Once the political dust about the donations (or otherwise) from the db Group to the PN has settled, perhaps we will be able to take a step back to consider the wider implications of what has been happening in this country, not just under this administration but under the previous ones too.
The entire system of public procurement is so terribly flawed that it is hard to know whether it can ever be repaired. In spite of EU directives and scrutiny by the Auditor General, in spite of attempts to instil governance, the system is clearly not working.
What is the ideal outcome? That the government identifies a need, allows those in the field to come up with the best ideas, assesses their offers in terms of short and long-term impact, ensures sustainability, and negotiates hard.
It is not rocket science. It applies as much to buying a can of tomatoes in a supermarket as it does to a wastewater plant. The perfect market works on the basis of choice as a way to stir up competitive juices which dampen the negative forces of greed and short-term profits.
In theory, that is what the government should do. But the system has failed on a number of occasions. The first failing is when there is only one bidder. In a ‘take it or leave it’ situation, how are taxpayers going to be reassured that they are getting the best technology, at the best price, and for a reasonable period?
This was the case in the contract for an IT system to take over utility billing: only one bidder, and you only have to say ‘tamper proof’ smart meters to raise eyebrows, never mind the other delays and fabulous functionalities that have not yet materialised.
The second failing is when there is no bidder, as happened with the logistics hub. Instead of trying to assess why such a lucrative site should not be appealing enough to justify the €25,000 tender documents, it re-issued the same bid. This is akin to advertising a car in The Sunday Times of Malta for weeks without getting any nibbles and putting the next advert in at exactly the same price with exactly the same wording. It is either utterly stupid – or sinister.
The third failing is when the bids are manipulated to fit, whether by pre-tailoring the specifications or by tinkering with the price, as when a wastewater plant contract was chopped up to fit the budget, akin to buying the car chassis and body to be able to afford it, but then having to pay separately for the engine and wheels to be able to use it.
The fourth failing is when the bidder is chosen and the price established – but the credit terms are so favourable that the winner is basically getting it for free, as has happened with the ITS site (which was also compromised in the first place by having only one bid).
Serious companies in Malta – and their overseas partners – have long shrugged and accepted that some contracts are simply not really up for grabs. They just do not bother to bid. It is like a vacancy within your company when someone has already been boasting on their FB page about getting the position and the advert is just going through the motions to comply with the collective agreement.
The implications of this are profound and go well beyond bloggers and politicians and parties trying to score off each other. It means we the taxpayers are paying more than we should and getting shoddier products, while those who managed to manipulate the system to their benefit are laughing all the way to the bank.