The House legal committee on Wednesday accepted President Nikos Christodoulides’ reasons for sending back to it a series of amendments to the law on public procurements, after the amendments had initially been approved by parliament last month.

Christodoulides’ letter to the committee had stated that the main reason for his sending back the law had been the amendments’ stipulation that any party which wishes to appeal the awarding of any given tender must submit a cash guarantee, the amount of which would be determined by the tenders review authority.

On Wednesday, the bill’s author, Disy MP Fotini Tsiridou, said the bill “provides for some safeguards”, and added that in collaboration with the treasury and the legal service, she had “simplified” the way the amount payable as a guarantee will be calculated.

That figure, she said, will correspond to one per cent of the value of the project for infrastructure projects, and €10,000 for other public contracts.

She added that the amount will be refunded upon the conclusion of the appeal.

A legal service representative, meanwhile, told the committee that the original bill had spoken “generally and vaguely” about the payment of a guarantee, “causing ambiguity which could be interpreted as posing an obstacle to access to justice”.

They also expressed concern about the one per cent figure, saying it may be “prohibitive”, and suggesting that it be reduced to 0.5 per cent.

At the end of the session, committee chairman and Disy MP Nicos Tornaritis said the committee had accepted Christodoulides’ rejection of the initial bill and added that a new text will be prepared.

Last month, Tsiridou had said her bill had been brought about to provide “safeguards” for public contracts, and added that many appeals against the awarding of public contracts are filed “maliciously”.

The bill passed through parliament on September 25, with 28 MPs voting in favour and one – Green Party MP Charalambos Theopemptou – voting against.

He had said at the time that “the essence of the problem lies not in appeals, but in the texts of the contracts themselves, which often contain gaps and ambiguities”.

As such, he said the government should train the officials who write and evaluate public contracts so that in future, they do not leave “holes” in them, which leave the government exposed to appeals.