Tender Governance & Competitive Supplier Selection · Data Sheet
Tender Governance & Competitive Supplier Selection — Commercial Results
Commercial movement and governance controls from an anonymised multi-site tender, with a reconciled lifecycle-cost view.
Publication purpose
To show not only the financial movement, but the process safeguards required before those figures can support a defensible procurement decision. The financial result is only as reliable as the process that produced it, so the control architecture is part of the results record rather than an appendix to it.
Reconciled commercial movement
Prior position against revised position
Scroll table sideways →
| Commercial measure | Prior | Revised | Movement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital cost — ex VAT | R16,708,311.94 | R14,244,277.27 | R2,464,034.67 lower — 14.75% |
| Monthly recurring / support | R223,310.37 | R283,964.47 | R60,654.10 higher — 27.16% |
| 36-month nominal total | R24,747,485.26 | R24,466,998.19 | R280,487.07 lower — 1.13% |
Figures use the reconciled workbook totals rather than an intermediate difference formula that did not include every cost column. The 36-month total is a simple ex-VAT illustration — capital plus 36 months of recurring cost — and excludes financing, escalation, time value of money, tax effects, unpriced risk, change orders, credits and early-termination effects. It is not a realised-savings claim.
Price reconciliation controls
What the workbook error taught
Scroll table sideways →
| Control | Required treatment |
|---|---|
| Formula reconciliation | Summary movements must equal the difference between controlled underlying totals |
| Common scope | A lower price is not comparable if material scope, equipment, service or implementation obligations have moved |
| Common term | Capex, recurring cost, escalation and set-up must be evaluated on the same contractual horizon |
| Independent QA | A second person reviews formulas, totals, weights and denominators before results reach the panel |
| Evidence state | Quotation, negotiated price, contracted price and realised invoice result are not treated as the same thing |
One intermediate difference formula in the historical workbook omitted an installation and cabling cost column, producing a larger apparent reduction than the reconciled totals support. This is exactly the error that can alter a recommendation if a procurement model is not independently checked.
Supplier inclusion model
100 points, adjusted to category risk
Scroll table sideways →
| Pre-qualification area | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Legal identity and mandatory compliance | 10 | Registration, tax, licences and authorisations where relevant, insurance, client-required documents |
| Relevant delivery history and verified references | 15 | Comparable contracts and independently tested references |
| Technical capability and people | 20 | Qualified personnel, certifications, technical ownership and ability to deliver the required solution |
| Delivery capacity and geographic support | 15 | Staffing, logistics, stock, service desk, coverage, subcontractors and mobilisation resources |
| Financial and commercial capacity | 10 | Ability to fund and sustain implementation; credit or financial evidence appropriate to the risk |
| Ethics, conflicts and transparency | 15 | Conflict and referral disclosures, ownership transparency, anti-bribery posture and conduct |
| Quality, safety, information-security or regulatory controls | 10 | Category-specific controls, policies, certifications and regulatory evidence |
| Premises / operational verification | 5 | Physical verification that represented capability exists where material to the tender |
Default qualifying threshold may be set at 70/100, subject to approved category design. Referral status scores zero. Mandatory legal, regulatory or integrity failures override the numerical score entirely.
Financial result states
Six states, and what each permits you to claim
Scroll table sideways →
| State | Meaning | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Quoted | Price appears in a supplier proposal | Do not treat as secured value |
| Qualified / comparable | Scope and capability sufficiently validated for evaluation | Eligible for controlled comparison |
| Negotiated | Commercial terms improved through structured engagement | Still subject to award and contract |
| Awarded / contracted | Approved supplier and contractual price and scope documented | Contracted benefit, not yet realised |
| Implemented | Goods or services live or delivered as awarded | Measure actual implementation variance |
| Realised | Invoices and performance evidence demonstrate the benefit against the controlled baseline | May be reported as realised savings or value |
This engagement demonstrates commercial movement and process discipline. Its figures should not be published as realised savings without final award, contract, implementation and invoice evidence.
Governance position, stated by KuTh as at September 2026
Section 217 of the Constitution governs procurement by organs of state and specified institutions, requiring a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. KuTh uses those same qualities as governance benchmarks for private and non-profit procurement, because they support confidence, auditability and ethical decision-making — while recognising that private organisations are not thereby converted into organs of state.
KuTh’s position, recorded in this pack and dated September 2026, is that the Public Procurement Act 28 of 2024 had never commenced and was declared constitutionally invalid by the Constitutional Court on 17 September 2026, so public-sector procurement must be conducted under the framework legally applicable at the time — the relevant PFMA or MFMA environment, the PPPFA framework, Preferential Procurement Regulations 2022, Treasury instructions and institutional SCM requirements.
KuTh’s tender controls are supplementary process safeguards. They are not a substitute for law or for approved supply-chain-management policy, and nothing here is legal advice.