Audit points to irregularity in bid for Evans Building

A leading independent audit firm has concluded that the bidder currently set to secure the concession of Evans Building in Valletta may have manipulated its financial statements to meet the tender’s stringent eligibility criteria, a claim the company rejects.

According to the auditors, the changes to the company’s accounts were not only substantial but also suspiciously timed. The report notes that these financial restatements were carried out immediately after the government extended the bid submission deadline.

“Our report highlights that, prima facie and subject to the limitations outlined, Plan Property Holdings Ltd (Katari) did not follow prescribed accounting standards and policies in the recognition and disclosure of specific adjustments, as well as in the restatement of financial statements,” the auditors concluded.

The findings, contained in a report titled ‘Review of the Financial Statements of Plan Property Holdings (formerly Katari Holding Ltd) for the years ended 2018–2021,’ raise concerns about the integrity of the bidding process for the multi-million-euro project.

The report, seen by The Shift, indicates that without a series of last-minute adjustments, the company would likely have been disqualified from the tender altogether.

“These restatements appear, from their timing, to have enabled the company to satisfy certain financial requirements in the Request for Proposals.”

Contacted by The Shift, Paul Attard, owner of the Plan Property Holdings (behind the Katari bid), rejected the claims “in absolute and categorical terms”.

While acknowledging that amendments to financial statements were permissible by law, Attard stated that “all amendments were accepted and registered by the Malta Business Registry, the competent authority responsible for the scrutiny and registration of company financial statements.”

He added that the author of the audit report confirmed under oath that no numerical errors were identified and that the substance of the financial data used by Katari was not questioned.

Attard further said that Katari never requested an extension of time and maintained that his company has always been fully compliant with the tender’s selection criteria.

The controversy comes at a critical stage in the evaluation process.

In a recent ruling, the government-appointed Public Contracts Review Board (PCRB) disqualified two competing bids, Valletta Luxury Projects and Iconic Hotels Malta – Nobu, but stopped short of cancelling the process entirely.

Instead, it ordered a fresh evaluation by a newly appointed board, a move that effectively strengthens Attard’s position in the race for the 65-year concession.

The Shift is informed that rival bidders are likely to challenge the PCRB’s decision before the Court of Appeal, potentially prolonging an already contentious process.

Attard is the secretary general of the Malta Development Association and associated with the powerful GAP developers group. He is represented by lawyer Ryan Pace, a former associate in Prime Minister Robert Abela’s private legal office who currently holds multiple government retainers.

The auditor’s report corroborates investigations by The Shift, based on official records filed with the Malta Business Registry, which revealed that Katari Hospitality was the only bidder among seven contenders to amend its financial statements following the government’s unexpected extension of the submission deadline.

These accounts were critical in determining whether bidders met the financial and technical thresholds required by the tender.

According to The Shift’s findings, none of the other bidders made similar amendments following the extension. Katari stressed in its responses to The Shift that it had never requested an extension, which it said was confirmed under oath by the Contracting Authority’s representative.

“Katari is, and has always been, fully compliant with the tender’s selection criteria,” the company said.

Questions were also directed to the Office of the Prime Minister, which was overseeing the evaluation process, to explain the sudden need for a last-minute extension. The OPM did not reply.