Foreshore's fate will be known in February after months of controversy

The developer that will transform Cape Town’s Foreshore — and its notorious unfinished freeways — will be named next month.

Six developers and consortiums put in bids and a City of Cape Town evaluation committee has whittled them down at the second attempt.

The first evaluation committee was scrapped in August after the forensics company appointed to monitor the process blew the whistle on its work.

In a letter to city manager Achmat Ebrahim‚ Moore Stephens director Gillian Bolton said she was concerned flawed scoring would taint the committee’s work.

“When all factors are considered‚ the entire process will be subverted and compromised‚” she said.

Ebrahim followed Bolton’s recommendation to exclude city transport commissioner Melissa Whitehead from the process and to set up a new bid evaluation committee.

Bidders have now been told that the evaluation committee is expected to announce the outcome in February‚ seven months after the original target date.

Johan van der Merwe‚ the mayoral committee member for finance‚ told TimesLIVE scoring had been finalised and the delay in announcing the result was due to “supply chain processes”. He would not comment on how many bidders would go forward to the second stage of the evaluation.

In 2016 the City of Cape Town called for proposals to resolve the problem of three unfinished freeways‚ ease congestion and provide affordable housing. In return‚ developers would get access to 6ha under and between the Foreshore freeways.

Mayoral committee member for transport Brett Herron unveiled the six qualifying proposals in March‚ describing the project as “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape one of the most valuable and iconic precincts in the Mother City”.

The six bidders were the V&A Waterfront‚ Urban Dynamics Consortium (trading as the Circle of Hood Hope Consortium)‚ Foreshore Freeboard Consortium‚ Foreshore Development Agency (trading as Shoreline and headed by pioneering BEE personality Marcel Golding)‚ Nadeson Property Developments (headed by Grand Parade Investments’ Hassen Adams) and Mitchell du Plessis Associates (MDA).

The Sunday Times revealed in October that Moore Stephens raised a red flag about Whitehead’s alleged bias towards the bid by Urban Dynamics‚ where one of the directors is Jean-Luc Limacher. He and Whitehead worked together in the Johannesburg city council planning department from 1988 to 1995.

The company’s proposal is to bury the freeways in a tunnel and construct an enormous circular building containing multi-million rand apartments.

In her letter to Ebrahim‚ Bolton said she had become increasingly concerned about Whitehead’s “apparent partiality” in favour of Urban Dynamics and against MDA‚ and the “apparent undue influence [she] is seeking to bring to bear on other members of the [committee] ... more especially given that their reporting lines in the city are to her”.

At the committee’s August 4 meeting‚ Whitehead had said she could not recommend a proposal where the affordable housing units were under the highways.

Bolton said Whitehead told the committee Herron‚ mayor Patricia de Lille and deputy mayor Ian Neilson had said they would “never accept the MDA proposal” and that “she reports to the politicians who are the ultimate decision-makers”.

Whitehead also alleged that in their presentation to the committee‚ MDA representatives had made comments to the effect that “people would be better living there [under the freeways] than in a ghetto in Khayelitsha”.

Committee members who disputed that comment listened to a recording of the MDA presentation and challenged Whitehead to do the same‚ said Bolton‚ but she refused.

“Regarding the affordable units being located under the highway‚ a member pointed out that this was merely a design issue which could be solved in ‘five minutes’. Ms Whitehead declined to consider the insight.

“Ms Whitehead was not prepared to consider the members’ comments to the effect that the Circle of Good Hope’s proposed financial model was fundamentally flawed‚ namely that the pricing of the upmarket units [in the Circle] was unrealistic and‚ given that the proceeds of these were required to fund the tunnel‚ there would be significant financial risk for the city.”

After scrapping the committee‚ Ebrahim sent a dossier about the matter to De Lille and said Whitehead’s alleged conduct should be reported to the council. She replied in writing on October 20 saying the council should not be informed.

Nine days later‚ Ebrahim told the Sunday Times that “a thorough‚ fair and transparent process was indeed executed” by the bid evaluation committee. “There is thus no need for any action to be taken against any staff member flowing from the reconstitution of the committee‚” he said.

The roles played by Whitehead‚ Ebrahim and De Lille in scrapping the evaluation committee were investigated by lawyers Bowman Gilfillan as part of a wide-ranging probe ordered by the council into allegations of misconduct against several individuals.

Their report‚ submitted on December 29‚ said Whitehead wrote to Ebrahim on October 31‚ two days after the Sunday Times report‚ and admitted telling the committee she was answerable to politicians.

“I fully stand by this statement. I cannot disclose the reasons for making this statement as the proceedings of a bid evaluation committee are confidential‚ but if asked to do so in a legal process‚ I will do so‚” she said.

Bowman Gilfillan said it had interviewed another committee member‚ Dave Marais‚ who said there had been “monstrous” unease about Whitehead’s behaviour.

In his interview with Bowman Gilfillan on December 14‚ Ebrahim said that on October 13 he gave De Lille a dossier about the Moore Stephens allegations against Whitehead.

“[Ebrahim] confirmed that the dossier should have been tabled before council and a full investigation instituted. [De Lille] took a different stance‚” said the Bowman Gilfillan report.

Ebrahim followed De Lille’s orders‚ for which he now faces disciplinary action. Whitehead also faces disciplinary action‚ and Bowman Gilfillan recommended a further investigation to “interrogate the possibility that the commissioner had undisclosed conflicts of interest in the supplier ostensibly favoured by her”.

The prospectus for the Foreshore project says “the qualifying bidder(s) will then enter into an agreement with the City of Cape Town ... which will set out all conditions and requirements for stage two of the process. This stage will at least include firming up the technical parameters‚ obtaining the financial guarantees and developing the investment plan‚ as negotiated.”

It adds: “A formal review of progress will take place three months after the agreement has been signed by all parties. At this review‚ the qualifying bidder(s) will be required to provide the bid evaluation committee with a detailed progress report and will have the opportunity to pose any questions or issues that may have arisen over the period.

“Should the three-month assessment reveal that a qualifying bidder will be unable to complete the project successfully‚ or to secure the required investment and investor guarantees‚ the committee will have their status as qualifying bidder revoked.

“Six months from the date of contract‚ the qualifying bidder(s) will be required to submit the stage two deliverables. This must include the detailed investment plan.

“The committee will evaluate the submission and‚ if fully satisfied with the submission‚ will make the necessary formal project tender awards and confirm the official commencement of the project.”