Illegal and non-transparent in some of its parameters, considered the summary tender announced by the Municipality of Kythera for the desalination units in Agia Pelagia and Diakofti, the Authority for the Examination of Preliminary Objections (AEPP).
AEPP intervened in the procedure, following objections submitted by two companies against the contract installation of portable desalination plants on the island, judging that all the actions of the contracting entity (Municipality of Kythera) do not comply with the character of urgency. This is a fairly expensive project, initial cost 1.387.096,77 euro, not including VAT 24% and - as a result - it is a serious question how tenders are carried out in these cases, under the responsibility of the public authorities.
The Municipality itself, it argues, with his recent statement, that the whole procedure of urgency, dictated by the existing conditions of water scarcity in Kythera and the ominous, about them, estimates of the National Observatory of Athens for the amount of rainfall on the island, characterising the decision of AEPP as «legally perforated». It invokes the existing legislation to justify the emergency procedures it chose, through the short-listing procedure it used. It considers, moreover, that, in matters of transparency, this type of tender is no different from an open tender.
It is, however, on this delicate point, where AEPP bases its arguments, as it charges the Municipal Authority of Kythera that it chose this type of tender in derogation of the legislation, the short-term and urgent nature of which does not correspond to the. This is for two reasons. On the one hand, the tender study itself dates back to October 2019 (newspaper «Kytheria», August issue, p.9). And on the other hand, the duration of the contract is set until 2023, «an object that is by no means of a short-term nature, intended to address urgent and immediate short-term needs, nor is it obviously a temporary or relevant installation (AEPP decision, p.7)...»
In essence, AEPP says that, regardless of the correctness of the existing legislation on urgent procedure, are the actions of the contracting authority (Municipality of Kythera) itself, which, by extending over a long period of time, negate that same character of urgency. In addition, it is the actions of the contracting authority, which negate the character of the short-lived nature of the contract, which «is also evident from individual works of the object, tree planting and landscaping and construction of a permanent, concrete base (AEPP decision, p. 7)...»
AEPP, in short, tells us that the Municipal Authority has designed a project with a long time horizon, to serve given urgent needs, citing legislation that requires short-term use of the project. And all this, why? To resort to a specific procedure for selecting candidates. And this is where the Authority raises and transparency issues, since by opting for a restricted tender procedure, the deadlines for submitting tenders are «shortened», apparently to the detriment of interested companies, while charging the Municipality with vague selection, evaluation and award criteria. In fact, some of the clarifications of the criteria were not published (by the municipality) as part of the regulatory content of the procedure, but were communicated only to some of the companies that appealed, thus not making them binding on all of them.
Here, one could not rule out an intention to bias in favour of some candidates and «button up» this category in the selection of the shortlist.
This is exactly where the article of the newspaper «Kytheria», entitled «Judicial... “blockade” for the 3 desalination plants» (August 2021, p.9), in which the author contrasts the existing portable desalination plants Antikythira and Tinos, with the first, even though it's half the capacity, ends up costing twice as much.
At this point, some questions could be put to the Municipality of Kythera:
- Why did he give permanence to a project for which he himself invoked conditions of urgency?;
- Why did it not define a clear dividing line between the evaluation and award elements?;
- Why, in the end, did he resort to the shortlisting process, when the lengthy bureaucratic procedures that he himself invokes, left him the scope to consider more candidates (and in greater depth) through an open competition?;
- For what reasons, does the Municipality characterize the decision of AEPP, «legally perforated»?;
- How can you explain the high cost of the existing portable desalination plant in Antikythera, compared to similar plants on other islands?;
Finally - and because a municipality is not composed only of the majority party - the complete absence of any reaction from the opposition is surprising. It should be remembered here that the decision of the AEPP is known since July 13, while, for 10 days, the newspaper «Kytheria» has been published, with an extensive article on the case.
Beyond the Municipal Authority, and the municipal councillors of major and minor opposition, are invited to take a stand. That is, after all, why they have been elected. To control power.
Tomorrow, we will be back with more details and information about the competition.
