GRTU loses bid to block IT tenders

A court yesterday dismissed two applications filed against the government and Malta Information Technology and Training Services Ltd (MITTS) in connection with the call for tenders for the leasing of personal computer and workstation support services.

Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed the applications filed by the Malta Chamber for Small and Medium Enterprises - GRTU and Tabone Computer Centre Ltd against the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the Minister for IT and Investments, the director general of contracts and MITTS.

Both the GRTU and Tabone Computer Centre Ltd had requested the court to prohibit the authorities from finalising or adjudicating the tenders for the leasing of personal computer/laptops and workstation support services to schools and the civil service.

When examining the GRTU application, the court heard that the GRTU had submitted that prior to the issue of the call for tenders, consultation had taken place with the Chamber of Commerce.

This, said the GRTU, amounted to discrimination against it, because the Chamber of Commerce was, as a result, more prepared to submit a tender.

The authorities replied that they had attempted to contact the GRTU but had gotten no reply.

The court ruled that it had to examine whether the legal requirements for the issue of a warrant existed in this case.

These requirements were that the GRTU had to establish that it had, on a prima facie basis, a right, and that such right merited protection.

In this case, Mr Justice Valenzia said it did not result the GRTU had a prima facie right. The authorities were not bound to consult with third parties prior to the issue of a call for tenders.

The authorities submitted that they had encouraged the Chamber of Commerce to participate in the tendering process.

Furthermore, a vendors' briefing meeting had been held and the GRTU had attended that meeting.

The court added that even if the tender process continued, the GRTU would not suffer any irremediable damage, for it could always file an action for damages.

If the warrant were to be upheld, the prejudice that would be caused to the authorities would be disproportionate to any prejudice the GRTU would suffer if the warrant were not issued.

In examining the application filed by Tabone Computer Centre, the court noted the company had claimed it was not possible for it to tender due to reasons beyond its control, namely that the product requested would be obsolete within a short time.

The authorities claimed that the company had ample opportunity to submit a tender because the tender had been suspended on a provisional basis because of the application filed by the GRTU.

Tabone Computer Centre had claimed that following a previous application filed by the GRTU, the court had provisionally prohibited the issue of the tender call.

After the GRTU application was dismissed on July 27, MITTS had once again issued a call for tenders, with August 10 as the closing date.

According to the company, this was too short a period for it to submit its tender.

The company claimed that the tender document it had previously prepared was now obsolete because new computer models had been produced.

Mr Justice Valenzia said the company had not been deprived of its right to file a tender, but had been in the same position as others who wanted to tender.

The court, therefore, dismissed both applications.