…over alleged misprocurement of security services
Moroke Sekoboto
THE Water and Sewerage Company (WASCO) Supply Chain Manager, Neo Lekhotla, came under fire from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) over the award of a security services tender to Reliable Basotho Security, a company the Committee said did not meet the minimum technical requirements.
Mr Lekhotla was grilled by the PAC on Thursday during a meeting to examine queries raised by Auditor-General Mathabo Makenete, with the Committee members questioning how Reliable Basotho Security was selected ahead of several competing security companies despite allegedly failing to meet the minimum five-year experience requirement.
The company was reportedly issued with a business trading licence on 11 September 2023, raising questions about how it could have met the requirement for at least five years of experience when the tender was evaluated in 2025.
Reliable Basotho Security was selected ahead of BB Alert, Hawked Eye, Green Mountain, Top Flight, Apex Protection, Tharollo Group Security, MM Operations, Security Lesotho, G4S and Black Diamond Securities.
Mr Lekhotla told the Committee that WASCO had invited interested and qualified companies to bid for the supply and delivery of security services.
He said the tender notice was issued on 10 September 2025, followed by a compulsory pre-bid meeting and site inspection on 19 September 2025. The closing date for the submission of bids and their opening was 13 October 2025.
PAC member Dr Tšeliso Moroke questioned how Reliable Basotho Security had emerged successful over the other bidders, particularly in relation to the requirement on the number of years the companies had been operating.
Mr Lekhotla said WASCO used financial and technical expertise as its evaluation criteria, including the bidders’ relevant experience and their ability to provide security services worth at least M500 000 over the preceding five years.
“All interested bidders must be in possession of a proven track record and must be licensed for providing services of this nature. All bidders must attach certified copies of valid tax clearance certificates and company registration licences, as the bids without these documents shall be disqualified,” Mr Lekhotla said.
Defending the award, he said Reliable Basotho Security had indicated that it had undertaken five assignments within five years and that the company was registered in 2020.
He added that the company’s head of security held a master’s degree and had 10 years of experience. According to Mr Lekhotla, the company had also performed exceptionally in rapid response within a 10km radius and in its financial evaluation.
However, he failed to explain how the company had satisfied the minimum five-year operational experience requirement.
PAC chairperson, Machabana Lemphane-Letsie, challenged his explanation, pointing to the company’s business trading licence, which was issued on 11 September 2023. She also questioned discrepancies in the dates appearing on the company’s documents.
Ms Lemphane-Letsie said the company had produced registration-related certificates bearing different dates, including 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, while its police clearance was issued in 2024.
She argued that company registration was issued once and did not expire, questioning why the documents appeared to suggest different registration dates.
“You fail to justify different dates, the fact that this company has company registration certificates of 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. The police clearance was issued in 2024. The company registration is issued only once, it doesn’t have an expiry date. The company didn’t exist in 2020, some shareholders came in 2022, some in 2023, which clearly shows that Reliable Basotho didn’t meet the requirement,” Ms Lemphane-Letsie said.
She further questioned Mr Lekhotla’s claim that the company had performed exceptionally in the financial evaluation, suggesting that he appeared to have a particular interest in its selection.
Ms Lemphane-Letsie said Reliable Basotho Security had scored zero against the minimum five-year experience requirement and should not have been selected over competing companies that met the stipulated criteria.
“The issue of five years is out. We have security companies that are more than qualified compared to your friends’ company (Reliable Basotho Security). You prepared this report but you can’t explain why you selected this company. These companies have heads of security who are degree holders and companies that are good at rapid response. There is nothing exceptional about Reliable Basotho Security, you selected it because you have your own interests,” she said.
Her remarks followed concerns that other bidders also had qualified security personnel and the capacity to provide rapid-response services, raising further questions about the evaluation process.
The Committee criticised Mr Lekhotla’s understanding of procurement procedures, telling him that he did not appear to understand the process and questioning whether he could be expected to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements.
Mr Lekhotla eventually admitted that he and the evaluation team had not properly interpreted the requirement relating to the years of experience.
The admission left the Committee questioning how the evaluation team had assessed the bids and recommended the award to Reliable Basotho Security despite the concerns surrounding the company’s eligibility.