Tenders

The question of the IT package for the Mater Dei Hospital is only the tip of the iceberg. Although it is only fair to let the courts do their duty in their investigation and eventual trial of any suspect, the administrative problems that ensued are, and should be, a matter of discussion. What is evident is that the rules about tenders, although initially considered stringent enough, are proving to be liable to circumvention.

When there is proof that the system is liable to abuse, it must be changed. What is worse is that ours is a small country, and consequently friendships and acquaintances do count more than in other countries, where anonymity prevails.

These last few days a number of American officials were convicted for their corrupt practices in the reconstruction of Iraq. Money spent by American citizens was finding its way into the pockets of corrupt officials who were spending them on luxury cars and better terraces and swimming pools in their homes. There is also a big question about some $120 billion which are not accounted for. At the same time it is being argued that the American soldiers on the ground lack bare military essentials.

The scenario is slightly different from ours. In Iraq, where everything is upside down, the niceties of proper administration may be a useless addendum. But where there is a settled community, then public finances are the concern of all. Money spent should be spent well and in a transparent manner.

Now we are hearing that there is some talk about giving the IT package as a direct order, given the "urgency" of the situation. If that is the argument, then the emergency ward of Mater Dei Hospital has already been inaugurated and functioning, and the first case is to treat the IT package itself. Is this proper under present rules of assigning government contracts? Are we in line with EU regulations, if they mean anything when the government is involved?

As far as I know, there has been a very suspicious system of bypassing the tender system. Contracts are split into smaller units, and these are then assigned by "direct order". When the government itself shows that its own rules can be holed, then there should be no clamour when individuals find other ways and means to beat the system.

Adjudication

With all due respect to all persons who have served on adjudicating boards for public tenders, I would suggest that the question of their election should be different. When the composition of the board is known or anticipated, then there is the first possibility of "influence".

The question of price may be indicative of the benefit to the government, but what are the safeguards?

The preliminary stage of the drafting of the tender may be as crucial as the adjudication itself. Let me explain myself better. If the conditions are such that they are tailor-made to fit a particular participant, then the adjudicating board, however chosen, will have the parameters by which they have to abide. Divine inspiration will not be necessary to choose the one and only offer which complies with all the conditions.

The system may appear above board, but the intricacies that go behind the scenes would have conditioned the choice in such a way that there is no real competition.

If past experience at Mater Dei Hospital proves anything, then even an adjudication may mean only the initial step to complications which are not anticipated by the government side but which are part of the package of the bidder. Once Government is committed, then at a later stage the costs are inflated and there is no turning back by the government.

The whole story of the Mater Dei Hospital should be an eye-opener for a radical reform of the system of government contracts. Definitely I would not advocate the all-powerful minister who can decide who should do a particular job for the government. But when the system creaks, then there should be a thorough re-thinking on how it should function.

My doubt

I read in a local newspaper that the Attorney General may suggest that the whole IT package tender be aborted. This is another aspect I do not like. The Attorney General has a constitutional function: he has the sole power to indict for crimes. What if the "administrative solution" suggested by the Attorney General breeds some form of illegality, which is liable to prosecution?

We have heard it too often that a particular line has been followed "on the advice of the Attorney General". No doubt is cast on the integrity of the holders, past and present, of that office. My doubt is regarding the mixture of roles. As you may appreciate, I am basing my comment on a press report which was "hypothetical". But the fact remains that there should be another system to monitor the legal aspects when problems arise. The hands of the Attorney General should be absolutely free to prosecute if the need arises.