Gozo abattoir contract bidder objects to Adjudication Board decision

A company yesterday filed a judicial protest complaining of the manner in which a call for tenders for works on the new abattoir in Gozo was dealt with.

Camray Co. Ltd filed its protest against the Minister for Gozo, the Director of Projects and Development Directorate within the Gozo Ministry and the Director General of the Contracts Department.

The company said that last year it had submitted a tender for the abattoir works in partnership with a foreign company, Taljana Technostar Due Srl. Five other entities had submitted bids for this project. The tender, the company added, was what was known as a three-envelope tender comprising three different stages of the evaluation process.

The Adjudication Board had established that Camray's offer satisfied the requirements of the first stage and that it qualified for the second stage. The board had written to the company saying it was giving Camray the opportunity to make changes to its original submission to get in line with the requirements of the tender documents, provided that the bid price remains unchanged.

Then, last May, the board had requested a meeting with the company to discuss all issues dealing with the tender and in June the Director General of the Contracts Department told the company that the board had recommended, in the absence of any objection, that the third stage of the process take place in respect of its tender.

However, on June 20, another bidder, General Maintenance Ltd, lodged an objection after it was informed by the board that its offer had not passed the second stage of the process. This objection was heard by the Public Contracts Appeals Board which found that the Adjudication Board had no authority to allow a bidder to change its tender submissions.

The whole tender process was annulled by the Public Contracts Appeals Board on August 23. But Camray submitted that the Adjudication Board had only requested clarifications and had not asked the company to change its original offer. In any event, Camray said it was the board that had given rise to the annulment of the tender proceedings and that the company had scrupulously observed all regulations.

Camray claimed it had sustained damages as a result of the actions of the Adjudication Board. It added that its rights had been seriously prejudiced for now all its competitors were informed of its offer. Camray's competitiveness was therefore compromised.

The company concluded its protest by calling upon the authorities to make good the damages sustained and to take all action to protect the confidentiality of its tender.

Lawyer Michael Sciriha acted for the company.