Chairman, State Tender Board v Supersonic Tours (Pty) Ltd

Supersonic Tours (Pty) Ltd, a long-standing provider of travel services to government, was awarded a State Tender Board (STB) contract in 2003 to supply travel and accommodation services to the Department of Defence. After award, the Department alleged that Supersonic had made misrepresentations in its tender documents, particularly regarding its SARS tax clearance certificate and preference points claimed for equity ownership by historically disadvantaged individuals. Supersonic was asked to explain these discrepancies and provided responses. Without expressly accusing Supersonic of fraud or bad faith, the STB resolved on 22 September 2005 to cancel the contract and to restrict Supersonic and its directors from doing business with the State for ten years. Supersonic successfully reviewed the restriction decision in the Pretoria High Court, and the Chairman of the STB and the Minister of Finance appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court order setting aside the STB’s decision to restrict Supersonic and its directors for ten years remained in force.

The case is significant for clarifying the application of PAJA to public procurement decisions and for strictly limiting the circumstances under which organs of state may blacklist or restrict contractors. It underscores the distinction between incorrect information and fraudulent or bad-faith conduct, and affirms the centrality of procedural fairness in administrative action affecting tenderers.