The restoration of the Uncontrolled Waste Disposal Sites (uncontrolled waste disposal sites) of the Limassol District (except for the Uncontrolled Waste Disposal Site in Vati) is entering new adventures after the cancellation of the offer by the Tender Review Authority.
The company CYFIELD ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING PUBLIC LIMITED had appealed to the Authority putting forward five reasons in favour of the cancellation of the tender, three of which were accepted. The tender entitled "Restoration and subsequent care of the uncontrolled waste disposal sites (uncontrolled waste disposal sites) of the Limassol District (except the uncontrolled waste disposal site in Vati)" had been awarded to a company for €6,100,000 plus VAT.
It is noted that Cyprus is obliged to restore the inactive Uncontrolled Waste Disposal Sites (UNCEs), in accordance with its commitments to the European Union Directives and especially Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of Waste, to limit the production of methane from landfills, including uncontrolled and semi-uncontrolled landfills.
The uncontrolled landfills of the Limassol District (except Vati) ceased their operation in 2012.
As part of the project, contaminated surface soil will be removed, the waste disposal site will be rehabilitated, work will be carried out on waste disposal sites and a drainage network will be created.
According to the Report of Facts, the Tender was announced on 14.05.2025. The procedure was open and the award criterion was the most economically advantageous bid based on price, while the estimated value of the Tender was set at the amount of €5,300,000.
The evaluation of the tenders was carried out by the Evaluation Committee during the meetings of 20.06.2025 and 27.06.2025. The Evaluation Committee, after examining the tenders submitted by four economic operators and seeking the clarifications it deemed necessary, prepared the Evaluation Report of the date. 15.07.2025, which it forwarded to the Tender Board.
The Tenders Board at its meeting dated. 25.07.2025 decided to adopt the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee and award the Contract to the Successful Tenderer for the amount of €6,100,000 plus VAT.
The tenderers were informed of the decision of the Contracting Authority by letter of the last date. 31.07.2025, resulting in the registration by CYFIELD of an appeal against the decision of the Water Development Department.
The Reviewing Authority, examining CYFIELD's position that the project was of a higher category and not category C, (in which case the company to which the tender was awarded had to be excluded because it did not meet the criteria) also records in its decision the following: It is obvious that if the Contracting Authority (Water Development Department) had carried out the appropriate investigation, it would have realized that the technical project declared by the Successful Tenderer did not meet the requirements of the relevant term, as long as it is not of the same or higher Category/Class as that of the Competition.
Furthermore, with regard to the second ground invoked by CYFIELD in order to request the annulment of the tender (relating to the experience of the main expert of the company to which the tender was awarded), the Reviewing Authority observes: 'There is no need to extend the amount of the difference in the deviation in view of the Contracting Authority's admission (at the hearing) that there is indeed approximately 8 months left in the matter of the expert's professional experience from the 6 years of professional experience experience in technical projects, which the term required".
On the same issue, the Reviewing Authority records: "We also do not exclude the finding of the Contracting Authority that the Successful Tenderer's bid met the condition to be the product of error, taking into account the alleged, erroneous of course, position of the Contracting Authority that the project of this Tender was Class C.
Moreover, at another point in the decision, the Revision records: If the Contracting Authority had carried out the proper investigation, it is expected that it would have realized that the Successful Tenderer was burdened with the conviction dated 22/5/2025 in the context of a Criminal Case before the Larnaca District Court, for issuing a check without a counterpart, which is a reason for exclusion for committing serious professional misconduct.
