Agrément South Africa & Council for Built Environment 2013 Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plans

Meeting report

Agrément South Africa (ASA) Strategic and Annual Performance Plans 2013/14
Ms Ntebo Ngcobo, Board Member: Agrément South Africa (ASA) tabled the apologies of the Chairperson of the ASA board.

She explained the work of ASA, noting that it certified the use of non-standard construction materials and methods. The difference between ASA and South African Bureau for Standards (SABS) was that the latter looked at the products that were already in the market, whereas ASA looked at products that were not in the market and ran the necessary tests to ensure those products met the purpose for which they were designed.

Mr Joe Odhiambo, Chief Executive Officer, ASA, noted that the ASA was one of the entities in the Department of Public Works (DPW). The vision of ASA was to be a world class Technical Assessment Agency. Its mission was to promote the Government’s objectives of economic development, good governance and raising living standards and prosperity in South Africa. This would be achieved by encouraging and facilitating the use of innovative and non-standard construction products, through its certification scheme, thereby capitalising on the benefits to be gained.

Mr Odhiambo said that the organisation had exceeded all projections of outputs to date. It aligned its strategy to support the key priority areas of government and the DPW, specifically to address the triple challenge of unemployment, poverty and inequality. The New Growth Path (NGP) set a goal of creating 5 million new jobs by 2020, had identified structural problems in the economy that must be overcome and pointed to opportunities in specific sectors and markets that were job drivers. The primary job driver was uplifting infrastructure, thereby laying the basis for higher growth, inclusivity and job creation, and here ASA played a vital role.

Mr Odhiambo also said that the recommendations for the Strategic Infrastructure Projects (SIPs) and the National Development Plan (NDP) vision for 2030 were to strengthen broader technical capacity. ASA had therefore reviewed the ‘technical infrastructure’ of how it was supporting testing and certification in the building and construction industry. The scope should include building regulations, codes and certification and supporting infrastructure, and RandD infrastructure. The seventeen SIPs covered a range of economic and social infrastructure, in all nine provinces, with an emphasis on poorer provinces.

Mr Odhiambo noted that there was a target of creating 11 million more jobs by 2030. The ASA intended to assist in lowering the cost of doing business and costs for households, expanding infrastructure, speeding up and expanding renewable energy and waste recycling and ensuring that buildings met energy-efficiency standards. ASA would also be acting to assist with the transformation of urban and rural spaces. This would be achieved by ceasing the building of houses on poorly located land and shifting more resources to upgrading informal settlements, provided that they were in areas close to jobs. He explained that a government that worked well would not just deliver more houses, but would also make sure that the houses were well-located, and would make it possible for more people to build or buy their own houses.


He outlined the organisational structure of ASA, which consisted of the Board, Technical Committee, Technical Agency ASA, and Industry Technical Expects. In terms of governance, the Annual Report for 2012 had been tabled in Parliament on 29 September 2012. The Minister of Public Works approved the ASA Strategic Plan covering the period 2013 to 2018. The Strategic and Annual Performance Plans had been delivered to the Parliamentary Stores in March 2013, for tabling in Parliament. The Board of Agrément South Africa conducted oversight on Agency operations. The Chairman and the members of the Board were duly appointed by the Minister of Public Works. By undertaking technical assessments of innovative systems for and on behalf of the Government, ASA had made a great contribution in the safe introduction of innovative technologies in the country, with commensurate benefits.

ASA prided itself on excellent systems, processes and linkages with global best practices. It was well governed, with strong control systems. The Board addressed issues of corporate governance to ensure compliance with National Treasury and other public service requirements.  This ensured proper fiduciary management within the organisation.

Mr Odhiambo then set out some of the highlights of performance. ASA was continuing to maintain SANS ISO9001 certification. It had enhanced its own internal technical skills to ensure competence in handling complex technical assessments; It continued with the utilisation of in-house specialist laboratory testing equipment, and retained in-house, highly-skilled technical experts to provide expert opinions in interpreting laboratory analysis and tests.

ASA also continued its strong emphasis on the development of human resources, to enhance the skills level and efficiency of technical staff. The Technical Committee had improved hugely, in terms of both the number and skill of experts. Transformation within ASA had been addressed. In terms of quality management system, he explained that before any organisation would be certified by ASA, it had to have a quality management system in place that was documented in a quality manual, and that furthermore that quality management system and the implementation, as described in the quality manual, should be approved by ASA’s Board. The applicant should comply with ASA’s quality management system, which was broadly based on the SANS 9001: Quality management system; and which assured credibility of the certificate.

He noted that ASA was a member of the World Federation of Technical Assessment Organizations (WFTAO), which was a worldwide network for co-ordinating and facilitating the technical assessment of innovation in the construction field. WFTAO comprised officially-recognised national bodies active in the field of technical assessments for construction products and systems. WFTAO currently had members from twenty-one countries across the global market.

ASA was governed by legislation and was a juristic person. Its powers were delegated to the Chairperson of the Board of ASA, acting in conjunction with the wishes of the Board. The Act set out the mandate of strictly enforcing building control legislation and enhancing authority of ASA.

Further details on precise targets and activities were set out in the attached document.

Discussion
Ms N Madlala (ANC) asked what the current relationship was between ASA and, respectively the Department of Human Settlement (DHS), Department of Transport, and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

Ms Madlala asked whether ASA was importing or exporting any of its products from other countries.

Ms Madlala asked for more explanation on the SIPs that were being attended to the provinces, as highlighted in the strategic plan.

Ms A Dreyer (DA) thanked Mr Odhiambo for the interesting presentation and said it was encouraging to see an entity that was doing well and proved that things could work. Members of this Committee often saw entities and departments that failed.

Ms Dreyer fully agreed with the remark that an effective government should make it possible for people to build or buy their own houses.

Ms Dreyer noted the mention of the enhancement of the  technical skills of ASA to ensure competence in handling complex technical assessments, as also the intention to retain highly skilled expertise to provide expert opinions. She pointed out, however, that this had been highlighted as a challenge in other entities and departments, because they tended to experience an attrition f their most technical skilled people, and then find it hard to replace them. She asked what specifically ASA was doing to retain its own highly qualified technical expertise.

Ms Dreyer asked for clarity as to why the target, as set out on slide 19, was only 12%, pointing out that the target had actually been achieved in the other years, an also commented that in general some of the other targets were also now stated lower than what had actually been achieved over the last five years.

Ms Dreyer asked how ASA was aligned to, and what its relationship was, with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). ASA’s funding was  channelled through Department of Public Works (DPW), from CSIR, to ring-fence the policy and governance procedures of CSIR. She wondered why, since there were such close links with CSIR, ASA did not simply move to fall under the Department of Science and Technology.

Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC) also expressed appreciation for the presentation.. She asked whether all the 12 posts of the staff component were filled. She also wanted clarity on whether the budget allocated to ASA was based on the plan of the DPW, or was based on the resources that the DPW had.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked for more clarity on whether pages 40 and 41 of the strategic plan were linked or related.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked what the impact of ASA was, and the role that it played when it participated in the World Forum.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked how the employment satisfaction survey was going to assist the entity on capacity outputs and/or outcomes.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila noted that the strategic plan stated that ASA had 100% collection of revenue, but there was nothing to do with revenue collection in the Annual Performance Plan (APP) and no breakdown. She asked what the 100% related to and asked for more details that would assist the Committee in determining whether ASA had reached the targets or not.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) appreciated the presentation, and commended ASA on having achieved an unqualified audit report from the Auditor-General (AG).

Ms Ngcengwane also asked how closely ASA worked with the Department of Human Settlements, but also with the Independent Development Trust (IDT) because IDT was presently building schools and clinics as mandated by DPW.

Ms Ngcengwane asked whether was there a way for the entity to be more proactive than reactive, in terms of the quality of products, because it seemed it tended to wait for people to report problems rather than going out and identifying problems itself.

Ms Ngcengwane asked whether there was any incentive the entity received from companies with whom they were working, or whether it was solely reliant on the budget from the DPW.

Mr N Magubane (ANC) noted that ASA was intended to assist in creating about 11 million jobs by 2013. He asked how possible that was, what the current numbers were at the moment, and what the numbers were likely to be in 2017.

Ms Ngcobo confirmed the budgetary details for ASA. It received a grant from DPW, but its other income was derived from the certification processes. Applicants applying to ASA for certification had to pay a certain fee, which covered all the necessary tests that were required for the granting of the certificate. The income was not the same, for every certificate holder.

She confirmed that the issue of non-conforming products was addressed annually because the ASA would, every year, conduct inspections and visit the certificate holders to ensure that they still conformed to the requirements. It was possible that an inspection might be done in January, but complaints or rumours that not all was well could be received in June. That would be addressed when it arose, but in general, ASA operated on the basis of visiting certificate holders annually.

Ms Ngcobo then addressed the questions around the decline in targets for certification. Although ASA tried to be visible and ensure that the public would know about the agency, it did not have enough budget to do substantial marketing, which made it difficult to increase its visibility.  The applications budget was entirely depended on the volume of applications that ASA received in a particular year. However, it must be noted that even if it received 50 applications in a year, that did not mean that all 50 would qualify to be issued with a certificate, as some of the products might not be suitable or might fail in areas. Sometimes the applicants might not even follow up in the specific year when they had made an application, but only in a year or two after that.

Ms Ngcobo said that the relationship with the CSIR had been established from when the ASA was first set up, and the positioning was the same. She agreed that there was a complementary relationship. The CSIR and the ASA were both doing research and ASA did use CSIR laboratories, and vice versa. At the moment, however, there were attempts to make ASA a stand-alone agency.

Mr Odhiambo expanded on this point. ASA was a part of CSIR, but its mandate required it to report to the DPW. ASA received strategic leadership from its board, and guidance and oversight came from the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee and the Minister of Public Works. Therefore, ASA was essentially part and parcel of Public Works, a historical relationship dating back to 1969, which had worked well all those years.

Mr Odhiambo also confirmed that ASA had a strong relationship with all the departments mentioned in the questions, and interfaced with them in areas that involved construction technologies. ASA had given presentations to the Portfolio Committees on Transport and Human Settlements in the past. As pointed out already, as well as being “officially” part of DPW, the ASA sat also within the CSIR fold, and CSIR also interfaced with many departments at all levels, as much as it could. Further to this, ASA also interacted with professional bodies, including the Council for the Built Environment (CBE), and professional associations of architects, engineers and building control officials.

Mr Odhiambo referred back again to the comment on assisting people to build their own houses, and stressed that ASA was an assessment agency that would assess products that allowed people to build their own houses. His vision for the future was to simplify buildings, and he strongly believed that this was a distinct possibility, 20 years or 30 years down the line. ASA aimed to demystify building to an extent that people would be able to do building a lot quicker, cheaper and better than it was currently done. That would be possible by having industrialised buildings where people might be able to visit a builders’ warehouse and specify the building, on a computer. It should theoretically be possible to have a building erected in a few hours, and he strongly believed that this was the future of housing that should be addressed in a 30-year development plan.

Mr Odhiambo confirmed that ASA did not export products, but through its certification process people could get an ASA certificate which allowed them to export that product. The Harvey Tile was exported to the United States and some countries in Europe, on the strength of the ASA certificate, and those products were on the market there simply on the strength of ASA certification.

Mr Odhiambo clarified that the ASA was not involved in the identification of SIP projects, nor their coverage of provinces, nor the content of the SIPs or NDP. However, its work was in line with what was in those policies, which would be moving the country forward, and hopefully would cover all nine provinces. Through the CSIR, which was implementing all the SIPs from a technical perspective, ASA was closely involved in making sure all that all the policies and development strategies and strategic plans were in line with the SIPs and NDP.

Mr Odhiambo moved on to the question of staff. CSIR had been repeatedly voted as the best employer over the past few years. It was not a place where people came to earn a lot of money, but it was a place where people were intellectually challenged. People working at CSIR were people who were generally excited about doing their jobs, and were performing the work because they wanted to, not being primarily motivated by other factors.

Mr Odhiambo noted that the average targets for ASA were based upon what had happened over the 44 years of ASA’s existence, averaged out. However, he conceded that perhaps ASA should be looking at that again and changing the targets to reflect a five-year time frame, because indeed its performance had “upped the game:.

Mr Odhiambo expanded on this, noting that there had been years when the number of applications declined. ASA was, to a certain extent reactive, but this was the nature of its work. It could not be both referee and a player, and ASA’s mandate required it to be a referee and to determine whether products presented to it were proper or not. It was not possible for ASA to develop its own products and at the same time certify them as fit for purpose. The new legislation would give ASA more ability to enforce, but currently it was bound to be reactive, not proactive.

Mr Odhiambo confirmed that the current staff complement was twelve, but this might increase or decrease according to the budget and requirements. The budget was based on income and expenditure estimates. The current budget showed around 5% increase. He amplified that the ASA also received some funding from other agencies, whom it charged for the certification. However, it was not a profit making organisation, and charged costs depending on what had to be tested.

Mr Odhiambo noted that ASA was actually a founder member of the World Federation of Technical Assessment Organizations. He repeated that it was an esteemed world body of similar objectives, and whatever ASA did was in line with that world body. ASA was also playing a leading role in the day to day activities of WFTAO, understanding its statutes, and what it believed, which was essential for members of that world body.

Mr Odhiambo noted that the ASA was intending to collect all the budgeted revenue in full, and he was confident on that point. ASA did not take risks and would insist that people applying for certification paid the fees for the test in advance; if nothing was paid, no tests would be run.

Finally, he confirmed that the ASA would continue to work very closely with other government departments, because it believed that the CSIR had a key role to play in the SIPS and the NDP in future, and would continue its close involvement with the CSIR.

Council for the Built Environment (CBE) Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan briefing
Ms Gugu Mazibuko, Chief Executive Officer, Council for the Built Environment, noted that the Council for the Built Environment (CBE or the Council) was mandated to promote and protect the interests of the public in the built environment, to promote and maintain a sustainable built environment and natural environment, and promote on-going human resources development in the built environment. It also aimed to facilitate participation by the built environment professions in integrated development, in the context of national goals, and to promote appropriate standards of health, safety and environmental protection within the built environment. Sound governance, promotion of liaison in training in this field and promotion of standards of training were also important. The CBE would serve as a forum where the built environment professions could discuss relevant issues, and it would finally ensure uniform application of norms and guidelines set by the Professional Councils throughout the built environment.

The five-year strategic goals were set out, and these were in line with support of all government priorities in relation to built environment matters. The CBE would continue to monitor and aim to transform the built environment professions and professionals, establish and maintain a centre of excellent for an integrated built environment body of knowledge, and strengthen public protection and educate the public in relation to the built environment.

Some of the key priorities were set out, stressing the need for CBE to align with development priorities of government. It hoped to encourage skills development initiatives at both school and tertiary level. It wanted to establish a structured candidacy programme to address bottlenecks in the skills pipeline, workplace training and transformation. CBE intended to conduct research and information on built environment issues, and to strengthen its monitoring and regulatory work on delegated public functions of the professional councils.

Ms Mazibuko then expanded on the work done in the programmes of the CBE. The Administration programme would capacitate CBE to be responsive to government priorities, including infrastructure delivery programmes, ensuring that health and safety requirements were met, and that there was environmental sustainability and job creation.

Programme 2: the Built Environment Academy, aimed to drive and facilitate skills and human resource development in the built environment, with the ultimate goal of transforming the built environment.

Programme 3: The Centre for Innovation and Integrated Planning, provided research, knowledge and information on built environment issues, pertinent to professionals, the DPW, and those that impacted on service delivery and the economy.

Programme 4: Public Interest aimed to promote and protect interests of the public in the built environment, including raising public awareness on rights and recourse in the built environment.

Ms Mazibuko outlined that the Executive Committee, and a Council Working Committee, were constituted in terms of section 12 of the CBE Act, and had the responsibility of ensuring that all Council resolutions were carried out. The Management Committee was responsible for the human resources issues. The Audit Committee was constituted in line with the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and National Treasury Regulations, with three of the five members being external members. The key focus areas of the committee were internal control and risk management. The Finance Committee ensured that adequate and appropriate financial management processes and procedures were set and upheld.

The Appeals Committee was constituted in terms of section 21 of the CBE Act with a responsibility of hearing appeals from any person or body aggrieved by the decision of a professional council. The Identification of Work (IDoW) Committee was tasked with concluding the Identification of Work for all the six professions and overseeing its implementation. The Education and Research Committee (EduRes) was tasked with overseeing education and research matters relating to built environment.

Ms Mazibuko concluded that all performance enablers were aligned with national priorities, five-year Business Plan, DPW support and involvement, as also with the need to have an experienced and stable workforce, and stakeholder buy-in.

Discussion
Ms N Madlopha (ANC) noted that on Programme 3 there was an indication of priorities in the DPW that would be finalised on 31 March 2013. She asked what exactly it was that CBE was researching, on the priorities of that department, and whether it was really necessary to do this research, and whether it had been budgeted for

Ms Madlopha asked whether the second quarter workshop with stakeholders had been held, because it was not clear, from the presentation, which of the programmes were planned and which had already been implemented.

Ms Madlopha also noted that in programme 4 it had been indicated that appeals would be resolved within 60 days, in all four quarters. She asked whether this target was attainable, and whether this would apply irrespective of the number of appeals that the CBE received. It was not clear exactly what the Committee needed to monitor, as there was no indication that within a certain time frame, CBE would be in a position to deal with a set number of matters.

Ms Madlopha asked which provinces, under Programme 2, were targeted for career awareness campaigns, which were the schools that were targeted for maths and science, and why the targets only started in the second quarter for 50 students, rising t 100 students in the last financial quarter.

Ms Madlopha asked for more clarity on the note of “100%” on targets indicated for all quarters, and whether this figure represented what had been done, or what it was hoped to achieve. She also asked for clarification between the first quarter and the second quarter, and when exactly the drafting was intended to be done.

Ms Madlopha asked how far CBE had come with the issue of transformation, after 13 years of existence

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila said that she appreciated the presentation. She asked whether the six vacant posts would be filled within the current financial year and what the plan was to achieve this.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila noted that CBE had budgeted R10 million for research. She asked whether that research would be done by CBE in-house, or whether it was intending to out-source it. If it was to be done in-house, she asked if CBE had the necessary research capacity, and enquired what would be the impact of all the research done, and what it was that it wanted to achieve.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked whether the programmes were proactive or reactive, and how CBE would attend to any interventions into any incidents.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked why the target dates were always “31 March 2014”, which made it difficult to assess the progress on a quarterly basis, and indeed it may not be possible for this Committee to monitor progress quarterly.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila noted that there were two posts that were vacant on the Board of CBE. She asked when would these be filled, and what the plan was, pointing out that if there were less board members than required, the CBE would not be able to function optimally.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila noted that thirteen policy frameworks were completed and two were outstanding, but it was not mentioned which were those policies. She asked for clarity with regards to the two outstanding policy frameworks.

Ms Madlala asked how realistic the outreach programme that had been targeted to the schools was.

Ms Madlala wondered why the implementation of the CBE Act had been delayed until 31 March 2014.

Mr L Gaehler (IFP) said that when a scale of work was determined, the Variation Orders (VOs) should not amount to more than 20% of the value of the work. The scale of work improved the contingency amount, and accrued from the client. He wanted to show that there was a possibility of corruption, as in some instances there had been VOs of 200% over the contract. He asked why the professional council would not, in these circumstances, discipline the professional person. He was even more concerned because he believed that the professional council had actually given wrong information to Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) to note that the VO was correct, but was not mentioning the contingency amount as stated in the contract.

Ms Mazibuko clarified the questions on targets and dates. Firstly, the structure of the APP was determined by National Treasury, and the APP was reporting on what the CBE hoped to achieve in the 2013/14 financial year. It was not detailing what had already been achieved, as that was something that would be reported on during the Annual Report process.

The reason for mentioning the date of 31 March 2014 consistently was that this was the annual target date for completion of all work. The detailed document on the APP specified that in order to achieve certain aims by that date, there was work to be done in each of the quarters. There were some deliverables that related only to specific or selected quarters. In some instances, CBE not only had to report on activities done, but also to confirm that definable milestones or products had been achieved, by certain dates. CBE also compiled monthly reports, and these could be delivered to the Committee, to confirm what had been delivered on each project.

Ms Mazibuko noted the comments and questions on schools, and said that in this year, the CBE was targeting schools in provinces that had not previously been covered. In the last year, CBE had visited Gauteng, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal. It was now targeting North West and Eastern Cape. In each province CBE would target rural schools and township schools. Once it had compiled a list of the specific schools, it would be forwarded to the Committee. She added that the CBE aimed to cover under-privileged schools and those who were doing maths and science, as these were the main criteria.

Ms Mazibuko noted the comments on VOs and corruption, but noted that the VO question arose at tender stage, and the CBE did not get involved in the tender process. However, the Council would attempt to inculcate proper professional conduct, and would punish corrupt conduct in professionals. On a quarterly basis, a report on corruption cases was presented before Council. However, she noted that because corruption was essentially a crime, the criminal prosecution processes had to be followed. The CBE did not participate at procurement value chain level. It was really difficult for both CBE  and the individual professional councils to pick up on these particular issues, and they relied on the DPW and procurement officers to alert them to any problems.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had made a decision that the Department of Public Works, Industrial Development Trust, Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) and CBE all needed to sit together to discuss the Competition Commission’s report on corrupt practices within the building industry. All of this affected the built environment. CBE was being asked to come up with a report by end-July.

The Chairperson noted that there was no more time to continue with the meeting, given the plenary session, and asked that CBE should respond to any remaining questions in writing.

The meeting was adjourned.