24 Jul 2018

North East District councillors have expressed displeasure with the contractor who has been awarded the Tshesebe-Masunga road construction tender.

Airing their views during a full council meeting recently, councillors complained about the slow progress of the road, which currently stands at 11 per cent against the expected 67 per cent.

Councillor Mbaakanyi Smart of Mosojane said people from his ward, whose villages the road runs through, were expecting to be employed in the project, but they were not.

He indicated that councillors should be invited to attend progress meetings by the contractor to enable them to provide answers to the electorate.

Mr Smart suggested that the permanent secretary or the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing Development should come and address the council on the progress and delays of the project because of its magnitude.

Councillor Kudzani Tobokwani of Siviya asked how the contractor was awarded the tender in the first place with many key personnel missing from their organisational structure.

Councillor Dumani Kelepi of Tati Siding West held the view that a site tour for councillors would not offer a solution, instead they would visit the site and appreciate the delays even though it would not solve anything.

Councillor for Moroka, Mr Egbert Tshandu stated that it was time the district leaders explored the terms of contract termination because the company was failing to deliver.

Responding, the Department of Roads regional director, Mr Prince Moalosi stated that the  slow progress was due to the fact that the contractor only managed to acquire gravel in December from a commercial source in Tshesebe.

He however indicated that the expectation was that there would be progress after December, but there was stagnation.

He highlighted that the company also struggled to process work permits for employees on time as they were only approved end of February.

Mr Moalosi revealed that out of the seven key personnel, only two were available with a material engineer, surveyor, bridge engineer, project manager forming part of the key personnel missing.

He said the slow progress was a reflection of the lack of these key personnel, adding that so far the company had employed three project managers quit.

He stated that a project of such magnitude could not change managers at this rate because it crippled project continuity.

He highlighted that of all the three major bridges on the road, not a single one had been done because of unavailability of a bridge engineer. The regional director said they had so far given the contractor two warnings.

However, he said they had not received any response from the contractor, adding that the procedure was that after writing the letter, they await for the contractor to correct the anomaly, failing which suspension or termination are considered. ENDS