The National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) has defended the appointment of African Global Skills Academy (AGSA) to manage the latest Presidential Employment Stimulus Programme (PESP6).
The NFVF has confirmed that the company was selected through a competitive bidding process but questions remain over the role it played in processing applications and the fate of applicants who claim they were initially approved before being rejected.
The NFVF awarded AGSAnew a three-year contract worth R3.726 million a year, potentially amounting to approximately R11.18 million over three years, subject to the continued approval of the PESP programme.
According to the NFVF, the procurement process was initiated on 21 January 2026 under tender RFT12 2025-2026, with the appointment formally approved on 23 March.
The tender was advertised on the NFVF website and National Treasury’s e-Tenders platform.
Five companies submitted bids and four were shortlisted.
The NFVF says AGSA emerged as the highest-scoring bidder, with all members of the Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Adjudication Committee recommending its appointment.
The foundation further says the procurement was subjected to legal, supply-chain management, internal audit and external audit review.
There was, according to the NFVF, no deviation from the normal procurement process.
The development effectively answers one of the central questions surrounding AGSA’s appointment; the NFVF says the company was not simply handed the contract but won it through a competitive process.
The latest appointment is not AGSA’s first contract with the NFVF.
The foundation confirmed that AGSA previously held a three-year contract running from 5 August 2022 to 4 August 2024, valued at R2.992 million.
That contract was also awarded through competitive bidding, under tender RFT04 2022-2023.
The NFVF says AGSA’s performance was formally evaluated before it was considered for another appointment and that there were no complaints, audit findings, performance concerns or irregularities recorded against the company during its previous contract.
The new contract commenced on 25 March 2026 and is for three years, subject to continued approval of PESP.
This is where the controversy becomes more complicated.
The NFVF insists that AGSA does not have the authority to assess, approve, reject or disqualify applications.
According to the foundation, those functions belong to the PESP Advisory Panel, which makes recommendations to the NFVF Council.
The Council then makes the final decision on whether funding is awarded.
The NFVF also categorically says it did not delegate decision-making powers to AGSA.
But its own tender document sets out a substantial role for the PMC in the application and evaluation process.
The tender requires the programme management company to manage the “Applications and Evaluation” phase, including allocating projects to Advisory Panel members, managing evaluation spreadsheets and scores, monitoring online evaluations, managing panel meetings and recording applications that are “Received, Processed, Rejected, Approved”.
The PMC is also required to prepare Council meeting packs and distribute feedback letters to applicants.
This distinction is therefore crucial.
AGSA may not have had final decision-making authority, but it was clearly embedded in the administrative machinery through which applications moved from submission to assessment, recommendation and eventual funding decisions.
The NFVF has been asked to clarify exactly where AGSA’s administrative role ended and the Advisory Panel and Council’s decision-making authority began.
The investigation follows complaints from PESP6 applicants who allege that they received communications indicating that their applications had been approved or were successful, only to later be told that they were unsuccessful.
The NFVF has denied that previously approved applications were subsequently rejected or disqualified.
Instead, it says applicants who had previously benefited from PESP were prioritised differently in an effort to spread funding more widely.
However, the foundation says previous PESP beneficiaries were not automatically excluded and that their applications were still assessed against the applicable criteria and funding guidelines.
The NFVF has also confirmed that all application requirements and assessment criteria were contained in the original PESP6 call and that no additional requirements were introduced after applications were submitted.
The foundation says final decisions were made by the Council following recommendations from the Advisory Panel.
But it could not provide the number of complaints or requests for reconsideration it has received because, according to its response, the PESP team is still dealing with queries and sending feedback letters.
The NFVF says it has not received a complaint alleging that AGSA acted outside its mandate.
It also says it has not investigated allegations that AGSA applied requirements that were not contained in the original PESP6 criteria because, according to the foundation, no such allegation had been submitted to it at the time of its response.
The foundation further says it has identified no irregularities in AGSA’s administration of PESP6.
It has also not reviewed any decisions made by AGSA following complaints from affected applicants because, it says, it has not received complaints or requests to review AGSA.
The NFVF says that should an allegation be submitted and substantiated by evidence, it will follow its internal review process.
The NFVF’s response therefore creates an important distinction in the PESP6 process.
AGSA is responsible for significant programme-management functions, including elements of the application and evaluation administration.
The Advisory Panel assesses applications and makes recommendations.
The NFVF Council makes the final funding decision.
The unresolved question is whether applicants who believe they were initially approved are referring to final Council approval, an Advisory Panel recommendation, an administrative compliance outcome, or another communication issued during the process.
That distinction could determine whether the complaints represent an administrative misunderstanding, a change in recommendation, or something more serious.
The NFVF has been asked follow-up questions seeking clarity on precisely this issue.
Among other things, the foundation has been asked to explain who records an application’s “approved” or “rejected” status, who issues outcome letters, whether AGSA can alter application statuses, whether AGSA conducts due diligence on recommended applicants and what happens when a recommended applicant subsequently fails due diligence.
The NFVF has also been asked to explain how its tender requirement that the PMC manage the Applications and Evaluation phase fits with its position that AGSA has no authority to assess or reject applications.
Those answers could provide a clearer picture of how PESP6 decisions are actually made.
For now, the NFVF maintains that AGSA was properly appointed through a competitive process, that the company was the highest-scoring bidder, and that final funding decisions rest with the NFVF Council.
The remaining question is whether the experiences of applicants who say their applications changed status can be reconciled with that account.
The NFVF’s answers to those questions will determine the next chapter of the PESP6 controversy.