What happened to the Sassa food parcels?

Dozens of people spent Tuesday night outside the Sassa offices in Mdantsane, East London. (Johnnie Isaac: GroundUp)
Dozens of people spent Tuesday night outside the Sassa offices in Mdantsane, East London. (Johnnie Isaac: GroundUp)
  • Sassa bungled and then cancelled a three-year tender to provide food parcels for people in distress last year.
  • With no contracted service providers, Sassa delivered no food parcels in key provinces between November 2019 to March 2020.
  • Former service providers complained of being stranded with warehouses filled with food, but Sassa’s mistake meant no community members could benefit.

When the government slammed the brakes on the economy to give the country a fighting chance against the coronavirus pandemic, the safety nets to help families who had lost their only forms of income, and awaited social grants, were not in place.

Other government departments, the Solidarity Fund and non-profits had to step-in.

But this did not have to be the case if it were not for red tape surrounding a cancelled tender in August last year that led to a delay in the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) appointing service providers to supply and distribute what it calls social relief of distress (SRD).

SRDs can be food parcels or food vouchers supplied to people facing unexpected hardship where indigent families have lost a breadwinner, or are awaiting payment of an approved social grant, or are victims of a disaster.

Although many of the applicants for the Sassa food parcels are self-referrals, the agency works with the departments of health and education and non-profits to identify households which require assistance.

From November last year to the end of March, Sassa delivered zero food parcels in six provinces despite the fact that, according to the State of Food Security report 2019, almost a third of South Africans experience severe food insecurity, which means the household has either run out of food or in some cases, gone days without eating a single meal.

food parcels

To make matters worse service providers appointed in 2016 whose contracts had ended in November 2019 told amaBhungane that they sat with millions of rands worth of food parcels in their warehouses because of uncertainty about their contracts being extended. 

By August last year Sassa should have appointed new service providers to supply SRDs for the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal, Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Western Cape.

But that did not happen.

The cancelled bid

Sassa advertised for new service providers from 14 June to 5 July last year for the six provinces. Northern Cape, Free State and North West still had valid contracts.

However, the tender was cancelled after the bid adjudication committee identified a technical hitch.

Bidders had been asked to extend the validity of their bids. Those who did not, were automatically excluded – but there was a problem with how this was done.

"Prospective bidders were not given a reasonable time to respond, resulting with [some] bidders not having seen the emails to respond before the expiry date of the validity of the tender," Dumisile Ndlovu, the Sassa general manager of supply chain management, wrote in response to questions from amaBhungane.

Ndlovu said Sassa was advised by National Treasury to cancel the tender as the exclusions might have been unfair.

She did not respond to questions about when the problem was picked up and why excluded bidders were not simply asked once more about extending the validity of their bids.

Faced with having to re-issue the tender, Sassa approached service providers coming to the end of their 2016 three-year contracts and asked them to extend their service by three months until November 2019

But by December last year Sassa had still not finalised the new tender and it was only readvertised on 17 January this year.

Some of the 2016 service providers anticipated that their contracts would have to be rolled over again to fill the gap.

In the confusion some took on new leases for warehouses and retained stockpiles of food, not knowing that treasury had told Sassa that it could not extend the old contracts beyond the end of 2019.

Now these service providers are frustrated that the costs they incurred to meet Sassa’s needs have gone to waste.  

In the interim Sassa requested approval from Treasury for a bid deviation to source quotations from service providers that passed a functionality assessment in the cancelled 2019 bid.

Sassa proposed to contract them for six months whilst running the new tender.  

Approval was granted, but the appointment of service providers was eventually concluded only in April 2020 for a period of three months ending in June 2020.

Of the temporarily appointed service providers, only two remained from the 2016 cohort

Two others of the 2016 cohort have since written to Treasury querying the deviation and asking why Sassa did not give them 30 days’ notice to end their contracts.

Sassa told amaBhungane that it did not have to give notice: "A contractual relationship automatically ends at the end of the stipulated contract." 

Sassa added that it was in the process of awarding the next round of SRD bids for the upcoming three-year cycle.

Impact

The impact of the bungling is clear from Sassa’s own figures.

In 2017 and 2018, it delivered 573 196 and 443 687 SRDs respectively in the form of food parcels and vouchers, according to the agency's annual reports.

In the face of the coronavirus pandemic, Sassa extended eligibility for food parcel provision to child-headed households as well as to those dependent on other relief programmes shuttered during the lockdown, such as the National School Nutrition Programme.

Yet, by 25 May, Sassa had delivered only 73 493 food parcels this year

The department of social development, the parent department of Sassa, separately distributed many more parcels.

Since the lockdown in March, it distributed 218 413 in partnership with the Solidarity Fund and 523 490 in partnership with non-profits and via its own social workers.

The department of environment, forestry and fisheries supplied 1 500 food parcels

Of the total food parcels delivered by 25 May, Sassa's contribution amounted to just 9%. 

Together, the initiatives have fed over 3.1-million people, the department of social development told Parliament in May, where one food parcel is estimated to feed four people, but this excludes donations and contributions made by various non-profits acting independently of the department.

Sassa admitted that it had not contracted any service providers for the first three months of 2020 but denied there was a food parcel shortage.

"I would not say there was [a] shortage, but unprecedented high demand [was] given birth to by the national disaster, and the fact that the Sassa’s offices had to lock down and therefore [the] processing of grants application was delayed increasing the demand for immediate relief of distress," Ndlovu said.

"Issuing of food parcels is dependent on the budget and applicants meeting the eligibility criteria. The allocated budget for the 2020/21 is R407 million and the Agency can only provide assistance limited to available budget allocation."

*The amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, an independent non-profit, produced this story. Like it?  Be an amaB Supporter to help us do more. Sign up for our newsletter to get more.

an amaBhungane investigation
ZAR/USD
17.42
(-0.58)
ZAR/GBP
22.89
(-0.74)
ZAR/EUR
20.69
(-0.64)
ZAR/AUD
12.61
(-1.12)
ZAR/JPY
0.17
(-0.61)
Gold
2066.30
(+1.51)
Silver
29.05
(+8.23)
Platinum
1000.00
(+3.85)
Brent Crude
45.33
(+1.67)
Palladium
2212.63
(+2.24)
All Share
57656.69
(+0.05)
Top 40
53350.88
(+0.13)
Financial 15
9888.41
(-0.41)
Industrial 25
76178.50
(+0.02)
Resource 10
60086.05
(+0.49)
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes morningstar logo
Company Snapshot
Voting Booth
Do you think it was a good idea for the government to approach the IMF for a $4.3 billion loan to fight Covid-19?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
Yes. We need the money.
11% - 913 votes
It depends on how the funds are used.
74% - 6072 votes
No. We should have gotten the loan elsewhere.
15% - 1240 votes
Vote