Divergent views on whether public call is a must

The government's decision not to call an international design competition for the new Parliament House could be in breach of European Union regulations if the handpicked architect's fee exceeds public procurement thresholds.

Urban Development and Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett has asked architect Richard England to draw up a feasibility study on whether the former Opera House site is sufficient to house Parliament's requirements.

EU council directives and secondary legislation dealing with public procurement lay down that a service rendered to a government by a private entity which exceeds €154,014 (roughly Lm65,500) must be advertised in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC).

In the case of contracts of work, the threshold is of €5,923,624 (about Lm2,500,000).

According to Mr Mugliett, the estimated cost of a new Parliament House would be in the Lm22 million region and Prof. England has already been paid Lm400,000 for his services related to designs of City Gate, Freedom Square and the bus terminus, including the transformation of the Opera House site into a cultural centre.

EU rules on public procurement exist to ensure the free movement of goods and services within the EU and so that public sector purchasing decisions are based on value for money achieved through competition.

Answering questions sent by The Times, a spokesman for the Urban Development and Roads Ministry said Prof. England's new assignment was "merely a continuation of work carried out according to a contract signed in 1996, eight years before Malta's accession to the EU".

"It was only obvious to continue using the services of Prof. England on a contract for service that was still active," the spokesman said, arguing this meant no new public call was necessary.

The spokesman confirmed that a fee for Prof. England's new proposals still needs to be negotiated. "The ministry is supporting the architect for the preparation of designs and estimates for this project. On this basis, the architect's fee will be negotiated," the spokesman said.

In a letter to The Times, theatre studies lecturer and historian Vicki Ann Cremona pointed out that building a Parliament and not a theatre meant that the original brief had changed and that a public design competition was necessary as Malta was now a member of the EU.

The Times asked Lawrence Mintoff, president of the Malta Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers, whether it was correct to state that having new plans for the site implied that there was a new brief which was different to what was specified in the contract awarded to Prof. England in 1996.

"That's the case, absolutely," Mr Mintoff said. "There is no reason why the government did not issue a design competition. Nor was there any reason to appoint the same architect," he said.

The government's argument that issuing a design competition would be an unnecessary waste of time did not hold, Mr Mintoff said, since "six or eight months would not have made any difference".

The chamber had said it was its mission to ensure that the culture of open design competitions was encouraged in the country. "This is all the more relevant when the nature of the project is of this scale and national importance, as only through efficiently run design competitions can the best solution for the most prominent site of our capital city be achieved," it said.

In the case of the proposed heritage park of Mnajdra and Hagar Qim, an international design competition had been launched according to regulations laid down by the International Union of Architects (UIA). "The same should have been done in the case of the proposed Parliament House," Mr Mintoff said.

In the case of the heritage park, an international board made up of three Maltese and four foreign architects awarded first prize to Swiss architect Walter Hunziger last May. The competition had been launched by Mr Mugliett, then Minister for Youth and the Arts, in autumn 2003.