Evans Building decision robs Malta of a perfectly compliant quality bid – Eden Leisure CEO

The Public Contracts Review Board’s annulment of a concession for the development of Evans Building has “robbed the country of a perfectly compliant quality bid”, Eden Leisure CEO Simon De Cesare said.

“Clearly, we are extremely disappointed with the decision provided by the PCRB,” Mr De Cesare told MaltaCEOs.mt.

“It was evident to this Board that the proof submitted showed that our bid made it very clear that our overall bid was of €78 million and not of €1.2 million. The RFP clearly outlined the procedure in which a clarification could be requested and that is the correct direction the Evaluation Committee took.”

“Overturning this decision essentially robs the country of a perfectly compliant quality bid that was offering a concession fee of €37 million more than that of the next bidder who will essentially be awarded this concession by a newly formed Evaluation Committee.”

“We are discussing our next steps however we strongly feel that we have perfectly good grounds to appeal this decision to the courts.”

Valletta Luxury Projects, a consortium composed of Eden Leisure and Iniala owner Mark Weingard, had won a competitive bid to develop the Valletta building in 2024 with a proposal to bring luxury hotel brand Anantara to Malta’s shores.

However, two rival bidders – Iconic Hotel Malta -Nobu (composed of European School of English, which forms part of the Bianchi family’s holdings and Arrigo Group of Hotels Limited), and Katari Hospitality (involving GAP Group’s Paul Attard) – filed an appeal. 

The Public Contracts Review Board scrapped the concession after finding that Valletta Luxury Projects submitted a financial offer of €1.2 million, which was lower than the minimum bid and lower than any competing bid. 

This was despite Valletta Luxury Projects having argued that the figure only referred to the annual concession fee, which would have amounted to €78 million over the 65-year concession period. 

The tender evaluation committee had dismissed the €1.2 million figure listed for the 65-year total as a clerical error, noting that other sections of VLP’s bid consistently cited €78 million. 

However, the Board overturned this decision, arguing that the committee had altered VLP’s bid in violation of procurement law. It ordered the reevaluation of the tender and completely disqualified VLP from the process.

In a statement following the Board’s decision, VLP said its bid was clearly the strongest proposal in the competitive process, having achieved full marks across all qualitative evaluation criteria. 

The consortium added that its proposal was by far the most advantageous for Malta, with an offer €37 million higher than the second-placed bid that, based on historical CPI projections, would have equated to over €100 million in additional value for the country over the 65-year period.

“The issue at the centre of this decision arises from a mathematical error on the front page of the submission,” it said. 

“Malta stands to lose more than €100 million because the highest-scoring and highest-value bid has been rejected over a mathematical error, despite the financial commitment being clearly demonstrated throughout the tender documentation.”

“We firmly believe that public procurement should prioritise both fairness and the long-term interests of the country. Rejecting the strongest technical proposal and the most financially beneficial offer on this basis risks depriving Malta of substantial economic value and an exceptional hospitality project for Valletta.”

“For these reasons, we will now pursue our legal rights through the courts so that this matter can be properly reviewed.”