Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 - 10:35CET
Companies to receive Mcast contract despite arraignment - Bartolo
Labour education spokesman Evarist Bartolo said today that the government was “encouraging abuse” by its decision to grant the MCAST IT courses outsourcing contract to two companies (among others) despite the police decision to arraign their representatives for allegedly making false declarations when they submitted their tender.
Mr Bartolo said the tender conditions had included a requirement that all training centres had to be accessible for persons with disability, but the premises of these two companies were not, and Mcast knew this, as did the police.
The outsourcing contract is to be awarded to all five companies which had submitted tenders following a ‘scandalous’ government decision, Mr Bartolo said.
RSS
Comments
"Tra Due Litiganti, il Terzo Gode".
In this case, il Terzo SOFRE !
Please stop this bickering and let our children continue with their studies. I expect more sense and reason from supposed mature persons, but I am wrong.
Don't use our children for your own political ends, please.
STOP IT. ONCE AND FOR ALL.
BE SERIOUS ! ! !
../..
On a section of the media it was stated that last year a student attending one of these schools had to be transferred to MCAST as he became partially immobile and the school did not have the required facilities!
And please do not insult disabled persons. I have a disabled person in my family and am very well aware of the requirements they need...for sure not just a simple ramp!
And where is the Prime Minister who is supposed to be the champion of disabled persons? Does he tolerate that clauses of accessibility be totally ignored by government boards?
The students started their studies already except for few which have been left out as the two companies which will be arraigned in court accused with making false declarations, presented a court injunction against the government to stop the distribution of students to the schools. So it seems that your brother was left out cause of the court order coming from these 2 companies. Do blame them for being kept out dear friend.
@ Jeanette Grech
It seems you know a lot about all the schools!!!
@ Joe Vella
In a separate bolg Mr Bartolo stated that the other 3 schools can handle all 600 schools.
"There has not been a disabled person attending an Mcast course in years why is there all this fuss now?!"
Please verify the facts. There were and still are students with disability attending Mcast. And what if a student has an accident and has to temporarily use a wheel chair what happens? Will not the student suffer? Does she or he have to change premises, Mcast Poala is already full, what will happen to such a student what if she were your child?
We, as company, have officially received the decision from the Public Contracts Appeals Board (PCAB) and nowhere there is stated "that all internal findings of MCAST were not only leaked to the appellant Company but even published in a section of the media " in this PCAB report. Ms Rosanne Galea either has a report different from ours, or has information which we do not have, or she is adding statements to the PCAB report herself.
Trying to find excuses to exculpate the board members eh?
Maybe their deeds per se are not provided for in the criminal code, but what would have happened in any another european country where they have the decency to accept responsibility for their deeds? Resignation forthwith.
Although it may be be provided for in the criminal code, would you have reasoned the same if your company was the only one that qualified according to the published criteria and the board changed the marks of the other companies that did not qualify to enable them to take part of the contract that your company would have won?
And if the companies did nothing wrong, why were they arraigned in court?
Mr Bartolo did his duty towards us, taxpayers.
It is Gonzipn who should apologize for messing things up and for awarding part of the contract to companies that did not qualify according to the conditions of the tender and were granted extra marks in a shady process.
Nay, Gonzipn should resign for abetting such shady processes and granting part of the tender to the unqualified companies.
Dear Evarist, there are many things one has to keep an eye on - this was not one of them.
PLEASE do not waste people who would like to anymore just because you have nothing to do all day!! if it were not for you and your petty complaints in something which you clearly have nothing to do with then the 600 students would have already started their ICT courses and 25% of them would not have dropped out. There has not been a disabled person attending an Mcast course in years why is there all this fuss now?! I do not think that you just want top priority schools for our students but there is something else going on! These school are accesible for the disabled and if they were not they were intending to be accessible just before the course would start! i wish that you would clerify all the facts before you condemn the 2 companies and publish their names. you are innocent until proven guilty not the other way round Mr Bartolo!
How can I and others take seriously sermons on the mount from a person who will be charged in court with making a false declaration to a public authority?
I quote verbatim from a letter sent to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education and Culture, Director of Contracts and myself from Deputy Commissioner Joseph Cachia on 20th November 2008:
"However it did result that two bidders had made false declarations in the tender documents in breach of article 188 of the Criminal Code (Cap 9). Hence, charges have been filed in Court against Marcel Cutajar and Stephen Casaletto of CC Training Ltd and Rosanne Galea and John David Galea of Future Focus Ltd for having on the 11th Septemver 2008 or preceding days, submitted false declarations to a public authority. Charges were filed in Court on Monday 17 November."
No further comments needed.
As a former Minister of Education, I expected much, much better from you.
In your first statement it is quite clear that the one criteria not met and raised by you is the one dealing with accessabilty. In dancing around to my question, by your second response, are you suggesting that this is not the case and that there were other criteria that were not met by the two companies referred to in the article?
If not, can you tell us what is your answear in what to do with the children becauase the remaining three companies couldn't handle all of the 600 students.
I assume that you represent Future Focus. Is your company one of those companies being arraigned to court for making false declarations? If yes, according to your statement here, the Police did not do their work right. Am I understanding you correctly?
Allegations should not be made lightly by anyone specially by individuals who carry certain responsibilites on ther shoulders.
Future Focus as one of the successful bidders declares that it is fully compliant with its declaration regarding accessibility for disabled students.
The company notes with disappointment the fact that Mr. Bartolo failed in his press statements to make reference to the fact that the Public Contracts Appeals Board decided the appeal against appellant Computer Domain Ltd, that all internal findings of MCAST were not only leaked to the appellant Company but even published in a section of the media and further more condoned the fact that various items of information were obtained in an unorthodox manner and as a result in terms of the Public Contracts Regulations, 2005, the Board recomended that the deposit submitted by the appellants should not be refunded.
It is expected that Mr. Bartolo representing public interest, requests an investigation on this declaration if his criticism is to be taken seriously.
For all I know you could be "100% correct" and, as you say, "the government could be encouraging abuse" BUT at the end of the day it's the 600 students who are the real victims. As a politician it's your duty to critisise the government. You made your point; the PCAB and the Courts decided. Now let's give the 600 students a chance to start their courses and make up for the lost time before it is too late!
If these criteria are not important, why establish them in the first place? Why set up an adjudication board if you are going to award tenders to everybody, even those who do not meet your criteria?
I hope that this charade does not repeat itself next year.
This year work on the tender started late in summer, too late. Work on the tender should start in January so that when July comes around it can be awarded and things can be done professionally.
MCAST should also get its act together in preparation of syllabi and teaching material. This work has not yet been finished in Foundation courses offered by MCAST. Students are also losing lectures in several subjects as they have no teachers to teach them. These inadequacies have nothing to do with tenders.
In my opinion this tender should not even have included something which wasnt needed let alone waste two months on a technicality....
Yes the students come first. In one of the two centres that has no accessibility: (According to report by MCAST official : "Last year they had a student who was using crutches who had to be transferred to MCAST Paola because she was having problems accessing her classes, because of the steps in front of the building and because the lift was out of order many times.”
Education centres are legally bound to be accessible. That is one of the criteria that companies had to meet in the MCAST tender. They also had to have five years' experience in teaching ICT. One of the compaines chosen did not meet this criteria. They also had to have lecturers who also understand and talk Maltese. One of the companies chosen did not meet this criteria.
We should train our students at top quality ICT centres. We should be worried that up to 25% of our students at MCAST are dropping out. In a globalized world we need world class education. Accepting mediocrity makes us fall behind. If we love our students we do not want this.
What I still find so alarming is that everybody is so ready to judge without knowing all the facts. Think before being so ready to blog and condemn.
perhaps you could confirm for all of us if the other three facilities could accommodate all the students. If yes, I would agree with your claim in the article. If not, what is the solution? Let these children roam the streets and perhaps come in contact with bad company and have a life of criminality instead of one of productive life?
I shall await your answer in regards to the space question. In the absence, one shall presume that the three companies could accommodate the children.
No matter how many excuses and condemnations are brought, the main thing is that OUR STUDENTS ARE SUFFERING!
Our children should not be used as the sacrificial lambs and used by some politicians for their own agenda. This should never happen , for God's sake!
OUR CHILDREN COME FIRST AND FOREMOST. PERIOD.
../..
In all your righteous, Ms./Mr. Galea the investigation in question found out that there was no illegal practices carried out by the Adjudication board. The investigation only conclued in many words that the members of the Adjudication are only human and as it turned out are not as rightous as you are; but then we all know that in past pasturse there were no adjudication Boards.
Can I ask you one simple question? That is, prior to making your latest statement did you verify if the other schools if they could accomodate all the students?
I am not here to defend those who are accused of illegal wrongdoing. But I believe Justice calls for that we are all percieved to be innocent until proven Guilty.
My only other comment in this regards is that if the companies in question are proven guilty, then the courts should fine both the companies and the individuals who made the false declaration such fines that will NOT MAKE it worth it to provide false information.
The appeals board said about the MCAST adjudication board: ""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."
Agreed.
A report written by MCAST official on two centres awarded contract: “There is no access for persons with disability and no effort have been made to upgrade the premises to this effect. No ramp, no lift, no special toilets. The premises are spread over three floors with classrooms mainly on the top floor.”
“The premises (of another ICT centre) are not accessible to persons with disability, since there are a number of steps to go into the building before accessing the lift, which is not big enough to cater for any wheelchair and therefore not compliant with the requirements laid down by KNPD.”
These two companies are to be arraigned in court for making false declarations.
I hope that next year the tendering process will be carried out professionally so that students will not suffer.
I fully agree with you the students should not be punished. The students should be sent to the other three schools which were found to be regular with what they declared. If the students are sent to schools with pending criminal charges against them, then the students are being punished just the same especially if the criminal charges are confirmed by the courts and the education of these students is then compromised one way or other.
It is your Gonzipn who should apologize Mangion.
You show Gonzipn arrogance when you criticize Evarist Bartolo for doing his duty towards the Maltese people.
To the 3 Micallef''s, I ask what is the alternative? Is not to provide some of the Children the education that they need because of lack of places. I am sure the courts will deal with the two companies for making a false declaration. But to punish the students, is not the answear.
One would have accepted more from an Educatur>
And if this requirement was ignored, there might have been other schools which did not tender because of this clause. If they knew that this requirement were to be ignored, they might have tendered as well!
Dear people, we have a very generous government. You can make false declarations in a tender and still be awarded the tender. What's next? The government is giving green light for abuse - a license to kill dear friends!
I feel sorry for those students who end up at these two schools whose owners are being accused of criminal offence. What will be the repercussions on the students if these two schools are found to be criminally guilty??? These MCAST courses are managed by BTEC of UK. What will be their reaction when they discover that the government is sending students to schools which are being arraigned to court???
The government should apologise for this mess and do not continue to take wrong decisions in an already confirmed mess!
Are there any students who are attending at these two particular centres with a disability that require such access?
If not, then why make it difficult, on a technicality, for the other students. T
These students should not be used as a potical "ball".
They are already two months late, and let's not make it more difficult, please!
Our children deserve much better, alas!
../..