Internal audit services for financial management review – pseta tender in gauteng

{"name":null,"email":null,"phone":null,"department":", national or provincial public entity or constitutional institution","address":null}

(a) any national or provincial department, national or provincial public entity or constitutional institution (b) any municipality or municipal entity;

provisions

in the SCC shall prevail.

Table of clauses

1. Definitions
2. Application
3. General
4. Standards
5. Use of contract documents and information; inspection
6. Patent rights
7. Performance security
8. Inspections, tests and analysis
9. Packing
10. Delivery and documents
11. Insurance
12. Transportation
13. Incidental services

Nb: failure to provide / or comply with any of the above particulars may render the bid invalid.

income-generating contracts)

To provide service providers with the necessary background and information to submit a

detailed proposal for conducting the following review in quarter /2027:

• Financial Management Review (Ref. 2026/27-11)

PSETA wants to obtain a comprehensive response (clear and unambiguous) from bidders in

terms of their ability to support the delivery of the relevant services.

PSETA is established in terms of section 9(1) and (2) of the Skills Development Act (Act No.

as amended). The Skills Development Act is PSETA’s enabling legislation and

guides its operations as a sector education and training authority (SETA), as set out in section

10 of the Act.

For accountability purposes, the PSETA is a schedule 3A entity of the Public Management

Finance Act (PFMA), with its own Accounting Authority which is accountable to the Minister of

Higher Education, Science and Innovation. High level structuring of the entity consists of the

following programmes:

• Programme 1: Administration
• Programme 2: Skills Planning and Research
• Programme 3: Learning Programmes and Projects
• Programme 4: Quality Assurance

3. Rationale for the financial management review.

3.1 PSETA Internal Audit comprises of a CAE and two (02) in-house internal audit staff

members. To augment its capacity, the CAE has embarked on sourcing service providers

to assist with the implementation of specific internal audit projects, as approved by the

Audit Committee.

3.2 The approved 2026/2027 Internal Audit Plan has, as part of its quarter 3 deliverables,

planned assurance on PSETA’s financial management functions.

• 2 -

4. Objectives of the financial management review

PSETA internal audit is seeking a service provider to provide internal audit review to evaluate

whether internal controls are adequate and effective to achieve complete, accurate records

and compliant financial records.

The following audit scope of applies for the audit project:

5.1 Revenue and Budget / Expenditure Management.

5.2 Payment Processing, including Payroll

5.3 Creditors and Debtors Management

5.4 Commitment Register.

5.5 Management of Irregular and Fruitless Expenditure

5.6 Follow-up on internal and external audit findings

5.7 Validation of Reported Performance Information (30 days invoice payments)

6. Time frame

The audit review is planned to commence quarter /2027, from 05 October 2026 and

be completed by 20 November 2026, latest. As such, the allocation of capacity should consider

the completion timelines as indicated.

7. Key deliverables

7.1. Project deliverables

Deliverable Explanation Responsibility / Sign Off

Audit Planning Phase

1. Project Kick-off Opening / Audit Entrance Meeting CAE and co-sourced

service provider

2. Completed Declaration forms are completed prior Co-sourced service

Declaration Forms commencement of actual audit work provider

• 3 -

Deliverable Explanation Responsibility / Sign Off

3. Audit Planning Development of an APM map timelines Co-sourced service

Memorandum of audit process provider, signed off by CAE

4. Engagement Letter Drafting of engagement letter to issue Co-sourced service

to audit client provider, signed off by CAE

5. System Description Documenting system description Co-sourced service

provider – ensure signoff

by audit client.

6. Audit Programme Development of Audit Procedures for Co-sourced service

testing controls (Audit Programme) provider, signed off by CAE

7. Request for Prepare and issue and RFI for Co-sourced service

Information (RFI) approved Audit Programme. provider

Execution Phase

8. Execution of Audit Execute approved Audit Programme Co-sourced service

Programme – and complete relevant working papers provider

completed audit

working papers

9. Informal Queries / Draft informal queries as the audit Co-sourced service

Draft Findings progresses and discuss with provider

management.

Reporting

10. Draft Internal Audit Draft internal audit report compiled and Co-sourced service

Report discussed with management. provider

11. Final Internal Audit Final draft internal audit report Co-sourced service

Reports presented to CEO. provider and CAE

Final report signed by co-signed by co- Co-sourced service

source provider and forwarded to CAE provider

• 4 -

Deliverable Explanation Responsibility / Sign Off

12. Client Satisfaction Issue of Client Satisfaction Survey Co-sourced service

Survey form to audit client provider

13. Project Close Out Quality Assured Audit File – 27 Co-sourced service

November 2026 provider

14. Audit Committee Presentation of Internal Audit Report to Co-sourced service

Reporting the Audit Committee – on request. provider

8. Competencies of prospective service provider

The prospective service provider MUST satisfy required competencies as listed

on the functionality criteria in 13 below to be considered.

9. Administration

The service provider must be a registered entity or consortium of companies, with traceable

credential and should be able to assume duties immediately on appointment.

10. Reporting requirements

10.1. The appointed service provider shall be required to report to the Chief Audit

Executive of the PSETA

10.2. All work must be carried and reports finalised line with the Internal Audit

methodology and approved working paper templates.

10.3. Payment will only take place after the requirements for specified deliverables have

been met.

11. Submission of the proposal

The service provider should prepare an offer/proposal on how the assignment will be

undertaken, a clear work plan, and curriculum vitae of the expert(s) as well as reference letters

to support experience. The proposal must be concise and straight to the point.

12. Retention of records

• 5 -

All the information derived and produced during the implementation, licensing, training as well

as maintenance and support of the data analytics solution will remain the property of the

Pseta.

13. Proposal evaluation and appointment of service provider

The proposals will be evaluated on the functionality criteria (phase 1) and 80/20 principle (

phase 2) with 80 points being allocated for price and 20 points allocated for specific goals

once the minimum functionality criteria are met.

Phase 1: functionality evaluation

Bids must meet the minimum eligibility criteria in respect of functionality of 75 points out of 100

points that will be awarded for functionality before they are considered further. Any bid that

does not meet the minimum eligibility threshold will be automatically disqualified.

Below is the applicable functionality criteria for the bid:

• 6 -

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

1. Qualifications 1.1 NQF Level 7 academic

of the qualification in Internal Audit, 5 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 09 and above of 10

proposed team Auditing, Accounting or any the required academic qualification

(30) Finance related qualification.

4 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 08 of required

( NQF 8 or higher shall be an added academic qualification.

advantage)

3 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 07 required

academic qualification NB: Certified Copies (no older

than 12 months) of Academic 2 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 06 of the required

Qualifications should be attached. academic qualification

1 = Engagement team member has attained lower than NQF6 of the

required academic qualification

NB: Total score to be the average of all scores per engagement team

member.

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

1.2 The proposed engagement to

consist of at least 3 resources, 5 = 5 or more members of the proposed engagement team (including 20

inclusive of the Audit Director / the Audit Director / Partner) collectively possess the required

Partner, who are professionally certifications (CIA and CA(SA) / ACCA / RGA).

certified as CIA (mandatory for

atleast 1 team member) and a 4 = 4 members of the proposed engagement team (including the Audit

CA(SA) / ACCA / RGA. Director / Partner) collectively possess the required certifications (CIA

and CA(SA) / ACCA / RGA).

(More than 3 resources with listed

professional qualifications shall be 3 = At least 3 members of the proposed engagement team (including

an added advantage). the Audit Director / Partner) collectively possess the required

certifications (CIA and CA(SA) / ACCA / RGA).

NB: Certified Copies (no older

2 = Only 2 members of the proposed engagement team (including the than 12 months) of Professional Audit Director / Partner) collectively possess the required

Qualifications should be attached. certifications (CIA and CA(SA) / ACCA / RGA).

1 = Only 1 or 0 member of the proposed engagement team ( including

the Audit Director / Partner) possess the required certifications (CIA

and CA(SA) / ACCA / RGA)

NB: Total score to be the average of all scores per engagement team

member.

• 8 -

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

2 Experience of Project Team Members should

the proposed individually possess a minimum of 5 5 = Proposed team member possesses 10 years or more experience in 30

engagement years experience in conducting conducting risk-based financial management related audit engagements

team (30) internal audit engagements. (Finance, Treasury; SCM, Review of AFS ).

4 = Proposed team member possesses 6 to 9 years’ experience in ( Experience above the listed years

conducting risk-based financial management related audit engagements to be an added advantage)

(Finance, Treasury; SCM, Review of AFS ).

CVs detailing each members’ 3 = Proposed team member possesses 5 years’ experience in conducting

qualifications and relevant risk-based financial management related audit engagements (Finance,

experience should be attached Treasury; SCM, Review of AFS ).

2 = Proposed team member possesses 3 to 4 years’ experience in

conducting risk-based financial management related audit engagements

(Finance, Treasury; SCM, Review of AFS ).

1 = Proposed team member possesses less than 3 years’ experience in

conducting risk-based financial management related audit engagements

(Finance, Treasury; SCM, Review of AFS )

NB: Total score to be the average of all scores per engagement team

member.

• 9 -

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

3 Experience of

Company / the The service provider must 4 = 6 or more signed reference letters of completed risk-based financial 30

Audit Firm (30) demonstrate, through submission of management related audit engagements ( Finance, Treasury; SCM,

signed reference letters, completed Review of AFS ) in the past 5 years.

financial management related audit

engagements (Finance, Treasury; 4 = 4 to 5 signed reference letters of completed risk-based financial

SCM, Review of AFS ) in the past 5 management related audit engagements ( Finance, Treasury; SCM,

years. i.e. 2021 to date. Review of AFS ) in the past 5 years.

3 = 2 to 3 signed reference letters of completed risk-based financial Each letter must include the following

management related audit engagements ( Finance, Treasury; SCM, information:

Review of AFS ) in the past 5 years.

• Client letterhead and name
• Description of the project

2 = 1 signed reference letter of completed risk-based audit financial

• The contact person, phone

management related audit engagements (Finance, Treasury; SCM, number / email address

Review of AFS ) in the past 5 years.

• Completed Project Period

1 = 0 signed reference letters of completed risk-based financial

NB: Only the reference letters management related audit engagements ( Finance, Treasury; SCM,

indicating all the requirements Review of AFS ) in the past 5 years..

mentioned above will be

considered.

• 10 -

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

4 Membership

with the Proposed team members have 5= Audit Director / Partner and at least 4 members of the proposed team 10

Institute of active membership with the Institute hold active IIASA memberships PLUS 1 or more additional active

Internal of Internal Auditors South Africa certifications from professional bodies listed in the evaluation method.

Auditors South (IIASA).

4 = Audit Director / Partner and atleast 3 members of the proposed team Africa (IIASA)

Evidence of additional active hold active IIASA memberships PLUS 1 additional active certification (10)

memberships with other professional from professional bodies listed in the evaluation method.

bodies such as SAICA, ACCA, RGA,

3 = Audit Director / Partner and atleast 2 members of the proposed team ACFE, IRMSA, Ethics Institute of

hold active IIASA memberships. South Africa, Compliance Institute of

South Africa, which enhances 2 = Audit Director / Partner and 1 member of the proposed team hold

internal audit assurance expertise, active IIASA memberships

shall be an added advantage.

1 = 0 member of the proposed team hold active IIASA memberships

• 11 -

Phase 2:

The bids will be evaluated on the 80/20 principle with 80 points being allocated for price and

20 points allocated for specific goal, once the minimum functionality criteria are met. The

evaluation will be based on

Points

Price 80

Special goals 20

Black owned company

Bidder who has 51% to 100% black people ownership

Women

Bidder who has 51% to 100% women ownership

Youth

Bidder who has 51% to 100% youth ownership

Disability 3

Bidder who has 51% to 100% disability ownership

Total 100

14. Format of the bid submission

14.1 Proposals must be submitted physically to our PSETA offices.

14.2 Submission of all applicable documents as indicated below:

i. Certified copies of the director’s ID’s document (in order claim points for

disability as per SBD 6.1)

ii. Certified copy of BB-BEE certificate or sworn affidavit

iii. Valid Tax compliance status (TCS) PIN or proof of exemption from SARS;

iv. Copy of the registration document of the organisation (CIPC);

v. Copy of the Central Supplier Database registration.

15. Important mandatory information for bidders

15.1. All Standard Bidding documents (SBD) documents must be completed and signed.

• SBD 1 (All sections must be fully completed)
• SBD 4 (All sections must be fully completed)
• SBD 6.1(All sections must be fully completed)
• Proof of registration on Central Supplier Database.
• General Conditions of Contract (All pages must be signed or initialled)

NB: Please note that failure to submit documents requested on section 15.1 will render

the proposal disqualified.

Digitally signed

by Vivian Selauli Vivian

Date:

2026.08.19 Selauli 18:05:52 +02'00'

• 13 -

No specific requirements found

Tax compliance status (TCS) PIN or proof of exemption from SARS

Central Supplier Database registration

Central Supplier Database

1. Qualifications 1.1 NQF Level 7 academic

of the qualification in Internal Audit, 5 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 09 and above of 10

proposed team Auditing, Accounting or any the required academic qualification

(30) Finance related qualification.

( NQF 8 or higher shall be an added academic qualification.

academic qualification NB: Certified Copies (no older

Qualifications should be attached. academic qualification

required academic qualification

disability as per SBD 6.1)

iii. Valid Tax compliance status (TCS) PIN or proof of exemption from SARS;

v. Copy of the Central Supplier Database registration.

• SBD 1 (All sections must be fully completed)
• SBD 4 (All sections must be fully completed)
• SBD 6.1(All sections must be fully completed)
• Proof of registration on Central Supplier Database.

NB: Please note that failure to submit documents requested on section 15.1 will render

B-BBEE Minimum Level: 7

B-BBEE Details: riculum vitae of the expert(s) as well as reference letters

to support experience. The proposal must be concise and straight to the point.

12. Retention of records

• 5 -

All the information derived and produced during the implementation, licensing, training as well

as maintenance and support of the data analytics solution will remain the property of the

Pseta.

13. Proposal evaluation and appointment of service provider

The proposals will be evaluated on the functionality criteria (phase 1) and 80/20 principle (

phase 2) with 80 points being allocated for price and 20 points allocated for specific goals

once the minimum functionality criteria are met.

Phase 1: functionality evaluation

Bids must meet the minimum eligibility criteria in respect of functionality of 75 points out of 100

points that will be awarded for functionality before they are considered further. Any bid that

does not meet the minimum eligibility threshold will be automatically disqualified.

Below is the applicable functionality criteria for the bid:

• 6 -

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

1. Qualifications 1.1 NQF Level 7 academic

of the qualification in Internal Audit, 5 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 09 and above of 10

proposed team Auditing, Accounting or any the required academic qualification

(30) Finance related qualification.

4 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 08 of required

( NQF 8 or higher shall be an added academic qualification.

advantage)

3 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 07 required

academic qualification NB: Certified Copies (no older

than 12 months) of Academic 2 = Engagement team member has attained NQF level 06 of the required

Qualifications should be attached. academic qualification

1 = Engagement team membe

13. Proposal evaluation and appointment of service provider

The proposals will be evaluated on the functionality criteria (phase 1) and 80/20 principle (

phase 2) with 80 points being allocated for price and 20 points allocated for specific goals

once the minimum functionality criteria are met.

Phase 1: functionality evaluation

Bids must meet the minimum eligibility criteria in respect of functionality of 75 points out of 100

points that will be awarded for functionality before they are considered further. Any bid that

Below is the applicable functionality criteria for the bid

Domain evaluation method criteria weight

NB: Total score to be the average of all scores per engagement team

13. Project Close Out Quality Assured Audit File – 27 Co-sourced service

on the functionality criteria in 13 below to be considered.

• Programme 4: Quality Assurance