The developers working on the Manwel Dimech Bridge are sticking to their May deadline as the "realistic" delivery date, and not March, which is the date given by the government.
Speaking during an onsite visit yesterday, the main architect in charge of the works, Malcolm Gingell, said his firm had submitted to the Malta Transport Authority (ADT) a revised plan of works which has the end of May as its deadline, and the company would be sticking to that deadline.
Earlier this month, The Times reported that the government and the contractor had reached an agreement on May, a delay of several months from the original plans.
Yet, the day after, the Roads Ministry issued a disclaimer, saying its communications coordinator had misinterpreted information, adding that the bridge should be open for traffic by the end of March.
When contacted, the spokesman had then said that the contractor and the ADT were in discussions about the date.
Yet, yesterday the contractor hardly left any elbowroom in his statements, with an Italian engineer from the consortium who was also on site, describing May as the "realistic date".
At first Mr Gingell was reluctant to discuss the matter, insisting that yesterday's press conference was a "technical visit" and not the ideal place to discuss the matter. Yet he complied eventually. The southbound carriageway currently under construction should be completed in the coming days and will be open next week, when work on the northbound carriageway (which will be then closed) will start, he said.
Mr Gingell refrained from discussing the delays on the same grounds he at first cited about the target date.
When it was pointed out that this was, in effect, a technical matter, he referred to the complexity of the project as justification for the delay.
The scaffolding used presented a number of challenges as did the technique used to take the old supporting structure apart, he said.
When pressed about the fact that they should have anticipated these difficulties, Mr Gingell said it was high time the public got to know that local contractors had "learnt to build bridges to such a high standard".
Their job, he complained, was made more difficult by the fact that everything had to be imported.
"Throughout we made sure to use the materials and methods that would give us the most durability," he stressed, putting the bridge lifespan at between 80 to 100 years for the deck and the supporting structure respectively.
"But the job is complicated by the fact that you have to import everything... If you change something it all takes so much longer than if you were in, say, Germany and have something delivered the next day."