Innovative and high-quality design projects are being sacrificed for puerile technicalities that have to be ticked off religiously when submitting tenders, according to architects and civil engineers.
Alex Torpiano, a partner at TBA Periti, recently expressed his frustration over the disqualification of his office’s entry in the Muża national gallery contest, which had been awarded the highest score by the technical jury. The reasons for the disqualification were purely administrative and bureaucratic.
Heritage Malta reminded TBA that the competition rules required the submission of a five-page text report. Prof. Torpiano explained that, because it was important for his branding concept, a picture was printed on the reverse of the text and a cover was added. Yet the administrative evaluation committee decided the submission was a 12-page report, in spite of there being only five pages of text.
Why have all these bureaucratic rules which hinder projects
Among other technicalities, Prof. Torpiano failed to submit an empty form as well as client satisfaction letters – he said he could not bring himself to ask the major players they had convinced to join the team, such as Metaphor and Local Projects, for proof that their clients were satisfied with their work.
“This is a normal occurrence for us,” Prof. Torpiano told Times of Malta.
“Tender after tender is burdened by a long list of small print and technicalities which trip contestants up. Why have all these bureaucratic rules which hinder projects as opposed to clear parameters?”
Architect Ray DeMicoli said he often encountered the same hurdles and appealed for adjudicators to be empowered to use the “common sense clause” and give less weighing to technicalities.
“Say you’re the cheapest but you missed out on a small detail – the government itself is losing out by not getting the best deal.
“You need to have boundaries on eligibility but there must be a way to have a certain degree of flexibility. Design is being sacrificed for box ticking.
“The situation has happened to us many times – now we’ve learnt to appoint a person solely in charge of ticking these boxes. And we still make mistakes.”
Heritage Malta CEO Kenneth Gambin said the information requested was required to enable the members of the jury or the evaluation committee to assess the compliance of bidders with respect to the published eligibility and technical criteria. Such processes were eventually examined thoroughly by auditors to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the evaluation processes.
“If the bid in question had to be dropped since it had missing information, it is therefore evident that such information was important.
“The rules and regulations governing this design contest were published in a design contest document. All participants signed a declaration whereby they ‘accept in full and in its entirety, the content of this Design Contest Brief [...]without reservation or restriction [...]any disagreement, contradiction, alteration or deviation shall lead to our tender offer not being considered any further.’”
In order for a project to be creative, he continued, it did not necessarily mean that it had to ignore the rules as stipulated in the design brief. Any bidder feeling aggrieved by any decision had the right to appeal.
Moreover, he added, the award criteria of this design contest were based on the principle of the “Most Economic Advantageous Tender”, whereby the winning bidder was assessed for both technical competency and price.
“This process is currently in the final phase and the financial offers have not as yet been opened. Consequently, anyone being awarded the highest marks for design is not automatically the eventual winner of the contest, since this finally depends on the financial offer.”