The fact that the tender was *open* is the question that is in play here and is the short-sightedness I alluded to earlier in a prior post.

We have firms with the right infrastructure (masts, generators, workers etc) already in use in this country and before we ran off to procure equivalent from China, we ought to have procured what is already available locally.

That is why the 2nd infrastrucure bid ought to have been local to protect our already existing investments.

Another reason, national interest should dictate that we shouldnt rely on external parties for such critical infrastructure before we already have one from amongst our own in place.

But we now know someone didnt see it that way. There was no money to be made using whats already there, best to buy everything new, since the 'cut' is likewise larger.

And how do you do that? Open Tender!