A court has ordered the Cospicua council to restart the adjudication of a cleaning contract as the chosen contractor would “inevitably” pay employees less than the minimum wage.
In upholding a Contracts Revision Board decision, the court said the council should eliminate those who did not meet requirements and start the process afresh considering only those who submitted valid bids.
The Appeals Court, presided over by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri sitting with Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, was deciding on an appeal filed by V&A Services Ltd.
The court heard that, last October, the local council had issued a call for tenders to clean public roads. The contractor had to carry out road sweeping between Monday and Saturday and should engage at least three full-time employees.
V&A Services Ltd, Silvar Construction and Services Ltd and Raymond Attard were among those that submitted bids.
As is normal practice, the council chose the cheapest offer and awarded the contract to Mr Attard. V&A appealed, claiming Mr Attard’s rates were so low it was “inevitable” he would resort to precarious employment.
The Contracts Revision Board upheld the appeal, ruling that Mr Attard infringed the conditions of a government circular on precarious work issued in July last year.
Moreover, it ruled that he did not satisfy the minimum number of employees condition.
“It was evidently clear that the preferred bidder’s offer included precarious rates, which are unacceptable in all respects,” the board concluded
V&A disagreed with the board’s recommendation for a new call and filed an appeal claiming the board should have ordered the exclusion of the bidders that did not meet the requirements.
The Appeals Court heard Mr Attard argue that he had not been informed about the new directives on precarious employment, adding that the board had been right to annul the bid so a fresh offer would take the directive into consideration.
The local council argued that precarious work meant employees were not given job security for an indefinite period of time, rather than workers not receiving the minimum wage. It disagreed with the board’s conclusion that the chosen bid had an element of precarious work.
However, in its judgment, the Appeals Court said the board’s calculations – showing Mr Attard could not afford to pay three full-time workers unless it was below the minimum wage, given the rates he listed – were “correct”.
It revoked the recommendation to issue a fresh call for tenders and, instead, ordered the council to eliminate bidders that did not meet the requirements and continue the adjudication of the contract with those that did.