An appraisal of review processes under Maltese public procurement legislation

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to look at the remedies available under Maltese Public Procurement legislation and analyse in which ways these remedies satisfy the main objectives of EU Remedies Directives. The main objectives as introduced by the last Remedies Directive, that is, Directive 2007/66/EC, is to have more rapid and effective remedies throughout the whole European Union. The transposition in Maltese legislation has introduced the standstill period as well as other time limits during which effective and rapid remedies can be granted to aggrieved bidders. The following lists the most salient findings of this study: The Director of Contracts having a dual role, that is, an administrative role and a quasi-judicial; in the sense that the main role of the Director of Contracts is an administrative role being responsible of the Department of Contracts, in addition, the Director of Contracts is also responsible to give pre-contractual remedies, rendering him a quasi-judicial review body. The Public Contracts Review Board being the review body at second instance. The composition and the competence of the Public Contracts Review Board are discussed and criticised in order to analyse whether remedies granted by it are in fact rapid and effective. The Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) reviews appeals at third instance, which appeals come before it from decision of both the Director of Contracts and the Public Contracts Review Board. The Directive 2014/23/EU as regulating award of concessions and amending the Remedies Directives and the way in which concessions are regulated at present under domestic legislation, since this Directive has not yet been transposed into national legislation.