Court of Appeal judges have dismissed, with costs, an appeal brought before them by EyeDSystems.
The appeal was about an award of a multi-million pula tender for the supply, installation, configuration and maintenance of equipment for the production of driving licence cards and public officers’ cards in the Department of Roads and Safety.
EyeDsystems maintains that the award of the tender to Unisystems by the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board (PPADB) was improper and that PPADB ought to have awarded the tender to it.
Dismissing the appeal, the judges concurred that the decision by the Evaluation Committee to award the tender to Unisystems was based on a comparison of the strength and weakness of Unisystems and EyeDsystems.
EyeDsystems, they said, had scored 1198 whilst Unisystems had scored 1257, 50 points.
They further said the disadvantages recorded against EyeDsystems were that it had taken one hour to set up the system and could not properly set up the printer, adding that their camera could easily be stolen and that it was too small to be on counters and that it needed proper settings, adjustments and that its picture quality was very poor.
Given all these findings, the judges concurred that no fault could be found with the decision of the Evaluation Committee.
The committee, they said, was in a better position than the Court to evaluate the performance of the two bidders at the demonstration in question.
They also said that EyeDsystems’ complainant that Unisystems was unfairly allowed to use a laptop can also be disposed of because EyeDsystems was itself the designer of the “Card Five Professional Systems “ in question, adding that EyeDsystems had itself provided proof that the use of a laptop was immaterial.
A letter from EyeDsystems lawyers to PPADB dated 13 August,2008, crucially admitted that EyeDsystems had the same software as the one which was lent to Unisystems and that Gape Morake had also conceded that the computer used for the demonstration was the same computer which he had been using on daily basis.
This, they said, must be so because EyeDsystems had been employed to design the software systems in question. EyeDsystems, they further said, did not raise any complaint about either the use of a laptop or any alleged virus in PPADB’s computer in its letter of the 24 July, 2008 and that the conclusion on this matter is that the complaint was an afterthought.
Finally, the judges said that the lower Court judge was justified in dismissing the case.
PPADB was in the matter represented by Tendai Mandikate, whilst Moses Kadye represented EyeDsystems and Tony Matilo represented Unisystems.