Contracts Department rejects allegations over ITC contract at Mcast

Claims by the Labour spokesman for education and the media, Evarist Bartolo over irregularities in the issue of a contract for ITC courses for about 600 students at the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (Mcast) were rejected by the Contracts Department yesterday.

Mr Bartolo asked Police Commissioner John Rizzo to investigate the contract process, which was nearing completion.

In his letter to Mr Rizzo, Mr Bartolo insisted on the need to stop the process immediately because essential printed or electronic documents linked to the selection process may be destroyed.

Mr Bartolo said he was willing to help in the investigation with the information he had on the case.

On Monday, he asked the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communication and the Ministry of Education to investigate whether "a number of serious irregularities had taken place in the selection process".

A serious investigation should be held to establish whether it is true that according to the selection criteria, only companies that obtained over 70 marks from the Selection Committee would be chosen.

Only one company obtained more than 70 marks and, despite this, the Selection Committee recommended to the Public Contracts Committee that all the companies be chosen; that the Public Contracts Committee sends the report back to the Selection Committee; that the Selection Committee change its original report and write a fresh report giving a new mark of 70 so that all the companies would qualify.

The selected companies included some that ought to be disqualified because they breached established criteria. On the other hand, the Selection Committee included persons who are still on probation at Mcast and, therefore, were vulnerable to pressure to decide one way instead of another.

The Contracts Department rejected Mr Bartolo's allegation that in its final report the Selection Committee chose just one company. Neither was it true that the Public Contracts Committee had sent the Selection Committee's report back.

The Selection Committee had sent the final report after the director general at the Contracts Department requested the necessary clarifications and asked for a reconsideration of the marks assigned by the Selection Board in the light of the fact that divergences existed in the views of members.

In the final report submitted by the Selection Committee to the Contracts Committee, all the companies obtained over 70 marks and it does not result that any of the companies should have been disqualified for not having reached established criteria.

On the contrary, all the companies were accepted on the basis of the level of teaching they offered and which satisfied the call for offers, the department said.

Therefore, it was not correct to say that in the final report the Selection Committee chose just one company or that the Public Contracts Committee had sent the report back to the Selection Committee. In fact, the decision of the Public Contracts Committee was the one published by the committee itself.

As normally happens, the Selection Committee submitted its final report to the Contracts Committee and after it scrutinised the report it published it. The process is in the appeal phase which closes at noon on Monday. During this period any person who submitted a tender or has an interest in the contract can appeal.

The Selection Committee was made up of technical experts and, therefore, one cannot understand how they could be vulnerable to pressures to decide one way instead of another.

In the light of the fact that it was the responsible entity to ensure that the selection would be carried out according to law, one cannot see why a process that contained no irregularities should be stopped to the detriment of students who have now started their studies.

The department added that it does not object to having its work scrutinised, including by the police, if it is felt there was a need for an investigation.

Reacting to these comments, Mr Bartolo said the Contracts Committee itself confirmed the need for a serious investigation on the selection process when it mentions "a reconsideration of marks assigned by the Selection Board in the light of the fact that divergences existed in the views of members".

Mr Bartolo said the statement by the Contracts Committee also confirmed that the marks had been changed. These changes took place in the interval between the first report by the Selection Committee of September 23 and its final report the day after.

Mr Bartolo argued that in the first report by the Selection Committee, only one company exceeded the 70 mark but the Committee recommended that the five companies should be selected.

In the report by the same committee the following day, the marks were changed so that all the companies would have 70 marks, Mr Bartolo said.