GRTU 'not entitled to file action' over IT tenders

The government yesterday argued that the General Retailers and Traders Union - GRTU was not entitled to file judicial action on behalf of its members who were allegedly suffering damages over the government's call for tenders for the supply of computers.

The GRTU had requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to prohibit the processing of the Invitation to Tender for the Leasing of Personal Computers/Laptops and Workstation Support Station for the public sector. The request was temporarily upheld and the tendering process has been suspended.

Yesterday, a reply was filed by the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the Minister for Investment, Industry and Information Technology, the Director General of Contracts, and Malta Information Technology and Training Services Ltd.

The authorities submitted that the GRTU had no legal interest in filing the application. The GRTU was not entitled to file judicial action on behalf of its members who were allegedly suffering damages. Only persons who were absent from the country could file judicial proceedings through mandatories.

They further claimed that the invitation to tender had been prepared in such a way that any potential bidder could submit its offer for the leasing of computers and monitors.

The request for a bid bond accompanying the tender resulted from law, and it was normal practice for such a bond to amount to between one or two per cent of the contract value. In such manner, the authorities could ensure that they would receive serious offers.

In this particular case, the bid bond had been set at Lm25,000 which was much less than one per cent of the estimated contract value. Furthermore, the government had clarified that in the event that a bidder chose to tender for support or transfer of information only, then the bid bond would be reduced to Lm5,000.

The authorities added that any potential tenderer could form a joint venture or consortium with others. The tender document also stipulated that all computers or monitors were to be of the same brand so that the government would be assured of the provision of computers of a guaranteed quality.

A warrant of prohibitory injunction could only be issued if the court was of the opinion that it was necessary to protect some right. But the authorities submitted that the GRTU had no rights that merited protection by the issue of this warrant. Not had the GRTU produced any evidence to show that any EU legislation or directives had been violated.

The authorities added that the warrant was not required for no irremediable harm would be caused to the GRTU if the tendering process were allowed to proceed.

The reply was signed by lawyers Cynthia Scerri Debono, Henri Mizzi and Pauline Debono.