OBSERVATIONS i. ii. iii. The ZEC invitation: The ZEC invitation to stakeholders was late and unclear about the purpose of the meeting, and silent about the bid adjudication process for the AFIS software. Quality of the proposed solutions: It was evident from the demonstrations that both firms had experience developing and providing similar solutions in an African setting. Both Laxton and IPSIDY were working with technical partners in developing the AFIS software. However, it was also clear that Laxton has a distinct advantage, as the firm had also supplied the BVR software and hardware that was in use BVR process, and could have had enhanced knowledge of ZEC’s solution requirements for the de-duplication process. Turnaround time: Laxton indicated that the firm’s proposed software is already configured to meet interface with ZEC’s, but would have needed one and a half months to integrate their proposed solution with that of ZEC if the circumstances were different, i.e. if the ZEC did not currently engage them for the enrolment process. IPSIDY indicated that they would need ten weeks from the date of award of the tender. Process Progress & Conclusions At the end of the demonstrations, ZEC had indicated that its team of assessors would make a determination and recommend to the commission within a week. However, as at 14 December 2017, when ZEC briefed CSOs, a decision had not yet been made, although a report on the process from the state procurement board had been received. 34