Lands Department employees are concerned over what seems to be a new policy on the issuing of tenders for government property which, in their own words “lessens transparency and could open doors to corruption”.
The issue is mainly about the fact that when tenders are issued in the Government Gazette and on the Government Property Division website, the minimum value of the property as established by an architect is not always being included in the notice. This paper, in fact, noted that in one particular issue of the Government Gazette published on 25 March, only two out of 11 tender notices included the minimum required bid.
A number of sources who spoke to this paper said that the same issue had been remedied in the past, when measures to increase transparency were introduced. But the situation has “gone back to square one”.
One source explained that, first and foremost, not including the minimum value is not fair on those bidding for the property because they will be “bidding in the dark”. It could potentially also lead to favouritism because no one, apart from Government Property Division employees will know the true value of the property. This is also the reason why a second measure was introduced – that of depositing the architect’s value, and valuation method, inside the tender box. This eliminated the possibility of having department officials, or indeed the architect himself, from changing the amounts to suit the needs of some individual. However, the architect’s valuation is also rarely being deposited inside the tender box.
Ministry confirms changes in policy, says there is a valid reason
In reply to questions sent by this paper, the Planning and Simplification Ministry, which until last week was headed by Parliamentary Secretary Michael Farrugia, confirmed that the value of the property is not published in cases where only one person is interested in acquiring the property. A spokesperson explained that, in many cases when only one individual was bidding on a property, they simply matched the minimum amount without going any higher. The architect’s valuation is, in fact, only published when more than one person is interested in the same property. On the other hand, a copy of the architect’s valuation is deposited in the tender box when only one individual is interested, but this measure is discarded when more than one person is interested.
But our sources insisted that the ministry’s reasoning was all wrong. “First of all, how can the Lands Department even know that only one person will bid on the property? It is true that most processes are initiated by an individual, but once the property is advertised there are usually a number of bidders. And if they did, what sense does it make to publish the whole thing in the Government Gazette?”
Another explained that having just one bidder is rarely the case and usually, this only happens when the property in question is some small side-garden or a garage. “Besides,” explained the source, “it is not even true that bidders just match the minimum amount. Persons who are really interested in acquiring a property usually bid all they can afford to make sure that they get it. There were even instances when we were surprised by the values coming in from different people on the same tender.”
Claims of interference by Ministry officials
In its reply, the Planning Ministry said that despite the fact that the valuation was always published under the previous legislation, the Tender Committee was nonetheless given “free rein to not only decide not to concur with the value given by the architect, but to choose which properties were to be disposed of, and also negotiate with the eventual tender winner. In fact, a number of properties were awarded after major amendments to the value were made. Under the current administration, the Tender Committee has been restricted to the duties which strictly pertain solely to it, namely of evaluating the tender submitted in relation to the call for tenders which had been made.”
Our sources denied that the previous Tender Committee was given a “free rein” and also insisted that it had never forced major changes to property values. The sources also complained about the “round the clock presence” of senior officials from Parliamentary Secretary Michael Farrugia’s private secretariat. They claimed that a representative of Dr Farrugia, Joseph Victor Muscat, “practically lives” at the Lands Department offices, and even has an office there.
And John Sciberras, a former Lands Director General who was boarded out some years ago and now serves as a consultant to the Office of the Prime Minister, also “pays very regular visits to the Lands Department”, with sources insisting that he is very much involved in what goes on.
Sources said it seems that Ministry officials are even interfering, or rather pressuring Tender Committee members. “There are basically two tender committees, an official and an unofficial one. The unofficial one is an internal committee made up of three senior officials. Their job is to decide which government properties should be sold or rented out, but sometimes they even decide on the value of the property and whether it should be sold or rented out. A report is then presented to the official Tender Committee, whose decisions are sometimes taken by the unofficial committee. The actual committee is being overruled by the other.” They also insisted that Dr Farrugia’s representative attends the official Tender Committee meetings when, as the voice for the Parliamentary Secretary, he should not.
Employees afraid they will be dragged into trouble
“All this is concerning a number of employees, as well as members of the Tender Committee, who fear that they could be dragged into trouble.” They also complained that, while it has policies, the Lands Department has no direction whatsoever.
However, the Parliamentary Secretariat denied these claims and insisted that “Joseph Victor Muscat does not attend the Tender Committee meetings. John Sciberras is not involved in the administration or running of the Lands Department.” The spokesperson also denied outside interference and insisted that “all decisions on who is awarded the tender are taken by the Tender Committee.”