CBBB wrote:Hatter wrote:CBBB wrote:Hatter wrote:Get Real! wrote:Hatter wrote:Get Real! wrote:Found out today that the area to be used for the project is actually the Military Police base ("sagies" we called them) which have since been relocated. This brings back memories when I was arrested by them (ages ago) given a brutal haircut and thrown in the slammer for two days!
The area to be used for the project includes the land on which the Technical School currently stands. The area in total is, by Nicosia standards, a very large contiguous area. Even on the assumption that the project in question is the best use of the land, the process by which the project was awarded is dubious. No tenders were invited.
I’m not privy to any of the details of this project so I really can’t make ANY comments about that other than remind that this Qatar agreement is an old one going back at least two years that I recall reading about it, so
it is safe to assume for now that any tender invitations may have happened ages ago.
GR, It is not safe to assume anything of the sort.
No tenders were invited.
It is a good thing no tenders were invited, it means the Government doesn't have to evaluate them which takes forever and when the do decide any unsuccessful tenderer will put in an objection and delay the process for many more years.
See this latest example from yesterdays Cyprus Mail:
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/nicos ... d/20100425
So let's do away with due legal processes because they take time? Is that what you are proposing CBBB?
BTW, the article you quoted can only mean one thing: that there is prima facia grounds for appeal. If the selection process was clean, fair and transparent, other parties would not waste their time and money to appeal against the decision. Checks and balances, CBBB, are necessary, Whereas in urgent or emergency situations a process could be accelerated or abbreviated, this case is hardly an urgent situation, as it was in preparation, reportedly, for a couple of years.
Also, if this deal is so good for Cyprus why have no details been published? As for the 400M Euros, apparently Cy Gov will throw in a few million Euros (200M I think, but am not sure of the exact figure) which they will raise by external borrowing. Spin doctoring is one thing, but this "investment" project thus far is not smelling of roses.
I am saying the tender process should be abolished for Government contracts, but when an unsuccessful bidder appeals, this should not stop the award of the contract to the chosen supplier. The appeal should be investigated and if problems are found in the original evaluation, some form of compensation should be paid. How many large government projects have ended up costing 3 or 4 times the original budget due to appeals which have dragged the process out by many years? I know of loads, and not just those that appear in the papers.
Anyway, when someone appeals against the award of a tender it normally just means their brown envelope wasn't as fat as the winner's!
Seems like treating the symptoms instead of the real problem. Let's leave aside for the moment, the question of "if there is no ITT, how do competing suppliers get the chance to bid". Do you really mean carte blanche to whoever is in office to award without due process and accountability, since the worst thing that could happen would be some sort of "compensation" and the initial award of the contract goes ahead, unfettered? This is so open to abuse, worse than the (admittedly imperfect) ITT process. So if appeals by, say 30, unsuccesful bidders are upheld, does each one get "some form of compensation"? Could be a nice little earner for some, I guess. Heck, there could even be hedge funds built on this. Meanwhile, the cypriot taxpayer foots the bill!
If there are cases that because of appeals end up costing a great deal more in terms of maney and/or time, it can only mean that in those cases the letter and spirit of the law wasn't followed to begin with, and those responsible should be held to account (no pun intended).
You seem to speak from (I hope not bitter) experience, are the cases you mention that ended up costing 3 or 4 times more because of appeals the norm or the exception? We know that "brown envelopes" exist, but I am sure they are not recognised as grounds for legitimate appeals.
More transparency and accountability is needed, not less.
