Major change for driver’s licence tests in South Africa
The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) is digitising driving licence tests to prevent fraudulent examinations.
This is according to transport minister Barbara Creecy, who was responding to MP Patrick Sindane’s parliamentary questions about how the Department of Transport (DoT) plans to combat fraudulent driving licence cards.
Creecy said that the RTMC is developing an electronic driving licence test application that will also allow for the digitisation of the examination.
According to the minister, the digitised test will use geofencing and biometric identification for both applicants and examiners.
Geofencing refers to the use of a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area.
Creecy said this new system will be piloted within this financial year, after which it will be rolled out nationally.
In a further attempt to prevent fraud, Creecy said her department is rolling out Smart Enrolment Units (SEUs) at all driving licence testing centres.
The first phase of the SEU project would involve modernising the enrolment process by integrating it with the Department of Home Affairs to verify applicants in real time.
It will also be integrated with the South African Police Services database so applicants can be cleared for professional driving permits.
Creecy said the RTMC will develop and maintain the software on the National Administration Traffic Information System (NaTIS).
The department also envisages using this to prevent those not legally in the country from applying for transactions at DLTCs.
The RTMC is also busy fully deploying Computerised Learner’s Licence Tests (CLLT), which have been rolled out in seven provinces.
Rollout in the Western Cape is expected to be completed by the end of the financial year. However, only three CLLTs have been deployed in Kwa-Zulu Natal so far.
Despite the advancements made in driving licence enrolment and testing, South Africa is still struggling to get its ducks in a row regarding driver’s licence card printing.
At the beginning of August, the DoT approved the appointment of Idemia Identity and Security South Africa as the preferred bidder to produce new driving licence cards for the country’s motorists.
The process was immediately plunged into controversy because the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) had just cancelled a contract with Idemia.
In addition, the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) urged the DoT to investigate the bidding process following allegations of tender manipulation.
Outa CEO Wayne Duvenage said, “the driving licence card account (DLCA) was doing everything in its power to wear down and whittle out people in whichever way they could.”
Duvenage attributes the whittling down of competition to instances of point manipulation, pricing bid tampering, and multiple other irregularities.
When bidding for a tender, companies undergo three evaluations.
The first is to ensure that they can adhere to the necessary administrative processes, such as having the required tax clearance, competency, and correct management structure.
Once bidders have passed this, their bid undergoes a technical evaluation where they are awarded points based on whether the contract is deemed technically feasible for the company.
Bidders need 24 out of 30 points to pass to the next stage.
Duvenage pointed out that many bidders were turned down at this phase despite having all the technical requirements to fulfil the bid, with proof of this in their submissions.
In the final phase, the adjudication panel reviews each bidder’s cost proposals, which should have been concealed until this point in the process.
However, Duvenage said many bidders who were disqualified following the technical evaluation had brought forward evidence that their pricing documents had been opened and tampered with.
In addition, Outa obtained evidence that the cost of the contract had jumped from an original budget of R468 million to as much as R899 million.
This followed the DLCA and transport department’s refusal to reveal the details about the cost of the contract and further details about the tendering process.
There were also irregularities in the repeated issuing, withdrawing, and reissuing of the tender, which also saw its price validity period extended three times — something strongly discouraged by National Treasury’s procurement guidelines.