Reference is made to the article entitled ‘Lessons from the Genova bridge collapse’ carried in your newspaper of 19th August 2018, and specifically to the following extract:
“A recent decision by the Public Contracts Review Board is cause for concern. The award of the contract for the building and finishing of a health centre in Paola was halted by this Board after serious doubts regarding the evaluation procedure were raised. In fact, two professionals (an engineer and an architect) were identified as being simultaneously advisors to the Health Ministry’s Foundation for Medical Services as well as to two of the three tenderers. It is, in my opinion, very difficult to understand how nobody at the Foundation for Medical Services was aware of this glaring conflict of interest. Good governance is apparently not the Foundation’s strong point. Now that the Public Contracts Review Board has decided the case, I would expect that the professional bodies regulating the professionals involved take appropriate action on what is clearly a very serious breach of professional ethics.”
The Council of the Kamra tal-Periti (Chamber of Architects) has reviewed the matters of the case, including the PCRB’s report and testimony given by the perit (architect) in question to the Council under oath, and has concluded that the article is incorrect in stating that the architect was “simultaneously” advising the FMS and the tenderer, since the services provided by the architect to FMS were concluded in April 2016, while the tender was published on 19th July 2017.
It must also be noted that the PCRB stated that, in the context of the case, a “conflict of interest” would represent “a conflict between the public duty and private interests of an official, whose participation in a public project could improperly influence the performance of his duties and/or affect the outcome of a particular public activity.” At the time of submission of the tender, the architect concerned was not a public official, and therefore such conflict could not arise.
Furthermore, the Council notes the PCRB’s conclusion that it “is credibly convinced that the inclusion of the latter as a “Key Expert” in the Appellant’s offer does create a conflict of interest and does grant an advantage to the latter’s offer”. The Council notes that, according to the PCRB, the conflict of interest was created by the tenderer’s inclusion of the architect as one of its Key Experts, and not by the architect’s acceptance to be included as one of the Key Experts.
The Council notes that there is no evidence that there the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
Simone Vella Lenicker
President, Kamra tal-Periti