The Ministry for Gozo has categorically denied what it says are unfounded allegations made during a speech by the leader of the opposition Dr Alfred Sant in an activity held by the MLP on the 27th May 2007, in connection with the awarding of a tender relating to lighting during the organisation of Lejlet Lapsi Notte Gozitana.

“The offers submitted following a tender issued by the Ministry for Gozo calling for bidders in connection with lighting required by the organisers of Lejlet Lapsi Notte Gozitana, were adjudicated by a specially appointed professional and trustable board consisting of representatives of both ministries organising the event, as well as technical and artistic professionals.”

“Josef Azzopardi, who was finally awarded the contract, was the cheapest bidder in three out of eight sites whilst proposing the second cheapest bids for the remaining five sites.

Consequently, the company providing the first cheapest bid for the remaining five of eight sites was asked to provide a detailed breakdown of itemised prices as well as information regarding the brand names and model number of each item proposed to be used, in line with clause 13 of the said tender.

On viewing the information and details of the equipment provided by this same company in this regard, the adjudicating board noted several shortcomings on two categories: the first based on a technical level where the information and details submitted were too generic and in some cases incomplete and/or missing; and the second on a more generic level where it was even noted that different prices were quoted for the same equipment. Thus Josef Azzopardi was awarded the contract for lighting during the activity in question since he had proposed the most eligible offer.

The other company involved appealed this decision and after a case was duly opened and studied by the Board of Contracts, it was declined. This confirmed that the decision taken by the adjudication board regarding the awarding of this contract were just.

It is true that Josef Azzopardi had started certain works, but these were effected on three sites which were not included in the appeal made by the company in question.

Thus, had this appeal been accepted, the company making the appeal would not have been eligible to undertake these works because it had never applied to do them in the first place.”