ICT Contractual Claim · Data Sheet
ICT Contractual Claim — Financial Results
Claim composition, billing controls, fault metrics and network-capacity figures behind the R23.4 million contractual claim.
Quantitative snapshot
The engagement in figures
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Contractual claim | R23.40M | Submitted at CEO level |
| Pre-interest claim | R21.32M | Before the separate interest layer |
| Interest model | R2.08M | 9% average used in the source report |
| SLA claim share | 55.2% | Largest single claim area |
| Operating sites | 15 | Physical verification programme |
| Claim areas | 9 | Independently stated mechanisms |
| Fault tickets | 3,534 | Mar 2019 – Mar 2021 dataset |
| Cumulative incident hours | 141,667.8 | Across the 3,534 recorded tickets |
| Source pages | 774 | Report and annexures combined |
| Report pages | 123 | Final contractual report |
| Annexure pages | 651 | Underlying evidence record |
Claim composition
Nine areas and how each was calculated
Scroll table sideways →
| Claim area | Amount | Share | Calculation basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Pricing reconstruction | R3,953,351.16 | 16.9% | R109,815.31 / month × 36 months |
| 2. Invoice vs delivered quantity | R1,019,276.28 | 4.4% | R28,313.23 / month × 36 months |
| 3. Delivered vs on-site equipment | R453,833.28 | 1.9% | R50,425.92 / month × 9 months |
| 4. On-site vs working equipment | R593,095.68 | 2.5% | R65,899.52 / month × 9 months |
| 5. SLA failures / credits | R12,929,514.31 | 55.2% | R538,729.76 / month × 24 months |
| 6. Duplicated services | R183,261.47 | 0.8% | R3,740.03 / month × 49 months |
| 7. Incorrect equipment / refund | R1,331,573.04 | 5.7% | R27,174.96 / month × 49 months |
| 8. MetroLAN upgrade / refund | R858,742.15 | 3.7% | R17,525.35 / month × 49 months |
| 9. Interest model | R2,080,648.65 | 8.9% | Separate 9% average financial model |
| Total | R23,403,296.02 | 100.0% | Consolidated claim submitted at CEO level |
Areas 1 to 4 are sequenced so that price, quantity, physical presence and actual utilisation are each isolated in turn and never counted twice.
Billing control
Current billing and the interim payment position
Scroll table sideways →
| Billing control | Amount | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Current monthly billing table | R601,289.13 | Recorded current position in the side-by-side schedule |
| Corrected quantity / pricing comparator | R456,650.46 | Reconstructed on corrected quantities and pricing |
| Derived monthly gap | R144,638.67 | Approximately 24.1% of the current billing table |
| Continuing subscriptions / contracts | R34,859.42 | Undisputed or continuing service component |
| Average usage | R58,858.24 | Variable usage amount in the source report |
| Call-rate discount | R25,591.56 | 43.48% discount applied to average usage |
| Purchase agreements | R21,383.82 | Separate continuing-payment component |
| Average interim payment | R89,509.92 + VAT | Proposed payment while the historic dispute remained open |
The R144,638.67 monthly gap and the R89,509.92 interim payment must not be conflated. The first is the difference between two broader billing tables; the second is the live payment-control position after separating continuing services, variable usage, the call-rate discount and purchase agreements. A live dispute needs a documented rule for what remains payable and what is disputed, so that historic damages do not make the current monthly payment decision opaque.
Service performance
Fault and SLA dataset
Scroll table sideways →
| Indicator | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Fault tickets analysed | 3,534 | Supplier dataset, Mar 2019 – Mar 2021 |
| Cumulative incident downtime | 141,667.8 h | Sum of elapsed downtime, not consecutive calendar outage |
| Average repair / resolution time | ~40 h | Source-recorded overall average |
| Tickets above 160 hours | 166 | Incidents exceeding a week; average above 400 hours |
| Equipment-failure incidents | 689 | ~26,000 downtime hours; 178 replacements noted |
| Lightning-related tickets | 262 | 12,529.85 hours; ~48-hour average |
| Private-power tickets | 564 | 19,665.08 hours; ~34-hour average |
| Unknown-cause downtime | 13,352.65 h | ~49.27-hour average resolution |
| Cancelled-ticket downtime | 2,793.82 h | Recorded source category |
| Misoperation category | 8,580.68 h | Separate source-recorded cause category |
Cumulative incident downtime sums elapsed hours across all tickets; it is not a measure of continuous outage. Some tickets were coded as corrosion but reportedly closed by reset or assist actions, so cause code and resolution action were analysed separately rather than treating the code as fact.
Network capacity
What was purchased against what the design could carry
Scroll table sideways →
| Design indicator | Recorded position | Commercial reading |
|---|---|---|
| Purchased branch target | 20 Mbps × 15 sites | Implies a 300 Mbps aggregate concurrent requirement |
| Recorded head-office breakout | 50 Mbps | Shared central capacity recorded in the source report |
| Simple average capacity | 3.33 Mbps / site | 50 Mbps divided across 15 sites, before contention and overhead |
| Observed allocation example | ~2.14 Mbps | If one site takes ~20 Mbps, the remaining 30 Mbps spans 14 sites |
| Required aggregate breakout | 300 Mbps | Capacity needed to support 15 × 20 Mbps concurrently |
| Upgrade charge | R17,525.35 / month | Basis of Claim Area 8 over 49 months |
The commercial argument in Area 8 was not that lines were slow. It was that the central breakout design could not support the aggregate branch profile being purchased, so the calculation rests on the technical feasibility analysis as well as the charge history.
Reconciliation and evidence controls
Several source items required specific controls before being carried into the consolidated position. Six months of performance history were requested but one week of supplier trend data was received, supplemented by roughly four weeks of router monitoring — that week is not described as a six-month measured dataset. An early install-check workbook was superseded as physical and supplier records were consolidated. An installed media-converter count appears as 177 in one section and 186 in another, and is reconciled to the original asset schedule rather than used as a definitive figure. A corrosion summary line did not reconcile hours to days to months, so the ticket-level workbook was used instead of the summary conversion.
This records a claim submitted on 13 September 2021, not a settlement. The source contains no settlement agreement, award or evidence of recovery.