Failed bidders carrying out ‘mud-slinging’ campaign
Reference is made to the article ‘Failed bidders not giving up without a fight’, published last Wednesday in your paper.
The award of the Contract for the new generating plant to BWSC was publicly notified by the Department of Contracts through a notice on their notice board and website. This is in accordance with the established procedure applicable to all public tenders and which all tenderers (and their local agents) know about.
The implication that Bateman were not notified and had no opportunity to appeal is unfounded. They were notified as were all the other bidders and interested parties including Enemalta Corporation through this public notice, and if, as they are claiming, they only found out about the award after enquiring with Enemalta, this reflects a disappointing lack of attention on their part or the part of their local agent.
The article implies that the CCGT plant proposed by Bateman would emit considerably lower amounts of CO2 than the selected plant. This is not backed by the performance data guaranteed by the bidders in their bids. The CCGT plant emits marginally less CO2, and in fact the difference between the two technologies, based on the stipulated operating regime, is less than 10% of the overall CO2 emission reduction from the new plant compared to the existing plant that it will replace.
The comparison of the operating costs was carried out as clearly stated in the tender, based on the actual fuels available for operation. Any comparison of the costs of operation of the CCGT plant on gas are totally fictitious as gas is not available and would not be available before 2016 at the earliest.
The financial analysis was based on conversion of the diesel engines in that year, and took into account the costs of this conversion. However despite what Bateman may claim, the massive additional cost of operation of their gas turbines on gasoil (diesel) for the period between 2012 and 2016 far outweighs any advantage gained by the change of fuel to gas, as the diesel engines would similarly use gas (if and when this becomes available).
Bateman are trying to imply that the costs of operation of the diesel engine plant are higher than their proposed plant, but this is not borne out by the facts, as when all the costs are considered, as was the case for the evaluation, the diesel engines are less expensive to operate and conform to the emission limits stipulated by use of best available technology.
The operating and maintenance costs of the plant including the emissions reduction equipment have all been taken into account in the financial analysis, and Enemalta once again reiterates that the emission levels stipulated in the tender were mandatory conditions to which all bidders complied.
The article claims that the diesel engine plant will take up so much space that there will not be space for future expansion. This is not true. The Bateman plant will take up about 4000m3 of the main site, whilst the BWSC plant will take up about 4900m3 also on the main site leaving 6600m3 for future phases. Similarly it is stated that the BWSC plant will produce 90 tonnes of solid and hazardous waste. Again this is not true, the amount produced is expected to be about 28 tonnes and is mostly gypsum and particulates from fuel combustion. These particulates are the same as those produced by all combustion plants, including the existing boilers, and gas turbines and road vehicles, and are being collected by dust filters.
Bateman are alleging some improper act in their so-called ‘leaked Enemalta email’. This is completely false, as Enemalta had every right in terms of the conditions of the published tender, of which all the bidders were aware of, to short list the bidders based on an evaluation of the bids, and to negotiate with the short listed bidders with the aim of reaching agreement on the technical and commercial terms of the bid. In fact had the rest of the email been quoted, this would have become apparent, as would have been the fact that none of the bids had been rejected, but of course this would have been counter to Bateman’s statement. It is also misleading to state even now that Bateman’s bid was rejected. It was not rejected, it was quite simply not competitive and its overall ranking, based on the award criteria published with the tender, was the lowest of the three bidders which were evaluated as being technically compliant. The award was made to the bid obtaining the highest ranking.
The article makes the point that Bateman have finally registered a judicial protest, however had they felt that the tender specification or the evaluation criteria were biased against them, they could have objected at any time during the process since November 2007. They could have objected after the results of the technical evaluation report were published on the Department of Contracts notice board in December 2008, and any time before they submitted their final offer in February 2009, apart from the legally stipulated ten days following public notification of the award on the Department of Contracts notice board. The fact that they choose not to take up any of these opportunities to object or appeal the decisions taken, which the law provides, does not of course preclude any other legal action, but does tend to cast doubt on the integrity of their position and statements.
It is an undeniable fact that in any contest such as a public tender, there will be a winner and losers, and it is unfortunate that losers tend in some cases to carry out a public mud-slinging campaign rather than accept defeat.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
