Companies to receive Mcast contract despite arraignment - Bartolo

Nick Callus

Dec 3rd 2008, 16:38

I refer to my previous comment. Ms Rosanne Galea extracted sentences from different parts of the PCAB report and placed them together as one paragraph. I have to clarify that in the PCAB report there is no mention for "all internal findings of MCAST".

Joseph Cauchi

Dec 3rd 2008, 15:15

"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 ! ! !

../..

Sharon Agius

Dec 3rd 2008, 10:40

@ Jeanette Grech

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?

Mike Micallef

Dec 3rd 2008, 09:55

@ P Galea

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.

Marion Pace

Dec 3rd 2008, 09:34

@Jeanette Grech
"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?

Nick Callus

Dec 3rd 2008, 09:13

I am the managing director of Computer Domain Ltd and, although it is very unusual for me to comment on blogs, I cannot fail to reply to the blog made by Ms Rosanne Galea.

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.

lgalea

Dec 2nd 2008, 23:00

Joe Vella
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.

fredmallia

Dec 2nd 2008, 22:20

Evarist you are right! this gonzipn is not only opening the door for abuse but it is removing the door! shame on all concerned on this tender !

oliver debono

Dec 2nd 2008, 21:01

Politicians do have a job to do, but they should not be oblivious to the hurt they might cause when so doing.Evarist has made a mountain out of a mole hill. All that was warranted was a slap on the wrist to any wrongdoers. Requesting a full blown investigation, and a police one at that blew the whole issue out of proportion. The time lost has had a toll on the students, the companies, their employees and all their relatives. And all this to the benefit of no one, except of course the tenderer who furnished the politician with the details as befitted him.
Dear Evarist, there are many things one has to keep an eye on - this was not one of them.

Jeanette Grech

Dec 2nd 2008, 20:58

@ Mr.Bartolo

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!

Evarist Bartolo

Dec 2nd 2008, 20:22

@ Rosanne Galea

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.

P Debono

Dec 2nd 2008, 19:21

Mr. Bartolo, please, I beg you to stop this bickering and let my brother start his course! You've made him go through hell for these past 4 months and he still hasn't even started his course. A teenage boy full of energy and life should never go through the ordeal that my brother went through, subject to 4 months of idleness that will never be recouped.

As a former Minister of Education, I expected much, much better from you.

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 18:27

@ Evarist Bartolo

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.

Catherine Grima

Dec 2nd 2008, 18:23

Ms Rosanne Galea, so if you have accessibility for disabled students, what false declarations are the Police alleging against you?

Mike Micallef

Dec 2nd 2008, 18:20

Rosanne Galea

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?

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 18:19

@ P. Cassar

Allegations should not be made lightly by anyone specially by individuals who carry certain responsibilites on ther shoulders.

Rosanne Galea

Dec 2nd 2008, 17:46

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.

P. Cassar

Dec 2nd 2008, 17:10

We elect people to keep their eyes open for any wrongdoing and when one of them speaks up, we turn against him instead of thanking him and correcting the correcting!!!!! After so many years of irregularities in practically every Govt contract, we have come to this very sorry state.

Mamuel Mifsud

Dec 2nd 2008, 17:10

@Evarist Bartolo

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!

Evarist Bartolo

Dec 2nd 2008, 17:06

I suppose that MCAST established certain criteria for the bidders to ensure top quality education for our young people. These criteria included five years experience in teaching ICT, qualified ICT teachers proficient in Maltese, licensed premises, accessibility for disabled persons. The MCAST adjudication board itself ignored these criteria (established by itself) when it awarded tenders to bidders who did not meet them.
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.

A. Borg

Dec 2nd 2008, 16:51

As a parent of one of these students, what is important to me is whether these schools are good educators not whether they have a ramp, especially considering no student with special needs is currently attaneding these courses. My son attended one of the schools last year and I have never seen him more interested in his studies, to me that was all the information I needed.
In my opinion this tender should not even have included something which wasnt needed let alone waste two months on a technicality....

c. camilleri

Dec 2nd 2008, 16:31

@ Evarist The parents of the 600 students couldn't care less about the accommodation. They had waited long enough because of your meddling. Can you guarantee that all the students can be accommodated by one company. The students have suffered enough. It's enough that they have to catch up with other students who have already started their course. Pls let them get on with their studies without unnecessary interference.

OLIVER DEBONO

Dec 2nd 2008, 16:16

Scandalous my foot. how i wish the problems in our tendering procedures were of just not having a disability ramp ! dear bloggers do not fall for what you are being fed, like Evarist did. Maybe I would not blame Evarist as he has to play the politician, but you, you should know otherwise. The tenderers want to do business as well as teach our children IT. LET THEM FIGHT IT AMONGST THEMSELVES AND DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BE USED FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S WHIMS.

Evarist Bartolo

Dec 2nd 2008, 16:04

The three centres can accommodate all the students, even two of them can.
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.

Grace Pace

Dec 2nd 2008, 15:53

What happened to 'innocent till proven guilty". In some things we are so laissez faire but in others we fail to uphold a fundamental human right!!!
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.

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 15:21

@ Evarist Bartolo

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.

Joseph Cauchi

Dec 2nd 2008, 14:55

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.

../..

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 14:42

@ l Galea

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.

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 14:36

@ Mike Micallef

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.

Evarist Bartolo

Dec 2nd 2008, 14:06

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.

Angelo Micallef

Dec 2nd 2008, 13:56

What a shame that the ultimate victims are students!!!!!!!!!

Mike Micallef

Dec 2nd 2008, 12:37

Joe Vella

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.

lgalea

Dec 2nd 2008, 12:25

A Mangion
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.

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 12:23

@ Mike Micallef, Sharon Micallef & Nike Micallef

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.

Joe Vella

Dec 2nd 2008, 12:18

Shame on you Evarist Bartolo to continue to play politics with the future of these Kids. So what is the alternative? Not to offer some of the kids the education they need because there is not enough spaces to take them in, I am sure that any kids with a disability will be placed at the appropriate facility. But not to engage the companies in question at this time is to punish the Children not the companies in question. Enough time have been wasted already.

One would have accepted more from an Educatur>

A Mangion

Dec 2nd 2008, 12:10

Incredible. First he (Evarist Bartolo) wastes students two months of study now instead of apologizing he persists in error. Unbelievable.

Maria Pia Agius

Dec 2nd 2008, 12:08

And most of the students have started their studies. The 2 companies which will be arraigned to court stopped the remaining students from starting their studies as they did a court injunction order. Who is going to apologise to these students for remaining out? Surely it is the Adjudication Board and the greed of these two companies being arraigned to court for criminal offences.

Mike Micallef

Dec 2nd 2008, 11:56

It is not a question of technicality Joseph. It is a question of adhering to the tender requirements. Otherwise, why putting them in the tender in the first place? And since we are in EU, disability access has to be respected in tenders. And who knows whether there are other false declarations!

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!

Sharon Micallef

Dec 2nd 2008, 11:51

License to Kill!

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!

Nike Micallef

Dec 2nd 2008, 11:45

What a shame! The Appeals Board had found the Adjuducation team to be unprofessional and amateurish and the Police had found that two schools made false declarations and the government is ignoring all this and award the tender to all bidders including those two schools which will be arraigned to court.

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!

Joseph Cauchi

Dec 2nd 2008, 10:58

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!

../..