictions.
• Suspension: a period of time in which a registered person may not practice or hold him/herself out.

 

ANNEXURE A

Number of Complaints received and their nature	Completed	In progress
SACQSP Total - (42) Breach of the SACQSP Code of Conduct Candidate working for own account (3) Candidate work not being supervised (5) No PrQS in branch office (3) Poor quality of work (3) Mentor not signing workplace skills records (2) Soliciting a bribe (2) Contravening of Act 49 / 2000 – Clause 18(2) Misrepresenting themselves as a registered QS (5) Performing the work of a PrQS but not being registered (16)	Mr J. Mpambela – candidate working for own account – fined Mr R. Van Wyk – fined Mr M.Z.C. Buyeye – fined and censured Jacques Olivier – candidate working for own account – fined R & G Consultants – branch not managed by a PrQS – corrected Raphael Bagarette / Jade Hare of Granbuild – candidates misrepresenting their status - corrected	Disciplinary Stuart Ray – Unprofessional conduct Anthony Porter – Unprofessional conduct (awaiting evidence) Jayshenie Govender – failed to uphold the letter of supervisor undertaking Siseko Quantity Surveyors cc – unprofessional conduct Lwazi Msani – candidate caught cheating in the Professional Skills Module Exams
Number of complaints withdrawn	1	Mr A.S. Van Wyk – theft of funds – the matter was handled incorrectly in terms of procedure and has to recommence from the beginning. A former Registrar failed to issue a formal charge sheet within the 5-years since the complaint arose.
SACAP Total – 112 Failure to perform architectural services within a reasonable time. Failure to comply with Rule 4.1 Carrying out work during the period in which the registration has been suspended.	Number of Registered Professionals who were sanctioned to a fine including suspended fines: Bekker Margueretta v Hennie le Roux fined R10 000.00; Steven Malese v Lungile Nongwana fined R10 000.00 ; SACAP v Michael Fakude fined R6 500.00 and R1 300.00 of this amount is suspended for 1 year; SACAP v Lorryn O’Sullivan fined R3 000 and R600.00 of this amount is suspended for a period of 1 year on condition SACAP v Bruce Dickson fined R8 000.00 and R1 300.00 of this amount is suspended for 12 months; SACAP v Eric Phofu, fined R2 000.00 suspended for one year SACAP v Nceba Coki fined R10 000.00 Suren Indhul v Raj Maharajh fined R7 000.00. R1 400 of this amount is conditionally suspended for one year; SACAP v Kgwaripane Mashego fined R5 000.00; SACAP v Patrick Hofer fined R8 500 and R1 700 was suspended for one year; SACAP v Boitumelo Sibiya fined R 2 000 suspended for two years; SACAP vsJohannes Haggard fined R4 500 and R2000 suspended for 1 year; SACAP v Anthony Purcell fined R2 000.00 and R400 is suspended for one year; SACAP v Abdul Gafoor fined R7 500.00; SACAP v Anthony Mhlongo fined R10 000.00; SACAP v Thorn Plaaitjies fined R2 000.00; SACAP v Joseph van Huyssteen fined R5000.00 with R2500 suspended for one year; SACAP v Knowledge Madinga fined R10 000 and R2 000.00 of this amount is conditionally suspended for one year; SACAP v Hennie van der Merwe fined R2 000.00 and R400 is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Sello Fume fined R11 500. and R2 300 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Moses Masitenyana fined R10 000. and R2 000 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Phillipus Kraukamp fined R2 000 and R400 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Charles Jiyane, fined R2 000.00 SACAP v Pholoana Mokhethe fined R8 500. and R1 700 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year SACAP v Peter Hoffman fined R4 000.00; SACAP v Hardin Chawane fined R10 000 and R2 000 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Orie Matlaupane fined R4 000.00; SACAP v Francois Smuts fined R 2 000. 00 and R4 000 of this amount conditionally suspended for a period of one year ; SACAP v Abe Keyser fined R2 000.00 suspended for one year ; SACAP v David Mpenyana fined R6 000.00; SACAP v Michael Schoeman fined R2 000.00 and R4 00 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Terrence Miya fined 10 000.00 and R2 000.00 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Lesiba Brown Phasha fined R13 500 and R2 700 of this amount is conditionally suspended for one year; SACAP v Ntshimane Masedi fined R7 500. R1 500 of this amount conditionally suspended for one year; SACAP v Phillip Manzini fined R10 000. R5 000 is suspended and R5 000 is payable immediately; SACAP v Nkosinathi Mkhize fined R3 500 and R700.00 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year. SACAP v Leticia Best R6 500.00 and R1 300.00 of this amount is suspended for one year; SACAP v Renaldo Goodall fined R5 000.00 wholly suspended SACAP v Owen Mabandla fined R2 500.00; SACAP v Ravi Ruthenavelu fined R6 500.00 and R1 300.00 of this amount is suspended for one year; SACAP v Ravi Ruthenavelu R2 000.00 and R400 is suspended for one year; SACAP v Tshepo William Malemela fined R9 000.00 and R1 800 of this amount conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Jody van Heerden fined R5 000.00 which is wholly suspended for one year; SACAP v Tarisayi Mukomondo fined R2 000.00 of which R400 is suspended; SACAP v Richard Sewshanker fined R1 600.00; SACAP v Graeme Sparrow fined R11 500.00 and R2 300 of this amount is conditionally suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Lucky Segudla fined R4 000.00; SACAP v Michael Liebenberg   Number of cases reported to the SAPS - 30	Registered professionals with pending settlement agreements: SACAP v Michael Liebenberg SACAP v Sophia Holloway SACAP v Andre Griessel Registered professionals who have been cautioned and/or reprimanded: Piotr Plebankiewics Raynier Lewis Danie Kruger Margueretta Bekker Alista van Rooyen Registered professionals whose registrations have been withdrawn: Mongi Mbili Ganesan Govender Lizwe Mabutho Isaac Masotsha
Number of complaints withdrawn	0
SACPCMP Total - 4 1 complaint of unethical conduct against a registered person through influencing the termination of the appointment of an Architect by the client. 1 complaint of rendering a service as a Project Manager for the development of a residential premises even though not registered. 1 complaint of unprofessional conduct by a registered person for advertising for work through a promise of payment of a referral commission. 1 complaint of advertisement of services as a Pr CHSA, Pr CM, Pr CPM and PrC mentor even though not registered in any of these categories.	1 complaint of advertisement of services as a Pr CHSA, Pr CM, Pr CPM and PrC mentor even though not registered in any of these categories. The Council has no jurisdiction over unregistered persons, however, it was decided that a formal caution be issued to the person concern to desist from doing so and that if he continues, such misrepresentation, then the Council reserved its right to pursue action against them.	1 case was against an unregistered person practicing as Project Manager and since Council has no jurisdiction over unregistered persons no further action was deemed necessary. 1 case of misconduct against a registered person, which upon investigation was deemed to be unproven, hence the complaint was dismissed. 1 case of misconduct against a registered person who upon being requested to provide additional information to substantiate his allegation refused to do so hence this has been put on hold until such time that he provides the information requested from him.
Number of complaints withdrawn	0
SACPVP Total - 15 complaints of improper conduct 1 complaint against an unregistered person	0	Inaccurate valuations, candidates conducting valuations without (proper) supervision, misleading advertising, Fraud, Inefficient discharging of duties, Conflict of interest, Breach of contract, Failure to hand down appeal Board decision, Theft of client’s property Unfair labour practice
Number of complaints withdrawn	7	The complainants withdrew their cases
SACLAP None

ANNEXURE B - ECSA

NO.	RESPONDENT	MERITS OF INVESTIGATION	DATE COMPLAINT RECEIVED (year, month, date and number)	OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
1.	R Brittnell against A J Killian Pr Tech Eng (8870177)	It is alleged that the Respondent as an official of the Local Authority, responsible for tender documents scrapped certain requirements of a tender and that” his actions directly deprived consulting engineering companies the opportunity to participate in a fair tender process”.	(2012/11/20 - 32)	The Investigating Committee considered the matter and was of the opinion that there was no prima facie evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
2.	BRS & R A Wilson obo BRS Wilson Family Trust against D A Rees Pr Eng (790430)	It is alleged that the Respondent, appointed to facilitate a township development, created an unacceptable conflict of interest and failed to carry out his engineering responsibilities with the required degree of competence.	(2013/05/13 – 16)	The Investigating Committee considered the matter and were of the opinion that there was insufficient prima facie evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
3.	W Strydom obo Avondans Home Owners Association (AHOA) against F J Klomp Pr Eng (830442)	It is alleged that the Respondent rendered professional services to the Developer for the Avondans Development in the construction of the roads. The development was taken over by AHOA. A crack appeared in the road whereafter AHOA employed an independent engineering service to do an investigation and provide a report on their findings. The report indicated that standard construction procedures were not followed. The Respondent denied responsibility and refused to guarantee the quality of his work.	(2013/06/27 - 27)	The Investigating Committee considered the matter and was of the opinion that there was insufficient prima facie evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
4.	H P Heath against R L Keudel-Schaffer Pr Tech Eng (200170125)	The Respondent issued a completion certificate for a roof which had been repaired. The said roof was subsequently found to be defective.	(2012/05/11-12)	The Complainant withdrew the complaint, but due to the number of complaints received against the Respondent, the matter was referred to PROTT as part of their brief.
5.	ECSA against E J Pieters Pr Cert Eng (201290010)	Improper Conduct	(2013/11/07 - 47)	The Investigating Committee considered the Respondent’s formal apology.
6.	E Maritz against J Erwee Pr Eng (950433)	It is alleged that the Respondent was appointed as the responsible engineer for the Complainant’s home. A dispute arose between the builder and the owner and the Respondent who was appointed by the builder refuses to issue the completion certificate.	(2013/12/10 - 54)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
7.	C M F Rawlins against Messrs M S Moodley Pr Tech Eng (9340122), S Naidu Pr Eng (20010315) and R J Young Pr Eng (702868)	The Complainant was issued a notice alleging that his gazebo caused the failure of his neighbour’s wall. It is alleged that the first Respondent produced a report in June 2006 containing significant errors and omissions resulting in successive notices of intended prosecution. It is further alleged that the first Respondent failed to correct the evidence presented to the Courts by the Council and failed to respond to letters from the Complainant. The second Respondent was appointed as an independent engineer by Council and accepted the appointment knowing that the first Respondent had a history of prior involvement in the matter. He thereafter issued a report which contained errors and submissions and allowed this report to be used as evidence in ongoing court proceedings. The Respondent has further failed to respond to letters from the Complainant regarding this issue. It is alleged that the third Respondent provided the Council with false certification of a wall, that he failed to challenge the statements made by the first Respondent and that he affirmed his “false certification” in the subsequent court action.	(2014/02/12 – 04)	The Investigating Committee considered the Assignee’s recommendations and were of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence of improper conduct by the Respondents.
8.			(2014/02/12 – 05)
9.			(2014/02/12 –06)
10.	A D Barratt against A Mitchell Pr Tech Eng (877066)	It is alleged that the Complainant pointed out inconsistencies and irregularities in the alteration of his neighbour’s home. A stop works order was issued which led to the Respondent sending a “threatening” email to the Complainant.	(2013/09/30 – 41)	A Peer Counselling meeting was successfully concluded with the Respondent on 23 April 2014 and the Peer Counselling Report was received.
11.	P Venter against H S Van Der Walt Pr Eng (860204)	The Respondent was appointed as the engineer to conduct engineering work on the foundation, floor slab and stairs of the Complainant’s dwelling. The said structures demonstrated defects.	(2013/03/26 – 08)	The Assignee’s report was considered by the Investigating Committee which resolved that there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
12.	A Solomon against L C Smith Pr Eng (860253)	It is alleged that the Respondent undertook work without the Complainant’s consent or approval of the building plans along the Complainant’s boundary wall. The Respondent’s client is the Complainant’s neighbour.	(2013/07/08 - 29)	The Assignee’s verbal report was considered by the Investigating Committee which resolved that there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
13.	N E Wana against J F G Fourie Pr Eng (870038)	It is alleged that the Respondent constantly requested his own contractor to be appointed to the project. When this was not done, he found fault with the work done by the builder. The Respondent on ascertaining that an independent engineer was appointed by the owner withdrew his completion certificate.	(2013/08/02 – 32)	A response from the Complainant was not forthcoming despite numerous requests from the administration. To close the matter.
14.	J D Scheepers against J M van den Berg Pr Eng (790409)	The Complainant is a contractor who was employed to do additions to a house. Towards completion of the work, the Complainant experienced some problems with the homeowner. The Complainant then requested the homeowner to pay for the labour and material used and the homeowner refused. The homeowner then brought in the Respondent. It is alleged the Respondent, in inspecting the work done by the Complainant, failed to apply his professional skills and that his opinions were subjective.	(2013/08/07 – 35)	The Investigating Committee considered the Expert and Assignee’s report and resolved that there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
15.	Dr A van Rensburg Pr Eng against Prof R Sandenbergh Pr Eng (790475)	It was alleged that the Respondent did not comply in accordance with the OHS Act when the Complainant addressed safety hazards with the Respondent during construction of the University. The Respondent allegedly did not adhere to requirements in respect of the appointment of personnel nor did he inform ECSA’s accreditation committee of the employee’s non-registration status and qualifications. It is further alleged that the Respondent “intentionally lied” in an affidavit regarding a formal grievance lodged by the Complainant.	(2014/02/12 - 08)	Substantiating information was not forthcoming from the Complainant. That the safety issues were addressed with the Respondent and further information with regards thereto supplied by the administration.
16.	R Ramphal against V K Ori Pr Tech Eng (9470055)	It is alleged that the Respondent submitted a payment certificate which was above the tendered price.	(2014/02/27 - 10)	That the Investigating Committee considered the matter and resolved that the matter is of a commercial nature.
17.	A Parsotham against T W Harper Pr Eng (940368)	Subsequent to the builder absconding, a new builder was tasked to assess and repair the damages resulting in a dispute with the engineer. It is alleged by the Complainant that “the internal walls and trenches were non-existent; the soil was not compacted before the slab was cast; the slab had various defects and that the walls were cracking and had to be pulled down”. A completion certificate was issued on 23 August 2013 in respect of the foundations.	(2014/04/22 - 16)	That the Investigating Committee consider the matter and resolved that there was no prima facie evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
18.	I C van der Vyver Pr Eng against M J Marais Pr Eng (940375)	The Respondent, an employee of Arcus Gibb, was appointed by the client to undertake an administrative and regulatory audit of the Complainant’s project. The client subsequently terminated the appointment of the Complainant’s company and appointed the Respondent’s company for the said project. It is alleged that the Respondent was not furnished with a copy of the audit report for comment.	(2013/08/07 – 34)	A Peer Counselling meeting was successfully concluded with the Respondent.
19.	D Sibiya against J C van Tonder Pr Eng (750430)	It is alleged that the Respondent was appointed as the responsible engineer for a first floor slab and staircase to the Complainant’s property for which he issued a completion certificate despite defects to the staircase and the slab which is on the brink of collapse.	(2013/05/29 – 18)	That the Peer Counselling Meeting was successfully concluded with the Respondent.
20.	S Sewchuran against D Rammanhor Pr Tech Eng (201270056)	The Respondent was responsible for the design of the neighbour’s retaining walls. The Complainant alleges that excavation took place onto her property by the Respondent’s client. The Complainant approached the Local Authority regarding safety issues and was advised that back filling appeared to have been done which needed to be removed by her. The Complainant alleges that the wall built poses a danger to her property and vehicles.	(2014/05/26 - 23)	The Assignee’s verbal report was considered by the Investigating Committee which concluded that there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
21.	G Strydom v J N M Barker Pr Eng (750309)	It is alleged that the respondent designed the lateral support system supporting an 8 metre sand bank on the complainant’s northern property boundary. No permission was given for the lateral support. An independent engineering report concluded that the building work carried out on this plot encroached over the common boundary line onto the complainant’s property and has resulted in a potential collapse of the existing dwelling.	(2014/02/11 - 03)	No prima facie evidence of improper conduct.
22.	G van Wyk v N Barnard Pr Eng (870461)	It is alleged that the Respondent signed off a temporary inspection certificate for temporary pavilions erected for the North West University for a rugby match. A large amount of spectators were expected at the final rugby match. Before the main event, one of the temporary pavilions collapsed whilst the spectators were sitting thereon. No injuries were reported and an inspection was undertaken of all the other temporary pavilions, which were subsequently declared unsafe.	(2014/05/14 - 21)	No prima facie evidence of improper conduct.
23.	W D Niewoudt v C F Joubert Pr Eng (800192)	The complainant purchased a property off-plan. A week after the complainant discovered that the surface bed had cracks all over, the brickwork was not up to standard and dimensions were not the same as on the approved plans. It is alleged that the responsible engineer is Mr C F Joubert.	(2014/09/04 – 31)	Insufficient evidence of improper conduct from the complainant.
24.	J Morebudi v D R Veldtman Pr Techni Eng (9740088)	It is alleged that the respondent is helping the second bidder by supplying them with confidential information regarding the project. It is further alleged that the respondent signed the completion certificate while he was registered as a technician.	(2014/09/04 – 32)	No prima-facie evidence of improper conduct.
25.	G van der Merwe against C H Magson Pr Tech Eng (770101)	The Respondent allegedly used the Complainant’s (an architect and member of the SACPCMP) registration details without the Complainant’s knowledge which allowed him to secure a tender with the Free State Department of Education.	(2013/11/20 - 52)	That the advisory letter would be forwarded to the respondent.
26.	J Di Mambro against R L Keudel-Schaffer Pr Tech Eng (200170125)	It is alleged that the Respondent undertook the design and supervision of a residential apartment complex during 2003/2004. It is further alleged that the Respondent failed to adhere to acceptable standards regarding the adequacy, quality and suitability of a large sub-surface channel which crosses the site diagonally below the residential apartment complex.	(2014/01/20 - 01)	That a Terms letter was issued to the complainant informing him that failure to respond timeously would result in the case being dismissed.
27.	J J van Niekerk against S P Cilliers Pr Eng (980363), W Kruger Pr Tech Eng (200570100) and J T Pidgeon Pr Eng (780227)	It is alleged that the Respondents were involved in the development of a complex in Bloemfontein. It is further alleged that building plans for the complex were not approved and building plans were not submitted for a septic tank at the back of the complex which is running into the Renoster River.	(2014/02/27 – 11)	That there was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
28.
29.			(2014/02/27 – 12)
			(2014/02/27 – 13)
30.	G Rossouw against C F Joubert Pr Eng (800192)	The Respondent was appointed to do the structural design and erection supervision of a building in Magaliesburg. It is alleged that the Respondent did not indicate that the contractor deviated from the manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequent to a site visit by the Respondent, during which he advised that work could continue, the floor slab collapsed.	(2014/03/14 - 15)	I was found there was prima facie evidence of improper conduct.
31.	S Manuier against L L Ashton Pr Eng (870461)	It is alleged that the Respondent refused to certify the work of the Complainant who installed a slab on the approval of the owner without the Respondent having seen the requisite drawings and/or plans. The Respondent was requested to provide reasons for his actions. This negatively impacted on the Complainant’s business.	(2014/05/12 - 19)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
32	S Chilwan against J C Krogscheepers Pr Eng (920021), P J Bullock Pr Eng (840217) and R H Botha Candidate Pr Eng (20095007)	It is alleged that the Respondents acted in breach of the contract entered into between the City of Cape Town and Lumen Technologies CC (the Complainant’s Close Corporation) by amongst others, communicating directly with contractors without the consent of the CC, incurring expenses for the CC, etc.	(2014/06/13 – 24)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
33.
34.			(2014/06/13 – 25)
			(2014/06/13 – 26)
35.	D Palm against B J Oosthuizen Pr Eng (20050191)	It was alleged that the respondent canvassed and contracted to do work other than what he was trained and qualified for, such as underpinning to structures, executing concrete sub-contract works, as well as structural sub-contract works . That conflict of interest exists where the Respondent accepted appointments from both the client as a Professional Engineer and from the main contractor (complainant) for the underpinning concrete works and structural installations. It was further alleged that the respondent was unwilling to issue the completion certificate.	(2014/07/04 – 28)	That there was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
36.	R Manaraj against B Ansell Pr Eng (980726)	The respondent representing Clickscales Maughan-Brown (CMB) Electrical and Mechanical Engineers was appointed by Raj Maharajh Associates (RMA), representing the RMA Professional Consortium. It is alleged that the Respondent colluded with a Project Manager of Coega Development Corporation (CDC), which was the client of (RMA) in receiving a payment of R298 683.84 without informing RMA and thus resulted in losses to other members of the RMA Consortium.	(2014/08/21 – 30)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
37.	H H Page against D P Odendaal Pr Tech Eng (9970121)	The complainant lodged a complaint with Eskom, regarding the publication by some engineers of Eskom on Magnitech Xenon lamp products. During Eskom’s investigation of the above, the Complainant was introduced to the Respondent as an expert. It is alleged that the respondent was not objective and did not apply professional engineering judgement to the case.	(2014/09/04 – 33)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
38.	H H Page against P M Smit Pr Eng (970373), B G M Van Wyk Pr Tech Eng (9270025) and S R Sishuba Pr Eng (980711)	It was alleged that the Respondents published false information regarding Magnitech Xenon Sodium lamp products without any scientific basis.	(2014/09/04 – 34)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
39.
40.			(2014/09/04 – 35)
			(2014/09/04 – 36)
41.	D G Naidoo against N J King Pr Eng (930184)	The Respondent was appointed as the consulting engineer on a project to review and design work. It is alleged that the Respondent reviewed the Complainant’s design without informing him. The Respondent’s report was said to be biased leading to the immediate dismissal of the Complainant on the project. The Client also refused to pay the Complainant for outstanding fees and the complainant suffered loss of income and credibility as a result thereof. The Respondent was said to have compromised the position of the Complainant by his actions, which were solely for the Respondent’s benefit.	(2014/09/23 – 40)	There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
42.	C van Dyk v J C van Tonder Pr Eng (750403)	The Respondent allegedly allowed an unregistered person to sign off completion certificates, using Respondent’s profession credentials.	(2011/02/08-60)	No prima facie evidence of improper conduct.
43.	Dr T Scholtz v J R Müller Pr Eng (760565) & J G Claassen Pr Eng (910241)	It is alleged that the first Respondent acted as both contractor and registered professional in respect of the Complainant’s home. The first Respondent did not disclose this conflict of interest to the Complainant. The first Respondent then proceeded to act as an expert witness acting on behalf of the second Respondent after being suspended by the NHBRC. It was alleged that the second Respondent acting as an expert witness, made incorrect statements regarding the boundary walls and damp proofing throughout the dwelling.	(2013/10/28 – 42)	No prima facie evidence of improper conduct.
44.
			(2013/10/28 – 43)
45.	M Ungerer against J Singh Pr Tech Eng (200170137)	The Respondent signed off a completion certificate whilst not attending to any site inspections. It is further alleged that the respondent stated that the A19 was not a legally binding document and that he had no contractual obligations to fulfill as the complainant was not his client.	(2013/11/07 – 53)	Insufficient evidence of improper conduct from the complainant.
46.	R Lees v M M B van Rooyen Pr Eng (880203)	It is alleged that the Respondent was appointed as the competent person for the design of a reinforced concrete raft foundation, which has since developed major cracks. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent was not accepting responsibility for the failure of the foundations.	(2014/05/12 – 18)	No prima-facie evidence of improper conduct.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

Yes, each Built Environment Professional Council (BEPC) has established a Standards Generating Body (SGB) that is involved in the development of Occupational Qualifications under the umbrella of the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO).

An SGB is a panel of knowledgeable, experienced individuals with expertise in various competency areas and their levels, as well as in the assessment criteria applied in evaluating learners who have completed their study programmes offered at various institutions. SGBs prepare and publish details of teaching/learning programmes and the assessment criteria that leaners must undergo, as well as the assessment criteria for candidates related to qualifications in particular fields of expertise.

According to the National Qualifications Frameworks Act, 2008 (Act No. 67 of 2008), the Council for Higher Education (CHE) is the sole authority and Quality Council for Higher Education. According to its Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) one of the critical mandates of the CHE is to develop qualifications standards, the purpose of which is to provide internal and external benchmarks for programmes that lead to qualifications, i.e. accreditation, implementation, development and quality assurance. The BEPCs established SGBs with the intention of working with the CHE to develop outcome-based qualifications for registration in particular fields of expertise in accordance with the National Qualifications Framework. The focus of the SGBs is to develop Occupational Qualifications under the QCTO that will enable learners/candidates to be registered professionals in the respective fields or categories administered by the Professional Councils. This was instituted due to the additional process required in the registration of the professional designation under the mandate of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). The SGBs continue with the process established by the CHE and they work with the Deans of universities and higher education in order to develop learning pathways, unit standards and qualifications for learners in the various sub-fields leading towards qualification in those sub-fields.

The CHE has completed and published standards for the 6 BEPCs that are overseen by the Council for the Built Environment (CBE), the entity that reports to the Minister of Public Works.

______________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) considers practicing individuals in the professions who do not have a formal qualification in their field of work. RPL enables the affected individuals to be recognised as either professionals or candidate professionals under the statutory-determined professional designations. Their recognition is based on a demonstration of competence against learning outcomes required for a National Qualification Framework (NQF) aligned qualification.

The reasons for rejection of applications were as follows:

• Inadequate exposure for candidates in other areas within the workplace where they are required to be competent.
• Difficulty in securing professionally registered mentors (lack of access to competent mentors also contributes to the barriers and this is linked to the lack of structured in-service training programmes).
• Incomplete reporting by the person applying for RPL and lack of supporting portfolio of evidence (this is one of the major reasons faced by applicants). This can be attributed to the applicants’ lack of clarity on the knowledge areas to be covered to assist with their progression in line with their Built Environment Professional Councils (BEPCs) required competency outcomes. Some of applicants have reported that they find the process of compilation of the Portfolio of Evidence to be onerous and highly demanding involved process, thus applicants fail to submit all required information.

(b) The Council for the Built Environment (CBE) and the six BEPCs are implementing the following interventions:

• Review of the RPL frameworks of the six BEPCs to ensure a fair and equitable process.
• Recording of interviews to monitor and promote transparency and consistent application of policy.
• Introduction of an on-line self-testing portal. This is done by the individual prior to submission of the application. The individual tests whether he/she is ready to start the application process.
• Identify programmes or courses to support applicants where they fall short.
• Assist candidates, who are struggling to complete the candidacy programme, by introducing structured candidacy programmes.
• Mentorship programme (assisting applicants in finding registered mentors to monitor the quality of the reports).
• Provide timeous feedback, in order to ensure applicants submit complete applications.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(1) and (2) Yes, the said property is under the custodianship of the Department of Public Works (DPW). It is used as official residence by a Member of the Executive.

______________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) (i), (ii) and (ii) No cases of fraud were reported to the National Department of Public Works (NDPW) with regard the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), in the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 financial years.

(ii) In the 2015-16 financial year there was one case of a Ward Councillor from the eThekwini Municipality.

(b) (c) (i) and (ii) and (d) The NDPW immediate engaged the Municipality on this case and thereafter it was referred to the Municipality Ombudsman (Integrity Unit) for further investigation. The Ward Councillor unfortunately passed away during the course of the investigation. No criminal case was registered as a result of the death of the Ward Councillor. At the time of death the said individual was still serving as a Ward Councillor and had not been removed from their position.

______________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) (i) Yes, furniture was purchased by the Department of Public Works (DPW) during the 2014-2015 financial year.

(ii) No, furniture was purchased during the financial year 2015-2016 financial year.

(b) Yes, furniture was purchased by the DPW in the period starting from 01 April 2016. Details can be seen below.

(aa) Purchases made in the financial year 2014-2015;

DESCRIPTION	QUANTITY
ACACIA PARK   219 Units	DOUBLE BED SETS	219
PELICAN PARK 69  Units	DOUBLE BED SETS	69
LABORIA PARK 56 Units	DOUBLE BED SETS	56
ACACIA PARK   219 Units	FRIDGE FREEZERS	219
PELICAN PARK 69  Units	FRIDGE FREEZERS	69
LABORIA PARK 56 Units	FRIDGE FREEZERS	56
ACACIA PARK   219 Units	SOFAS: 2 PER UNIT	438
PELICAN PARK 69  Units	SOFAS	138
LABORIA PARK 56 Units	SOFAS	112
ACACIA PARK   219 Units	COFFEE TABLES	219
PELICAN PARK 69  Units	COFFEE TABLES	69
LABORIA PARK 56 Units	COFFEE TABLES	56
ACACIA PARK   219 Units	DINING CHAIRS	1314 chairs
PELICAN PARK 69  Units	DINING CHAIRS	414 chairs
LABORIA PARK 56 Units	DINING CHAIRS	336 chairs
ACACIA PARK   214 Units	CURTAINS	214 units
PELICAN PARK 69  Units	CURTAINS	69 units
LABORIA PARK 56 Units	CURTAINS	56 units
ACACIA PARK   9 UNITS	FRIDGE FREEZERS	9
ACACIA PARK   10 UNITS	DOUBLE BED SETS: 2 PER UNIT	18
PELICAN  PARK   8 UNITS	QUEEN BED SET	8
ACACIA PARK   9 UNITS	DINING CHAIRS: 6 PER UNIT	54
ACACIA PARK   9 UNITS	SOFAS: 2 PER UNIT	18 sofas
PELICAN PARK 5 UNITS	SOFAS: 2 PER UNIT	10  sofas
ACACIA PARK 9 UNITS	CURTAINS
ACACIA PARK 9 UNITS	COFFEE TABLES	9
PELICAN PARK 5 UNITS	COFFEE TABLES	5
ACACIA PARK 9 UNITS side tables	TV STANDS	9
ACACIA PARK 9 UNITS	MIRROR	9
ACACIA PARK 9 UNITS	DRESSERS / SERVERS	9
PELICAN PARK 5 UNITS	TV STANDS	5
PELICAN PARK 5 UNITS	SIDE TABLES	10

Purchase made since 01 April 2016;

• 500 x double bed sets for Sessional Officials.

(bb) Organisations and / or entities that the used furniture was donated to:

No.	(aaa) Names	(bbb) Addresses
1	Beaufort West Association for Persons with Disabilities	Off N1, Banton Road , Beaufort West, 6970
2	Ikhaya Loxolo Lase Gugulethu	NY 1 Gugulethu
3	Leap Science and Maths School - Kuyasa Simthembile Old Age Home	P.O. BOX 2229 Clareinch, 7740
4	Sivusizwe Dilimeni Deaf Foundation	NY 53 NO. 62, Gugulethu
5	Vision for the Development of Fizi - Videfi	10 Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville/7530
6	Douglas Murray (Wynberg Society for the Aged)	53 Gordon’s Searle Street, off 12th Avenue, Retreat, 7945
7	St. Monica's	38 Lion Street Schotsche Kloof Cape Town
8	Siyanithanda Disabled Care Centre	Cnr of Bill Jeffrey and Mayixhaye Street, Kwa-Nonqaba, Mosselbay
9	Sonstraal Service Centre	165 Blomnek Road, De Rust, 6650
10	Cape Mental health Society	Private Bag x7 Observatory, 7925
11	Neighbourhood Old Age Homes (NOAH)	P.O. Box 142, Woodstock, 7915
12	Tygerberg Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities	P.O BOX 563, Goodwood 7459
13	Nyanga Senior Services	503 Zwelitsha Drive Zwelitsha, Nyanga East 7755
14	Orion Organisation	Reygersdal Anenue westleur, Atlantis, 7350
15	Kensington/ Factreton Meals on Wheels	Kensignton Cape Town
16	Huis De Kuilen	Skoolstraat Kuilsriver, 7580
17	Langa Cheshire	Langa Township, Cape Town
18	Sobamabisana Community Development	NO. 5 Klipfontein road Crossroad 7755
19	Abigail Women's Movement	33 Galaxy Crescent, Ikwezi Park Khayelitsha, 7784
20	Parow Senior Sentrum	62 Bedfordstraat, Parow, 7500
21	Commercial Service Centre	Erfort Avenue, Elsies River, 7490
22	Masizimisele Community Development	P.O.Box210 Langa, 7450
23	Helderberg Society for the Age	Helderberg, Somerset West, Cape Town
24	Bosman Adam Foundation Trust	Lellienfontein Plaas, Hexberg Road Wellington
25	Balula Home BasedCraft Centre	JJ45 Squarter Camp Fisantikraal 7550
26	Touching Nations	P.O.BOX 10104, Belhar, 7505
27	Hanova Park Youth Development	31 Greenturf Road, Hanover Park, Cape Town
28	Sonskyn Club for the aged	P.O Box 17512 Lavistown, 7465
29	Fairy Gog Mother Community Project	Hanover Park, Cape Town
30	Philani Seniors
31	Masibambane Sibuyise Isidima Sethu	14 Nabe Way, Settlers Way, Langa Township, 7455
32	Siyazama Old Aged Home	S.303 Nkomo Street, Site-B Khayelitsha, 7784
33	Bubuthu Bethu Organisation	Langa Township, Cape Town
34	Cape Peninsula Organisation	Private Bag X7, Newlands 7725

(ccc) The physical address of the DPW Cape Town Regional Office’s central storage warehouse is: Customs House, basement store, Lower Heerengracht Street, Cape Town.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(1) (a)

There are no properties under the custodianship of the National Department of Public Works (NDPW) as captured in the Immovable Asset Register (IAR) that are located in the North Atlantic Ocean.

(b)

The management of State land and property is confronted by a number of key systemic legacy challenges, which must be adequately appreciated in order to successfully compile a complete, accurate and fully Generally Recognised Accounting Practice (GRAP) compliant IAR. For instance, registered State land is recorded in the Deeds office under a multitude of legacy custodians’ and former Government Departments’ names, hence it is often difficult to clearly assign or “deem” custodianship to the correct custodian. Also, there are a multitude of land parcels that have been surveyed, but not yet registered. These have previously not been recorded by custodians, however it is required that they are recorded with effect from the year ending 31 March 2014 in terms of the National Treasury Immovable Asset Guide.

Through the Asset Register Enhancement programme, the NDPW has been able to disclose over 100,000 properties and over 31,000 land parcels. The Department made use of electronic data collection tools and Geographical Information System (GIS) software in the compilation of the IAR. Properties were subdivided into Regions and matched to GIS layers. However, there were inadvertent errors made in a minority of cases in terms of linking properties to the GIS with correct geographical coordinates. Errors such as missing digits on coordinates and assigning positive (+) and negative (-) latitude values incorrectly were made. As South Africa lies in the southern hemisphere, starting with positive (+) latitude values when locating properties can have the effect of giving the wrong impression that properties are located in the northern hemisphere. One can deduce therefore, that the incorrect impression of properties being located in the North Atlantic Ocean is as a result of the errors made in the inputting of the coordinates.

As pointed out earlier, many properties that were found through the IAR Enhancement Programme had not be surveyed and thus had missing cadastral information, which would indicate the Erf numbers and details of whether they are farms, holdings, etc.

(c) and (d)

The IAR enhancement project was previously administered by NDPW’s Asset Register Management Unit. As part of the Department’s Turnaround Strategy the newly formed Real Estate Information and Registry Services Division (REIRS) bears overall responsibility for the Asset Register Enhancement Programme. REIRS has requested the Chief Surveyor General (CSG) to provide spatial geo-referenced cadastral data for approximately 1200 properties that could not be linked to the GIS due to the absence of the cadastral layer. Out of the 1200 properties, about 200 properties were successfully matched to the GIS and can now undergo the asset verification process. Further investigations are being conducted on the remaining properties in order to get the required cadastral data to link them to the GIS.

(2) As noted above the 1200 land parcels were not lost by the NDPW as alluded to by the Honourable Member, but rather “un-locatable” on the Geographical Information System due to the unavailability of the cadastral layer. The Department is in the process of verifying about 200 of those properties, which have now been linked to the GIS using the spatial geo-referenced cadastral data and is conducting tests for the linking of the remaining properties.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

1. (a) (i) and (ii) and (b) The property in question is not being put out to tender. The National Department of Public Works (NDPW) received an application from Willow Academy on 20 July 2016, with two options for the Department to consider. The options were either to purchase Erven 182 & 183 Fairview at a fair price or to enter into a long term lease agreement between the NDPW and Willow Academy.

The Department is in the process of considering the application and as an interim measure a six (6) month caretaker’s agreement was entered into with Willow Academy with effect from 01 August 2016 until 31 January 2017.

2. The NDPW is considering the application by the Academy and following the necessary investigations and options analysis will engage with the school within the ambit of Government policy and legislation and a decision will be based on the consideration of the facts at hand.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

No. I did not issue an instruction to the said individual, or to any other employee of the Department of Public Works (DPW), to lobby Government departments not to renew current lease agreements.

From an operational perspective, we in the Public Works sector recognise that every cost-effective and informed transaction can mitigate in reducing Government spending. In this respect, revised spending plans are being implemented within the DPW and the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE) aimed at greater efficiency, eliminating waste and improving the composition of spending.

Thus, in relation to leases, the DPW has been implementing changes, including aligning annual rental escalation rates to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and reducing rentals to market-related amounts and opting for permanent solutions where possible. This is done in line with the objectives as set out in the 7-year Turnaround Strategy and to fulfil the objectives of Government in reducing costs within the scope of fiscal consolidation measures announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech.

Furthermore, with specific reference to Pretoria, the DPW along with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, are implementing a precinct Development Programme in line with the resolution adopted by Cabinet on 25 May 2005, calling for the regeneration of the inner city of Pretoria, as the capital city of the Republic of South Africa. The Precinct Development Programme aims to provide a long term solution for all Government departments and agencies in terms of providing permanent office accommodation within the city and making these offices accessible to the general public.

In line with the above the DPW has responded to the accommodation needs of several User departments, which include:

• The completion of the State-owned Agrivaal building to accommodate the DPSA following their move from Batho Pele House, which was under a lease.
• Statistics South Africa is set to move into its permanent head offices in Salvokop, Pretoria, along with its 4 satellite offices, which had four different leases.
• The South African Police Service (SAPS) is set for a move into the recently acquired Telkom Towers, thereby consolidating its offices into one precinct and moving away from leased accommodation in different buildings. The occupation of Telkom Towers is to be done in a phased approach.

Evidently, as per the cases noted above, the DPW will have to opt for the non-renewal of expiring leases for the affected User departments in preparation for the move towards permanent State-owned office accommodation.

(2) There is no agreement with the Public Investment Corporation for this entity to construct offices on behalf of Government. I am unaware of such allegations as put by the Honourable Member and therefore I am not in a position to investigate this matter.

(3) No. in line with the above-mentioned Cabinet Resolution of 2005, Government office accommodation will be based within the inner city boundaries of the Tshwane Metropole. Currently, there are no plans to construct Government Offices on the outskirts.

However, with respect to the specific questions posed by the Honourable Member, in terms of the Tshwane Precinct Development Programme:

     (a) All leases will continue as per the agreements that are in place with the respective landlords until they approach a period of expiry, when the DPW will exercise its prerogative to negotiate for renewal or non-renewal, with adequate notice to the landlords.

     (b) Since Government is not planning to construct office accommodation on the outskirts of Pretoria, therefore there are no costs involved.

     (c) All costs for office accommodation, whether newly constructed, leased or refurbished, are funded through User-charges recovered from client departments.

     (d) The DPW is revisiting the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) strategy and its rather “narrow” application with respect to leasing office accommodation. The Department now wants to put focus on Real Estate Management, Construction, Facilities Management and Planned Maintenance as areas where the principles of BBBEE can best be applied. The DPW plans to enhance opportunities for emerging black and female entrepreneurs in the construction and property sectors to market, operate, develop, maintain and manage the portfolio on behalf of the DPW.

     (e) The aim of the Tshwane Precinct Development Programme is to develop Pretoria as capital city of excellence with an integrated service delivery approach that will be achieved by congregating Government services in the inner city, thereby making them more accessible to the general public. The Government office accommodation solutions are also assisted by the Accessibility Programme, which seeks to make all Government buildings accessible to people with disabilities.

     (f) With the current constraints of low economic growth and high unemployment in the country, all cost-effective and informed transactions contribute to greater efficiency, reducing waste and improving the composition of Government spending. In this regard, the Department of Public Works has a role to play in reducing Government spending on office accommodation and increasing efficiencies through the reduction of leased-in buildings and maximising the use of State-owned accommodation.

    (g) There are no further details.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works:

(1) (a) (i) (ii) and (iii) and (b) No.

(2) (a) (i) (ii) and (iii) and (b) No.

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works:

In November 2012, I established a Task Team to investigate the matter of the security upgrades at the private residence of the President of the Republic, located in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal Province. The Task Team investigated the above matter and requested an explanation for the items highlighted in this Parliamentary question. The explanation obtained from South African Police Service (SAPS) officials on these items is as follows:

(a) Swimming Pool

The SAPS explained that one of the hazards raised by the assessment was the possible outbreak of fire on or near the premises as most of the structures have thatched roofs and are close to each other. In order to eliminate or minimise potential risks and due to water supply, which was erratic, the SAPS requested a structure that could store 45 000 litres of water.

The idea of a swimming pool or fire pool was based on the advice of the mechanical engineering team that a structure which can contain 45 000 litres of water was needed and a swimming pool or fire pool was the most viable option.

(b) A Chicken Run

The explanation by the SAPS was that the chicken run was constructed within the cattle kraal. It was created as a replacement to a number of building block structures that were scattered around some of the main dwellings which were, according to the security assessments, obstructions and potential hiding areas for intruders. The reason for the relocation of these loose structures to a dedicated area was to improve the security on site.

(c) A Cattle Kraal and Culvert

According to the security personnel, when the security assessments were conducted and as part of the security, sensitive electronic equipment was recommended to be installed on the fence. False alarms, as well as damage to the fence and electronic equipment could be caused by the movement of cattle.

Secondly, due to the location of the kraal next to the entrance used by people, thereby posing a potential risk in the high security area, a decision was therefore taken to move the cattle kraal to a dedicated area and a culvert be erected to prevent the cattle from disturbing and damaging the electronic equipment and the fence.

(d) The Shop

The tuck shop existed long before the President was inaugurated and was located within the President’s homestead. Due to the security risk posed by the movement of people from outside the homestead into the high security area and taking into account previous incidents of criminality that took place at the homestead, the tuck shop had to be relocated from within the premises and erected at the perimeter of the premises.

(e) Air Conditioning

The air conditioners were installed in certain rooms of the main house, the clinic, guard houses and the security tunnel, in line with the security risk assessment. The assessment recommended that bullet proof windows be installed in certain rooms of the President’s private residence and such windows had an impact of high temperatures in the rooms and could not be opened. As a result and in order to minimize the adverse effect that the bullet proof windows would have, air conditioners were installed.

The above items were not contained in the documents, but the explanation was provided to the Task Team. This explanation is contained in the Task Team Report as an explanatory note.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works:

(1) (a) (i) The Department of Public Works (DPW) is custodian of 31,310 land parcels as at end of March 2016. Please refer to Annexure 1(a) (i) for the detailed list per province.

(ii) The DPW is custodian of 95,587 buildings and other improvements. Please refer to Annexure 1(a) (i) for the detailed list per province.

(b) Government User Departments and other entities occupy properties under the custodianship of the Department of Public Works. Please refer to Annexure 1(a)(i) for the detailed list per User Department.

(c) 93,648 State-owned buildings on 18,267 land parcels are leased out to User departments and other entities. Please refer to Annexure 1(a)(i) for the detailed list per province.

(2) (a) The Department of Public Works issues quarterly invoices in advance to 26 national Government departments as per devolved budget, which is equivalent to R324,501,155.00 per month.

While it is possible to indicate how much each Department is currently paying, it is not possible to aggregate the information down per facility or per province, as the amount is paid at the National level.

Client Department	Monthly R’
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries	7,194,961
Arts and Culture	2,927,866
Communications	72,912
Correctional Services	80,945,700
Defence and Military Veterans	76,259,000
Environmental Affairs	1,469,968
GCIS	2,348
Health	1,136,584
Health (Civitas)	6,747,110
Higher Education	61,012
Home Affairs	3,507,473
Human Settlements	37,211
Independent Police Investigative Directorate	30,000
Justice and Constitutional Development	28,887,083
Labour	4,121,270
Mineral Resources	227,787
National Treasury	426,574
Public Service and Admin	21,622
Rural Development and Land Reform	2,243,767
SA Police Service	95,563,167
SA Revenue Service	2,415,808
Social Development	39,724
Sport and Recreation	838
Statistics SA	259,603
Trade and Industry	2,682
Water Affairs	9,899,088
TOTAL	324,501,155

(b) The purpose of accommodation charges, whilst engendering the culture of total cost of accommodation within User departments, is to collect enough revenue, at a minimum, to maintain the entity’s portfolio at a specific conditionality level.

The current rates charged for State-owned accommodation are based on the original calculations of 2005 when accommodation budgets were devolved to User departments.

In calculating the baseline information, the Department of Public Works (DPW) considered the different facility types in its property portfolio. It was not possible to calculate this amount on a per-property basis owing to the magnitude of the portfolio and the property-specific information that was not available at that time. This was done for all facility types, which resulted in different rates proposed per facility type. The average rate was calculated at R23.74/m2.

Although the average rate per facility was R23.74/m2, the DPW could only devolve the funds it had in its Maintenance and Property Rates budgets baseline. The distribution of funds per User department had to be scaled down to fit into this baseline and was reduced on a pro-rata basis. The average of R23.74/m2 was reduced to R4.74/m2 at inception and has escalated to an approximate current amount of R16.00/m².

The amount devolved (and subsequently charged back) was not enough to cover the self-sustainable target level. As part of the devolution framework, it was indicated that the entity would have to receive at least a 15% growth on this amount to reach the desired funding level by 2017. At that point, it would be possible to maintain properties at their current level. During the time lapse from 2006 to 2017, the portfolio would further deteriorate except where specific intervention took place. This is referred to as “backlog maintenance”, which would be funded separately.

The above-mentioned devolution and charge-back methodology is being reviewed currently so as to align with the operationalisation of the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE).

(3) (a) (i) and (ii)

1,939 buildings are currently not being utilised nor leased. Please refer to Annexure 1(a)(i) for detail per province.

(b) (i) and (ii)

Payable rates and taxes are treated as one expenditure item by municipalities and the DPW therefore treats payable rates and taxes as one expenditure item.

A total amount of R3,983,937.52, on average, is currently payable monthly on municipal rates and taxes through all regional offices in all provinces. Attached please find Annexure 3(b)(i) for detail per province in relation to unutilised properties.

(iii)

A total amount of R1,058,541.66, on average, is currently payable monthly on State-owned properties for municipal services through all regional offices in all the provinces. Attached, please see Annexure 3(b)(ii) for detail per province in relation to unutilised properties.

4. (a) and (b)

There are 13,043 unutilised land parcels under the custodianship of the Department of Public Works. Please refer to Annexure 1(a)(i) for detail per province.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

In my concluding speech in the National Assembly debate on Budget Vote No. 11 (Public Works), held on Wednesday, 20 April 2016, I responded, amongst other things, to the Honourable Kohler-Barnard’s claim to have twenty-four affidavits from individuals alleging they had been refused Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) jobs, because they did not have African National Congress (ANC) membership cards. The Honourable Kohler-Barnard said that it took her one phone call to obtain the affidavits. The Honourable Kohler-Barnard also said that the Auditor-General is questioning the data of Department of Public Works, because of inadequate records and deficiencies.

This was the double context in which I referred to Khayelitsha. The Auditor-General has indeed raised questions about EPWP data, much of it in regard to under-reporting to the Department of Public Works’ central data system from local project sites. In the case of Khayelitsha, the Auditor-General found that 52 claimed participants in Khayelitsha had not been reported to the Department of Public Works’ central EPWP recording system.

In regard to allegations of partisan recruitment of participants for EPWP projects, I am on record of repeatedly speaking out against this abuse. The Department has issued guidelines on participant selection, emphasising the importance of transparency and non-partisanship. It was also for this reason that I instructed my Departmental officials to follow up on the 24 affidavits provided by the Honourable Kohler Barnard. Unfortunately, these affidavits proved to be worthless. They appear to be in three batches, with each batch written by the same hand and with word-for-word, identical general allegations made. The dates, locations, and names on which three ANC Councillors allegedly refused potential beneficiaries EPWP jobs are not provided.

I am not claiming that these abuses did not occur, however, it is my experience that in Municipalities controlled by different political parties, those community members who are aligned to another party, often believe, rightfully or not, that they have been excluded from EPWP projects. This has been our experience in both ANC and DA-controlled Municipalities, including in the City of Cape Town. It is important that as politicians we both condemn partisan manipulation of EPWP projects, as well as refrain from fanning partisan, but ungrounded rumours.

In specific response to the Honourable Macpherson’s question:

(a) There are a number of shortcomings in EPWP projects in the City of Cape Town, including in Khayelitsha, relating to data capturing and the portfolio of evidence for participation in EPWP projects, as noted by the Auditor-General. We are working collegially with our colleagues in the City of Cape Town, just as we are doing with other public bodies, to address these matters. I am pleased to say, however, that currently no cases of corruption in EPWP projects in the City of Cape Town have been reported to the Department of Public Works.

(b) Therefore, no criminal cases in this regard have been opened.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

(a) Since January 2012, no official of the Department of Public Works (DPW) has been convicted of corruption. However, with the assistance of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) criminal cases were opened with the South African Police Services (SAPS) and the investigations are still on-going.

The following cases of corruption/fraud have been registered with the South African Police Service (SAPS), during the periods as indicated:

F/Y in which cases were reported	Cases registered with SAPS	Cases being investigated by SAPS	Cases being considered by Prosecuting Authority	Cases being declined to prosecute by Prosecuting Authority	Cases before court
2011 - 12	1				1
2012 - 13	15	12	2	1
2013 - 14	2	1	1
2014 - 15	9	6	1	1	1
2015 - 16	1	1
TOTAL	28	20	4	2	2

From these statistics seven individuals are former employees of the DPW. Three resigned and four were dismissed after being found guilty of misconduct in internal disciplinary hearings.

In one of the cases registered with the SAPS the person is still under the employment of the DPW.

(b) The cases were investigated by the Special Investigating Unit.

(c) Falls away.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

The National Department of Public Works (NDPW) has established that the property where the Op Die Berg Police Station in Die Koue Bokkeveld is currently accommodated is under the custodianship of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (PGWC). The maintenance of this police station is therefore, currently, not being done by the NDPW. However, it is the responsibility of the NDPW to provide accommodation to the SAPS in terms of its police stations. To this extent, this anomaly is being rectified in tandem with the PGWC and a request for the compilation of a formal lease agreement has been submitted.

The formal lease agreement with the PGWC shall specify responsibilities for maintenance and will provide answers to the following:

(a) when (i) the upgrades and/or (ii) repairs to the specified station shall take place; and

(b) the relevant details of the (i) upgrades and/or (ii) repairs that will take place.

________________________________________________________________________

Reply:

The Minister of Public Works

The 1 200 properties are not untraceable as suggested by the Honourable Member. Rather, the land parcels in question cannot be linked to the Geographical Information System (GIS) due to the absence of cadastral information on them. The Department of Public Works (DPW) has therefore approached the Office of the Chief Surveyor-General to provide spatial geo-reference cadastral data of South Africa for these properties in the format of the (Environmental Systems Research Institute) ESRI files that are currently being used in the Department, so that the land parcels can be linked to the GIS. It is important for all property under the custodianship of the DPW to be put on the GIS system so that the Department or the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE) is enabled to manage immovable assets optimally, incorporating the ability to do conditionality assessments and thus provide for asset investment decisions.

Attached to this reply is Annexure A, which lists the 1 200 properties.