Appeal on Mcast tenders rejected
The Public Contracts Appeals Board has turned down a complaint filed by a company which cried foul over the tender for IT courses at the Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology, finding that the adjudicating board had not acted in bad faith.
However, in its decision, the appeals board heavily criticised the adjudication board for the "amateurish traits (in its) modus operandi".
It pointed out that the adjudication board members had failed to analyse all the tender document provisions before assessing the offers.
Significantly, it also emerged that the adjudication board did not even know that the minimum mark for a company to be eligible for a contract was 70, not 50, a crucial point, since the company appealing the decision, Computer Domain Ltd, insists it should have been the only company to be awarded the contract being the only one to exceed the 70 point threshold set in the tender requirements.
Instead, the board prepared a second report in which points were increased and, as a result, all companies that submitted a bid became eligible for contracts.
Computer Domain's lawyer Edward Gatt argued that the practice was "irregular" and that all the other bidders should have been disqualified immediately once they had not reached the minimum threshold.
During the appeal hearings, Juan Borg Manduca, the chairman of the adjudication board, admitted that the first set of marks was increased after he had noticed that the pass mark was 70. He said this was "a genuine mistake" and that these marks were increased pro rata.
The appeals board said it had noted the failure of all the adjudication board members to analyse all the tender document provisions before proceeding with the assessment of offers.
"This (appeals) board cannot but exclaim its amazement in this regard, questioning, in the process, how the adjudication board could have worked on the assumption that the pass mark was set at 50 per cent of the total score when the tender document had fixed a threshold of 70 per cent.
"The PCAB (Public Contracts Appeals Board) cannot condone such unprofessional conduct no matter what excuses are brought about. The board cannot but argue that had all the adjudication board members properly carried out the work they were entrusted with carrying out in the first place this objection would, in all probability, not have been raised," the appeals board said in its decision.
The board also expressed concern that the original report was superseded by another without either a hard or, at least, a soft copy of the original report being retained.
Notwithstanding these flaws, however, the board said Computer Domain Ltd had failed to prove that the adjudication board had acted in bad faith and therefore rejected the appeal.
The company has now filed a judicial protest claiming that Mr Borg Manduca, as chairman of the selection committee, had lied under oath during the appeals hearing when he said that the blunder was "a genuine mistake".
Last week, the Education Ministry said a police investigation requested by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo had concluded that the Mcast selection board had not carried out any wrongdoing but found that there were instances of "carelessness". It also said that four individuals from two private ICT training providers which submitted offers for training will be charged with making false declarations to a public authority.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Petrol price up 6c
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
michael fenech
Nov 27th 2008, 19:49
If the Minister of Education had any guts at all,she should roll some heads. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PN MINISTER HERE.
Keep up the good work Evarist Bartolo (MP)
R.Calleja
Nov 27th 2008, 11:56
What is all this if not a farce!! The Appeals' Board gave the appellants a confirmation that this tender should have never been given. Because it was\ irregular from the start. The adjudicating board was called careless and amateurish. What more!! But surprisingly enough the Appeals' Board did not revert the decision taken by the adjudicating board . What would happen if this farce took place in our courts!
Jonathan Borg
Nov 27th 2008, 11:41
This would be bad enough if it was just a local issue, but what is especially embarassing is the international impact of these comedy/tragedies.
When students from Malta go abroad and must have their credentials evaluated in order to work, these episodes are EXACTLY the reason some jurisdictions reject qualifications outright.
In the past, the rejections were based on a lack of knowledge of standards in small countries like Malta. Now, thanks to the power of the Internet, the rejections can be based on REAL documented events.
What is my issue here? I've endured the embarassment of being rejected and having to work without being able to fulfil my potential, because of this.
To the students who are waiting, I understand your plight. Be patient, for you are far better off getting a quality education that will stand up to the rigours of world-class adjudication. I speak from bitter experience.
To the pitiful players in this saga, be ashamed, be very ashamed. The damage is done and documented for all the world to see. Regardless of whether your actions were illegal, they were certainly unethical and immoral. Stepping aside is the absolute minimum.
J.Borg
Nov 27th 2008, 11:35
And what amazes me most is that MZPN issue a press release wanting the MLP and Evarist Bartolo to issue an apolgoy.
Apology for what for having an adjudication board acting like kindergarten pupils.
What a farce....board members not knowing that pass mark is 70% and not 50%.
Apart from resigning un-block, it's the ministry for education that has to thank Evarist Bartolo to make public all this hula-baloo......pajjiz tal-micky mouse.
And after all no one is made responsible for al this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A. Zarb
Nov 27th 2008, 10:44
Appeals board is correct.
Is the victim (ComputerDomain Ltd.) paying the price as a result of a non professional and incompetent adjudication board. ????
Is real justice being applied ????
Sharon MIfsud
Nov 27th 2008, 09:37
The Appeals Board was "amazed" by the behaviour of the Adjudication Board. In the meantime, we tax payers are "amazed" how we are made to pay taxes which go into salaries for people who have been found to be careless, unprofessional and amateurs!
Louis Gatt
Nov 27th 2008, 09:33
The Appeals Board looks like a 'circius artist' crossing the Niagara Falls on a tight rope! After the upheaval and chaos caused by gross unprofessionalism, mistakes and ommissions, they find the Adjudicating Board did not act in bad faith. The decision in favour of the Adjudicating Board brings up a very serious doubt to me: 'Mistakes in good faith' override fairness, and justice!
Surely I would'nt like this way of reasoning to be picked up as a model for settling disputes in the future. Lets call a spade a spade and since the adjucation was riddled with mistakes, irrespective of being in good or bad faith, the whole process should have been faulted. A mistake is a mistake no matter who does it and his or her's intention. The intention of the author only comes in when assessing guilt on the person committing such irregularity and/or crime.
It is a real pity that students and Bona Fide applicants and contenders had to suffer for the Authority's shortfalls and mistakes!
Mike MIcallef
Nov 27th 2008, 09:26
Shame! Shame! Shame! The Adjudication Board members should RESIGN immediately. The persons who chose them should also resign for bad judgement. How can the tax payers accept highly paid persons to be "unprofessional" and "amateurish" in what they are entrusted to do. To make things worse, the Chairman of this Adjudication Board is also the Director of the ICT Institute at MCAST, director of MITTS and a director of MOBC!!!
Where is the Minister of Education? What is she going to do now that her people have been labelled as unprofessional and amateurish by the Appeals Board and "careless" by the Police? Who is going to shoulder this administrative responsibility? How can the students of the ICT Institute at MCAST trust their Director who was the Chairman of the Adjudication Board which created this whole mess?
The comment made by the Appeals Board that it was not proved that the Adjudication Board's gross mistakes were not in bad faith brings up a very serious doubt: 'Mistakes in good faith' override fairness, and justice! ?