Plans to repair Manuel Dimech bridge are not going as expected. The closing date for submissions of tenders was extended yet again last week. Why, exactly?

On Tuesday this newspaper offered an explanation sourced from the Roads Ministry. The (first) closing date, the explanation ran, had previously been extended for a few weeks, to January 17 because of concerns raised that the tendering period was too short, especially as it as it coincided with Christmas.

Which begs a question: Why did the ministry not allow enough time for the offer period, and set it to coincide with the festivities? The issue was raised early on by contractors who were considering putting in their offer. Initially the authorities would not budge. Later on they changed their mind. They gave the first extension, only to realise as it ended that they had got it wrong once more.

The ministry extended the offer period for a second time. "For the same reason," it told The Times.

Such reasoning lacks rhyme. In preparing the tender the ministry should have taken into account how long bidders require to prepare an offer, and the fact that Yuletide was unlikely to be postponed. If the original tender plan was faulty, surely the creators of Plan Two - the first extension - should have learned from their error.

It is strange, therefore, that the ministry trotted out "the same reason" for the second extension, notwithstanding that the festivities had long passed. Quizzed by an interviewer from The Times, the Prime Minister recently observed that tendering was a difficult process in Malta. He had a point. Unsuccessful bidders tend to raise hell plus a chunk of purgatory, make all sorts of claims and allegations. And, moreover, to litigate.

No one can stop the disgruntled from exhausting all the measures at their disposal to press home their concerns, objections and pretensions. The only thing the authorities can be expected to do is religiously to carry out what they are obliged to do - to plan properly and execute logically in total transparency.

A gap between expectations and fulfilment developed over this particular bridge, resulting in the double extension to the closing date. The Roads Minister told The Times that "local companies complained that the foreign companies they were collaborating with were on Christmas shutdown in the period before the closing date". The minister did not say why that was difficult to anticipate. Instead, he proceeded to lay the ground for further queries.

"It has been left open to the bidder to suggest as yet unenvisaged options - different methods of repairing the bridge to those specified in the call for tenders," he said. "We certainly did not want to do anything which might have discouraged bids that might be cheaper and quicker to complete."

Normally requirements are set after a ministry's professionals and consultants have enabled it to envisage what they should be, and what to expect from bidders. Clear detailed tender specifications are drawn up, to encourage serious bids that do not include unjustified costs and which could be executed within the timeframe calculated by the government experts.

The minister was effectively telling The Times that the basic pre-tender process was not completed well enough. Neither when the call for offers was issued in the first place. Nor when the ministry made the first extension.

In saying that "it has been left open to the bidder to suggest as yet unenvisaged options" the minister laid the potential for disagreement over the tender award. Tender specifications are common to all bidders. Should any bidder envisage a way of doing things that departs from the specifications, the tender would have to be issued afresh with suitably revised specifications, to ensure equal opportunity in a level playing field.

The repairs to Manuel Dimech bridge are estimated to cost €6 million. The EU will put up two-thirds of that, taxpayers will bear the balance. Both require a clearer view across the bridge. Someone would be very accountable should more time be lost because the tender terms and process gave room to contention as to whether they stand up to strict scrutiny.