Finance Minister reacts to Simed
In its reactions to Simed Internationals statements
on the tendering process for the supply of medical equipment to Mater
Dei hospital, the Ministry for Finance and Economic Services said the
Dutch company had double counted certain figures in the financial tables
it has presented to the press.
The Ministry said Simed, in its tables, had double counted the INSO
offer for the price of spare parts for five years: "Simed has taken
the price of EUR 22,3379,405 and added to the figure of EUR12,808,731
as spares," the Ministry said. "However, during the hearing
of the appeal, INSO officials confirmed more than once that their price
of EUR 22,337,405 includes a five-year maintenance and service agreement,
including spare parts. This is necessitated by the conditions in Appendix
10 of the tender document."
The Ministry also said Simed had not explained how it had quoted low
and unrealistic prices for the five-year maintenance and spare parts
agreement, which was quoted at EUR999,248, when no firm had quoted for
the same agreement for anything less than EUR5 million. The Ministry
said that quoting such figures would "naturally lead to low life
cycle costs, when in reality these cannot be as cheap."
"It was this lack of consistency which led the Foundation of Medical
Services and the Director-General of Contracts to decide that the choice
of tenderer would be based on the base of the offer, that is, the price
and quality of the medical apparatus."
The Ministry also said Simed had not informed the public that it had
not quoted the expense of five years of spare parts, and that it had
quoted the annual running costs of only 15 items out of 1,281 items:
"These two factors reveal serious shortcomings in the Simed offer,
which shows why their offer in terms of spare parts was so low."
The Minister of Finance also said there was no evidence within the Appeals
Board report that INSO had been disqualified from the Appeals Board
and that clarification exercise with the company had been declared abusive
and illegal. "Primarily, the Board did not agree with certain changes
INSO had carried out in the exercise. If the Board wanted to disqualify
INSOs tender, it would have said so, as it did in the case of
"Finally, the 90 per cent compliance of INSO quoted by this Ministry
is correct and reflects the level of acceptance which INSO achieved
without any changes in equipment. It is a fact that there are around
200 items that have not been covered by the clarification exercise yet.
The decision that these items were not to be covered by the exercise
was based on the value as well as the minimal importance of these items.
The choice of INSO Spa was good and just."