I do not propose to comment on the Manwel Dimech Bridge, as volumes have already been said and written about the work on this bridge – apart from the fact that it is not for me to comment as to who is responsible for the inexplicable delay.

It is my firm belief that most of the infrastructural projects keep falling behind schedule (and this, at times, unduly so) owing to the fact that bona fide local building and civil engineering contractors, though equipped with the required and appropriate plant and equipment, more often than not seriously lack the proper skilled tradesmen and project managers for the particular projects

One also has to acknowledge the fact that certain projects are awarded to the wrong contractors. But then, this is a Maltese syndrome. Projects of a certain magnitude, be they civil engineering or building works, both in the public and in the private sectors are, more often than not, awarded to the cheapest bidder, irrespective of the track record and capabilities of the contractor.

Firstly, before awarding a contract, an intelligent client, be it the government or the private sector, must ensure that the shortlisted contractor is the right one for the job; secondly, the contractor should be allowed to make a fair and reasonable profit.

On government projects, some contractors (whom I normally refer to as “cowboys”) put in a bid that is cheaper than the estimated budget figures by, at times, 40 per cent. This notwithstanding, the authorities are ready to award such a contract, when they know perfectly well that delays and bad workmanship, and other inherent problems are bound to ensue. In such a situation, eyebrows are apt to rise, and rightly so, as will soft whispers that there might be some hidden agenda in the award of the tender.

It is unfortunate that one finds such a situation not only in building and civil engineering works, but also in bids for ancillary trades connected with the construction industry.

There is absolutely no shadow of a doubt that we have a few local building and civil engineering contractors, who are competent and capable of executing successfully projects of a certain magnitude (this has been amply shown in the past) if, however, they are given the right skilled labour force and good project management. As I have already indicated (and this is a matter of great regret), some contractors simply do not make the grade, while others are not likely ever to make the grade.

But again, this is Malta, and in this fair land of ours, building and civil engineering contractors are not even licensed to operate – let alone classified.

Am I correct in saying that, as a first step, the Building Industry Consultative Council together with the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors were, a long time ago, supposed to complete a list of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors who are operating in the construction industry?

I recall that years ago, there was a serious attempt to carry out a classification of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors. Regrettably, nothing was, however, implemented.

On large infrastructural projects it is not government practice to pre-qualify contractors who show interest in submitting offers – a practice that is however, in vigore in the private sector.

In the absence of a classification of contractors and a pre-qualification exercise for projects in excess of Lm250,000, the government had introduced the “Three Packet” system whereby all bidders irrespective of their track record, size and capabilities were free to submit offers.

Packet One – will contain a bid bond

Packet Two – will contain all information requested by the client in the tender document, but excluding any financial information.

Packet Three – will contain the priced bill of quantities

It is worth knowing that Packet Three would only be opened if the contractor had satisfied the adjudication board/contracts committee that the contractor had fully complied with all the instructions and requirements in Packet Two. Unless this was proven beyond doubt, Packet Three of the defaulting contractor would not be opened and the offer rejected.

In the absence of a pre-qualification exercise, this system is acceptable, provided, however, that while the contents of Packet Two are being adjudicated, everything is done above board, and zero tolerance is adopted in respect of those bidders who do not fully abide by the tender requirements, and who do not qualify for the project or works at issue.

It is my view that contractors who are substantially behind schedule in ongoing government projects should not be even considered to qualify for further projects, provided that such delays are found to be the fault of the contractors. After all, this is a requirement of EU financial regulations.

Furthermore, contractors who submit offers found to be 40 to 60 per cent below the budget estimate should not be considered for the project. Such a situation would clearly mean one of two things: either that the contractor has not understood the real commitments, or that he solely needs to enhance his book order. In either of these two cases it is the employer who will have to suffer the consequences at the end of it all.

Having said that, it is important that one ensures that the budget estimates are carried out in a mature and correct manner. They should not be off the mark by more than five per cent at most.

Finally, I wish to emphasise that a penalty for late completion presupposes a bonus for early completion of works. This is fair and reasonable.

Mr Xuereb was a building and civil engineering contractor and founder of the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors.