Enemalta defends BWSC contract
Enemalta this afternoon defended its decision to award the contract for the power station extension to BWSC.
In a statement, it said three companies had competed for the tender– BWSC, Man Diesel and Bateman.
After careful consideration of the most important factors, namely technical compliance with the specification, emissions and the financial aspect, Enemalta chose the proposal submitted by BWSC.
On the financial aspect, BWSC quoted a total of €183 million (€165 million for the new extension with an additional €18million for a 5-year maintenance contract), Man Diesel quoted €218million (€189 million plus €29 million for the 5 year maintenance contract), whilst Bateman quoted €186 million (€149 million plus €37 million for the 5 year maintenance contract).
Furthermore the cost of electricity generation with the BWSC diesel engines was of €c12.467 per kWh, the cost proposed by Man Diesel would have been at €c13.696 per kWh whilst the cost of generating electricity using the Bateman gas turbines was projected to cost €c16.823 per kWh. It is clear that the chosen plant works out the cheapest.
With regards to CO2 emissions, those generated by diesel engines and those generated by the gas engines proposed by Bateman were similar.
CO2 emissions generated by diesel engines are 0.5894kg/kWh whilst CO2 emissions generated by gas engines are 0.5605kg/kWh, making the difference negligible.
"In view of all of the above, it is clear that Enemalta chose the most advantageous option, i.e. that of BWSC," the corporation said.
Enemalta said the evaluation process was carried out in full conformity with the evaluation criteria specified over two years earlier in the Request for Proposals (RfP) and the Invitation to Tender (ITT). These evaluation criteria had been previously approved by the Department of Contracts (DoC).
None of the bidders expressed any difficulty with the evaluation criteria at any stage during the tendering process, as they were entitled to do, both in terms of the EU Procurement directives and local legislation.
The evaluation was based on criteria intended to obtain a generating plant fully compliant with EU regulations, capable of operating on the fuels available locally and of being converted to gas whilst producing electricity at the lowest cost per kWh (when all costs including the initial capital cost, operations and maintenance, fuel and waste disposal were taken into account).
"This is why the BWSC proposal was chosen and not for any other reasons as has been repeatedly implied in the media," Enemalta said.
The BWSC contract is currently being evaluated by the Auditor-General.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
18 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Patrick Zahra
Mar 13th 2010, 12:01
Throughout the decision making process our health and our environment were never considered! Had they been considered the BWSC alternative would have surely been shot down! With this contract enemalta has put the residents, our health,our environment and our country on the loosing side but I am sure there are a handful of insiders who ended up on the winning side!
Lawrence Fenech
Mar 13th 2010, 10:48
Surprise surprise.
evarist bartolo
Mar 13th 2010, 09:33
In 2006 government approved a policy that new generating plant would be fired by natural gas as this would result in cheaper water and eletricity bills and would be better for public health and the environment and as gas fired plants are smaller, there would be enough space for needed future expansion at Delimara. In 2009 government did a total U-turn choosing a plant to operate on heavy fuel oil that needs an additional 27 million euro to convert to gas four years after it starts operating. It will propduce around 30 tons of toxic waste a day that has to be exported. Government changed enviornmental regulations, tender specifications and the evaluation formula to allow BWSC to be chosen. Enemalta appointed Lahmeyer International as "independent" consultant to evaluate technology of BWSC. These two companies share the same local agent in Malta and have built at least three power stations together. This agent promised BWSC that he has the right conenctions to secure the bid.
i.cilia
Mar 13th 2010, 10:47
as per my previous post..
it seems that not only the Gonzi and Austin Gatt are putting pressure on the Auditor General..
leonardo vince
Mar 13th 2010, 08:53
Rest assured that the Auditor's report will be inconclusive. Only the naive, including most in the PL, believe the NAO would demean the government.
lgalea
Mar 13th 2010, 08:35
Does anyone expect that the Enemalta obsequious incompetents to do otherwise?
J.Borg
Mar 13th 2010, 07:29
It seems that soon we will be having the Auditor's General report.....so yes put pressure on him. First Dr.Gonzi, the Minister Gatt, now enemalta....who's next??
i.cilia
Mar 13th 2010, 09:28
yeah and what the pressure put on by Joseph Paroli and Evarist... going to the Auditor and holding a press conference just outside his door...
what about the "investigazzjoni" tal Orizzont!!!!
the PL has already decided, based on a series of emails which are no real proof since they never said who gave them these emails...
so do not say that Government is putting subtle pressure... because everyone is putting subtle pressure..
Christian Abdilla
Mar 13th 2010, 07:13
Which roads is Enemalta planning to use to transport the waste generated daily ? From which dock will these 'special containers' be loaded on the ships ? Or is it already taken for granted that they will driving through Marsaxlokk and B'Bugia on their way to the Freeport ?
reno calleja
Mar 13th 2010, 01:14
This is nothing but subtle pressure on the Auditor general.
We already had the statement by Miniser Fenech that if the tender to BWS had to be withdrawn, Ene Malta would have to pay 300m in fines.
Who ever drew up the contract should have left an opt out clause in case corruption was proved in the award.
The Ene Matla statement is nothng but twisting the arm of the A.G.
Democracy is not opnly about elections, but the respect for institutions and rule of law. Leave the Auditor General alone.
reno calleja
Edward Mallia
Mar 12th 2010, 21:48
Can Enemalta give us the calculated cost of a unit if the BWSC engines are used with diesel as a fuel instead of Heavy Fuel Oil?
Daniel Zerafa
Mar 12th 2010, 20:42
MARK MY WORDS!! before the construction is ove rthey will be talking about an INCINERATOR. wasteserv is currently collecting recycled material, which is partially accepted, BUT the waste material will not be sent to landfills anymore because the space is always decreasing. Therefore an excuse to this they will built an INCINERTOR next to the powerstation THUS continuing POLLUTING THE SOUTH.
MARK MY WORD DEAR DECISION MAKERS
YOU USE ARROGANCE TO COMPLETE YOUR AIMS
ENVIRONMENTALIST USE DIPLOMACY TO OPPOSE YOU
BUT WHEN THIS FAILS >THE PEOPLE SHALL RISE TO TAKE EVERYTHING YOU OWN AND MAKE YOU PAY FOR THE DAMAGE YOU HAVE DONE.
lgalea
Mar 13th 2010, 08:33
Have a look at
http://www.cnimalta.org/sa.html
There are three links.
Read them and see how the South of Malta is treated and what was hidden from the people.
Peter Murray
Mar 12th 2010, 20:28
Who precisely at Enemalta uttered these defensive comments ?Could it perhaps be the present CEO,Mr.Trantner,who oversaw this contract award indeed highly recommended it with no possible vested interest, and who is now jumping ship before he was asked to walk the plank for performing inadequately and running the ship aground.
Adrian Wirth
Mar 12th 2010, 19:45
And just what is; a. the cost of creating safe Delimara site handling and storage for 500+ or more correctly do I recall 5000+ tonnes of toxic waste per annum? b. the cost of sealing waste in purpose designed waste containers? c. cost of specialised containers whether purchased or rented and cost of annual maintenance? d. annual cost of Bureau Varitas or similar certifying safe packaging of the waste and monitoring Health & Safety at site and vicinity? e. cost of shipping the waste -carriage, insurance and freight - by both sea and land transport to a safe certified disposal site? f. the cost of the actual processing and safe disposal of the toxic waste? g. cost of transporting empty containers back to Malta? Are these annual costs to the consumer amortised and included in the evaluation of the tender? If not why not and if not what is that 'on-cost' and the impact on the competitiveness of the winning tender vis other bidder's bids ? No doubt EneMalta's silence to these questions is inevitable. If an MP or even an MEP reads this, please ask a Parliamentary or Commission question - my permission granted free and for nothing.
tony abela
Mar 12th 2010, 18:05
Very Convenient! You referred to CO2 emissions ONLY, that is what comes out of the chimney, I assume.
Can you certify that the waste from Diesel (heavy fuel) and that from Gas is also comparable?
That is, can you certify that the total end pollution and environmental impact is also comparable?
Joseph V. Grech
Mar 12th 2010, 17:34
Dear Enemalta - I am not an engineer so I will not comment about engineering aspects.
But as a Citizen of this lovely archipelago may I ask one or two questions which I believe may have a bearing on the actual choice of the tender. From your explanation I gather that this aspect may have been simply forgotten:
If memory serves me right I read in the Media that the tender government wants to select will daily be producing MANY TONS - a sheer LOT - of dangerous POLLUTION which will be COLLECTED INTO TRUCKS, TRANSPORTED ACROSS VILLAGES AND OPEN COUNTRY TO PORT FROM WHERE IT WILL BE EXPORTED ABROAD - for a price of course.
Question 1: Will the same happen if either of the other two tenders is selected?
Government should select the tender which will produce the least pollution.
God forbid there may come a time when the country receiving our pollution may wish to stop acting as our Pollution Site or drastically UP fees....
Question 2: WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
Hopefully Enemalta or the Administration will reply to this Comment. Citizens have a right to be respected - at least where their health and environment are concerned!
John Debattista
Mar 12th 2010, 17:28
Liema l aktar wahda nadifa ghall ARJA kienet ser tkun ? Arja nadifa ghal Sahitna irridu.