UPDATE: Labour says EC investigation unrelated to irregularities in Auditor General's report on Delimara
Proposal to be submitted to the College of Commissioners at the earliest possible date for infringement proceedings against Malta to be closed on Delimara procurement.
Adds Labour reaction 5:48pm.
The Maltese government has announced it was informed by the European Commission that, following its analysis of its reply to a letter of formal notice on emission law changes that allegedly benefitted a firm in the award of the €200 million Delimara power station contract, a proposal is to be submitted for infringement procedures to be closed.
“A proposal is to be submitted to the College of Commissioners at the earliest possible date for these infringement proceedings against Malta to be closed,” the Department of Information said.
In a reaction, Labour said the European Commission had not investigated any of the irregularities in the Delimara procurement process that had been mentioned in the Auditor General’s report. “In its letter of formal notice to the government, the EC did not say it would investigate the irregularities outlined by the Auditor General and only those aspects that might have contravened EU law.”
In its letter of formal notice, the Commission had claimed that changes in emission laws in 2008 had been made a few days before the expiry of the deadline for the receipt of the final bids for the Delimara power station extension. “The change was not necessary to comply with European legislation as the Maltese authorities seemed to indicate [but] to benefit one of the exceptions to the applicability of the Large Combustion Plant Directive,” the Commission said.
It added that the new emission limits only applied to diesel engines and not to gas power plants, meaning this disadvantaged a bid by Israeli firm Bateman, which was proposing a cheaper, gas technology.
The DOI today said the Commission had analysed both the report of the Auditor General of April 2010 and Malta’s reply dated 4 August 2010.
In its reply to the EC, the government said it had changed the legislation (emission from large combustion plants) on 4 January 2008 and sent all short-listed candidates for the Delimara turbine extension a clarification notice on 7 January 2008.
The government also said the clarification notice extended the period for submission of final bids and provided for a further session of negotiations “with a view to allowing all bidders to update their positions in the light of the amended legislation.”
“The modifications… [were] not an arbitrary or discriminatory change in technical specifications by Enemalta, but was on the contrary a lawful rectifications necessitated by the change in national legislation.”
In the letter, signed by foreign minister Tonio Borg, the government said that none of the bidders lodged an action before the Courts of Malta as they were entitled to do if they felt that their right to an effective review under the Public Contract Regulations had in any way been prejudiced.
"Bateman Litwin lodged a judicial protest and a counter protest lodged in reply by the authorities... [but] the protest lodged by Bateman was never followed by a formal legal action by either Bateman or the other bidders... in fact there has not been any attempt by a bidder or any person having an interest in the contract to try to halt the signing or the execution of this contract."
Labour reaction
On its part, Labour said that in its report, the EC did not investigate how the change in emissions law was made on the instigation of BWSC "so that it could qualify for the contract and eventually win it. Nor did it investigate the boasts of the BWSC agent that he had high-level political contacts that could win him the contract.”
Labour added that other allegations not within the EC investigation’s remit was the BWSC’s agent previous work for consultants Lahmeyer, who evaluated the bids; and the government’s policy change to go for heavy fuel oil instead.
"The Auditor General found a number of irregularities that should have warranted the reissue of the tender, but that he had no conclusive proof of corruption because of the lack of cooperation from central figures. If the government has nothing to hide on the BWSC contract, it has to allow the Public Accounts Committee to listen to all witnesses who can throw light on the award of this contract."













