How fair must government tenders be?

“My business is growing and I have a good BEE scorecard. It makes sense that I should start looking at getting government work. I’ve been avoiding it because it seems to me that the government entities award tenders to whomever they like. If I go to the trouble of tendering I’d at least like a fair shot at getting the work. Is it worth looking at tenders or should I rather leave it?”

It’s difficult to answer the question of whether you should consider government work. One can point out that our Government spends billions annually through tendered work, and if your business can add value, has a good BEE scorecard and could potentially qualify for tenders there is definitely prospects in exploring tender opportunities.

What I can say is that Section 217(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 requires that when an organ of state in the national, provincial or municipal sphere of government or other government institutions tender for goods or services, it must do so in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

These Constitutional principles are further fledged out in Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000 (“PPPFA”) and its accompanying regulations. Further legislation regulating various government entities (such as the Public Finance Management Act and the Municipal Finance Management Act for example) determine that such entities must have supply chain and procurement policies which regulate their procurement processes. Such policies must meet the requirements of the Constitution and the PPPFA as well as any further regulating legislation, including the provisions of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act. 

What flows as a golden thread through all the procurement principles applicable to government entities is that they are obliged to provide all interested bidders an equal opportunity to be considered and must therefore follow competitive tendering processes to award tenders. Such processes must also include fair and transparent evaluation and award processes to ensure that any bidder is not unfairly prejudiced or benefitted as against other bidders. 

An organ of state, when contracting for goods or services, is therefore required to ensure that the principles enshrined in section 217 of the Constitution are complied with. In ensuring compliance with these principles, there is an obligation which is placed on an organ of state to provide all interested bidders an equal opportunity for consideration. The organ of state must therefore follow a competitive bidding process before selecting a preferred service provider. In short the process and criteria must be fair, objective and impartial and the stipulated procedures as laid out by the relevant policies and governing legislation must be applied consistently.

What this means is that you should in principle have a fair shot at tendering for government work provided you can meet their requirements and criteria and follow the correct procedures. It would also be wise to undertake a study of the relevant procurement policies of the various government entities you may consider to tender for to ensure that you follow their procedures fully and understand their criteria. But are tenders always awarded objectively and fairly? Probably not, but that is why our courts are approached on a regular basis to help determine whether government has fairly applied its mind and to provide bidders an avenue to challenge any tendering processes that they feel did not meet our Constitutionally enshrined principles for public procurement.

April 11, 2019
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest