The Court of Appeal has overruled a decision made by the Public Contracts Review Board regarding a tender given, ordering the board to review the case again.  

On November 15, 2013, Transport Malta issued a call for tenders for the provision of vehicle and pedestrian restraint systems and various metal works. Three companies put themselves forward. B Grima and Sons had the lowest offer of 71,900 euros. Road Maintenance Services Ltd and a third applicant with €72,426.50 and €74,615 respectively.

On 14 February 2014, Transport Malta sent an email stating that Grima and Sons bid “has not been accepted by Transport Malta as it was not the cheapest bid and it ranked second”. Grima and Sons then informed Transport Malta their bid was, in fact, the cheapest offer. Less than an hour later, the Director of Grima and Sons received another email that read;” “it was not technically compliant in relation to Article 16.1(d) of the Instructions to Tenderers and as required by article 6.1.12. The minimum value of projects of a similar nature completed was less than the required € 50,000 per annum”.

The Appellant requested that the Court annul the Board’s decision on the basis that a number of basic and fundamental rights of Grima and Sons were ignored and to annul the decision based on the validity of the second email.

On February 21 2014. Grima and Sons filed an appeal in front of the Review Board. On April 29, the board found in favour of Transport Malta, recommending that the deposit paid by Grima and Sons be reimbursed.

The Court of Appeal accepted the plea from Grima and Sons regarding the validity of the Review Board decision given on April 29, thereby cancelling it and ordering the board to review the case and properly investigate with emphasis on the procedural rights of the parties involved. The Court however denied the appellants request regarding the validity of the second email.