Scheduled open-top bus services (2)

Reference is made to the article entitled The Open-Top Buses Saga by Michael Seychell (October 23).

In this article the author, a former chairman of the Public Transport Authority, briefly recounts the plight of Ċanċu Supreme Travel and Garden of Eden in their quest to obtain the road licence for the open-top buses they had individually imported into Malta in 1993.

Mr Seychell, in his article, also attempts to give an account of recent events relating to the operation of open-top buses in Malta.

He states that the plight of one of these operators ended some two years ago when his company was awarded the tender for the provision of services by open-top buses.

In addition, he states that the company that was not awarded the tender (Garden of Eden) referred the matter to the Commission for Fair Trading.

What he does not state is that the company that was not awarded the tender, that is Garden of Eden, had never submitted an offer or participated in the tendering process.

Even less so could it have been awarded the tender!

It is to be noted that the present operation of a scheduled open-top bus service, on designated routes and pre established stopping points, was the subject of an official public tender process, for all interested parties, undertaken by the Malta Transport Authority (ADT) in 2006. Offers were actually submitted by two interested parties (none of which was Garden of Eden) and, subsequent to the appropriate adjudication process, one operator was chosen as the successful bidder.

As stated, Garden of Eden did not submit an offer for this concession and, as a consequence, was not part of the tendering process.

Mr Seychell concludes by stating that he hopes that Garden of Eden will now be given permits which are compatible with those of the successful bidder.

Having occupied a high-ranking government post, Mr Seychell should be well aware of the fact that awards should only be granted to individuals participating in a tendering process.

What the former chairman of the Public Transport Authority is implying is that Garden of Eden should be given a concession compatible to that of the successful bidder notwithstanding that the said company had not participated in the original tender process!

One asks: Then what is the point of having a tender process?

In addition, one must comment on the fact that Mr Seychell, a former chairman of the Public Transport Authority, laments on the fact that the successful bidder has invested substantially in the fleet of vehicles for this operation.

He states that "one wonders whether the present operator is adhering to the tender conditions because this number (what he claims to be 17) seems to be substantially higher than that required to satisfy the requisites of the tender".

Mr Seychell should note that the concession awarded requires that the scheduled service on the South and North routes is to be operated at a frequency of 90 minutes or less and when one considers the distances involved it is obvious that a sizeable fleet (which at present consists of 14 and not 17 open-top buses) is necessary to fulfill this requisite.

It is astounding that, rather than being praised, a private contractor who undertakes a hefty financial investment in a fleet of vehicles to render a professional and efficient transport service is subjected to disparaging comments, even more so when they are lashed out by a former chairman of the Public Transport Authority.

Editorial note:
It should be pointed out that, in a letter that appeared on October 25, Mr Seychell clarified that Garden of Eden did not tender for the introduction of a scheduled service using open-top buses but requested permission from the ADT to operate open-top buses on unscheduled services.