In 1999 BAE Systems signed a contract to supply SAA with aircraft tyres. This contract was renewed repeatedly for over 15yrs without being advertised for tender.

The PFMA forbids the extension of contracts without a public tender process.

Thread...

In 2013, SAAT, which maintains SAA aircraft, advertised a tender for supply of Boeing Aircraft tyres. It was won by BAE in 2014. However no contract was signed, with both parties opting to work through a memorandum of understanding. An issue which was flagged by chair Dudu Myeni

In December 2015, a year after the "understanding", SAAT and BAE cancelled the memorandum, retracted the tender and revived the 15-year evergreen contract that ended in November 2014.

In 2016, SAAT issued another tender, then appointed Michelin to supply Airbus tyres. During negotiations, Michelin proceeded to supply tyres without a contract, instead doing this under a "memorandum of understanding"

But Michelin refused to agree to a mandatory local supplier development clause, which forced SAAT to cancel the negotiations. SAAT then gave the tender back to BAE, again without a contract. BAE was paid R2billion from these MoUs

2013: the SAAT board (not SAA), signed a R240m a year contract with Air France for "components and logistics". SAAT paid R70m more/year. By 2016, the French company had made R2.5bn, with quarterly renewals. SAAT then advertised a new R1.3bn, 5-yr components & logistics tender...

This new tender was split and awarded to Air France and another Israeli company, to supply Airbus and Boeing planes, respectively. However the bid committee did not include any amounts and it was later found that Lufthansa could supply the service for R200m less than Air France

What would happen was a tender would be advertised by SAAT and companies would compete for it, but then the tender would be withdrawn and Air France given an extension, this happened repeatedly between 2013 and 2015. Again an issue Dudu Myeni raised on several platforms

In 2016, the SAAT board awarded a contract for for the supply of components for its (rented) Boeing and Airbus fleet. After some back and forth, it was awarded to a joint venture between American aviation company AAR and JM Aviation.

However it was later discovered that JM Aviation, which was supposed to be a BEE partner, had no expertise nor experience in the aviation sector. And their company premises was a residential area in Sandton.