Consultant's conflict of interest on eLearning tender

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo on Monday asked a number of parliamentary questions on a public call for tenders M482/09 issued by MITA for an eLearning Solution for schools. He asked Communications Minister Austin Gatt to table a copy of a report through which the evaluation board was informed on December 10, 2009, that a consultant had commercial links with one of the companies that was a sub-contractor to one of the tenderers.

He also asked if the minister could table a copy of the board's decision to terminate the person's consultancy, and what investigations had been made to establish if the information supplied was correct or otherwise. If the commercial link between the consultant and one of the sub-contractors had been established, why had the process not been terminated?

Answering the questions, Dr Gatt said that IT Consulting Services UK Ltd, through an e-mail on December 10, 2009, had informed the evaluation board that "Laurie (McDonnel) is an Association Director of Futurelab, and towards the end of their bid the eLP+ Consortium had mentioned their intention to use ... as part of their delivery approach. My intention therefore is not to share any of the bids with Laurie and not to use Laurie on any of the bid-related activities ..."

On December 14, 2009, IT Consulting Services UK Ltd had been sent the following e-mail: "Further to your e-mail... in which you informed us of Mr O'Donnell's conflict of interest, we agree to your course of action not to share any information related to this tender with Mr O'Donnell, nor involve Mr O'Donnell in any activity related to the evaluation of the tender.

"In view of this situation, please be advised that the appointment of Mr O'Donnell as an advisor to the evaluation team... is revoked with immediate effect. We also would like to advise that Mr O'Donnell's involvement in the provision of consultancy services for e-Learning through the contract having reference 083/09 is also being terminated forthwith..."

Dr Gatt said the evaluation board had not informed the MITA Chief Executive of this conflict of interest, and it had been only in March 2010 that the CEO and, later, the board of directors had been made aware of the conflict of interest.

The minister said it was evident that Mr Bartolo was being misled by whoever was giving him information, because this person did not know that the MITA CEO had sent the report back to the board for further technical information, and the final report had been concluded in March 2010 and not December 2009. It did not take much to come to this conclusion, seeing the "amateurish" way in which the PQs were being worded.

Dr Gatt said he himself had ordered the reissue of the call for tenders on the same day the board of directors had informed him of the situation. As he had already said in reply to another parliamentary question, he had taken the decision before he knew who the tenderers were.

Concluding his reply, Dr Gatt said he was quoting facts, not speculating or asking rhetorical questions or mud-slinging without proof and substantiation. Every fact he had mentioned with regard to Mr Bartolo and Computer Domain was substantiated with documents written by Mr Bartolo himself, contrary to his allegation that the call for tenders had been cancelled because a government-favoured company had not been selected, or his other allegation that in the Second Step call for tenders a company very close to Dr Gatt was going to be selected. In actual fact the selected company had been Computer Domain, which was closest to Mr Bartolo.

Answering another question by Mr Bartolo on the same call for tenders, Dr Gatt said that politicians' interference during tender adjudication processes were both unlawful and unethical, and condemnable when done with the aim of helping a tenderer.

Mr Bartolo had asked what steps would be taken to ensure there would be no repetition of the mistake that consultants were chosen before tenderers were identified, so that consultants and companies would be well screened and there would be no conflict of interest as had happened in the case of this tender.

Dr Gatt said Malta's tendering process was regulated by the same laws and regulations as the rest of the EU, and was equivalent to any other process in the Union. The rules and regulations allowed no political interference by ministers, MPs or anybody else. The process gave very wide-ranging rights to whoever had any interest in the process, with the right to appeal before an independent tribunal at any stage.

Dr Gatt alleged that it was evident that Mr Bartolo and the opposition had a political interest that the process should not be allowed to proceed as it should.

With regard to the choice of consultants he thought there was no perfect methodology. Every system had its advantages and disadvantages, and while the method suggested by Mr Bartolo had its merits, a definite defect was that it protracted the process because even the second call would have to be made after a call for tenders.

Answering yet another question by Mr Bartolo, requesting the tabling of the evaluation board's and consultants' reports on the proposals submitted by the companies answering the same call for tenders, Dr Gatt said the contracting authorities must respect the confidential nature of all information given by the candidates.

Both the evaluation report and the consultants' report on the proposals made by companies answering the call for tenders included commercial, technical, sensitive and confidential information. The companies had submitted the information under condition of confidentiality.

Dr Gatt said that public statements and writings by Mr Bartolo about this and other tenders had shown that he had no scruples about meeting and talking to tenderers and discuss with them the progress and adjudication of such tenders. This was truly surprising because ethics and laws expected that politicians should stay away from trying to interfere or influence the tendering process.

It also appeared, said Dr Gatt, that Mr Bartolo also had access to documents used in the evaluation and adjudication process - documents which, he said, not even ministers had access to. It appeared that Mr Bartolo was not worried by the fact that such documents would have been stolen, circulated in breach of the law and every ethical rule. He added he would not be surprised if this information was being requested for ulterior motives in connection with the fact that the tender would have to be reissued. He therefore declined to give the information requested by Mr Bartolo.