105 However, the agreement, reproduced as Annexure 13 in Volume 1 of the Forensic Auditor’s Report had two important annexures. Annexure A was SPB/C/24 being the SPB’s letter dated 19 October 2012, awarding the tender to Univern. Annexure B was the document detailing the technical specifications of the equipment to be delivered.
106 In Annexure B, the Technical Specification Document, a two-year warranty was provided for with the following terms:
“1800-4000 working hours or two years whichever comes first’ (20 000 km is an error on the tender document)”.
107 USD $2 412 240 was paid by ZINARA on 10 December 2012.
108 Again, contrary to the agreement and tender documents, the forty (40) graders were delivered seven months later on 14 June 2013.
109 Meanwhile between 10 December 2012 and 21 May 2013, ZINARA had been paying to Univern’s various accounts held at Nedbank, CBZ, NMB, POSB, ZABG the total sum of USD $9 515 240.
110 This, therefore, means that Univern was overpaid by the sum of USD $1 223 640.
111 ZINARA was entailed to a 1% penalty up to a maximum of six (6) weeks and thereafter the agreement would be cancelled.
112 The agreement was not cancelled and had the penalty clause been enforced for the seven months delay in performance then ZINARA would have been entitled to a penalty fee of USD $80 400 per week which total comes to USD $2 251 200 over seven months.
113 In terms of the tender document, Univern undertook to supply motor graders of the type SJLS 220 within eight (8) weeks at a total cost of USD $8 040 800. The Motor Graders supplied and delivered by Univern were Sany SJLS 200C and not the tendered for JLS 220 as would be shown below.
114 The motor graders so supplied developed serious technical problems as confirmed by the Audit Report and as would be discussed below.
115 The unanswered question is whether or not the Sany SJLS 200C model supplied was better than the SJLS 220 tendered for.
Continued next page
(129 VIEWS)
0 Comments