clr/1988/1988_3_2265.pdf

(1988)the project, with anyof theother 16prequalified, asaforesaid, foreign firms.Hence this recourse. Held, annulling thesubjudice decision:

(1)There isnowhere to be foundareasoning inthedecisionoftheSpecial Committee why theapplicants,whogaveanimpressive listofprojects carried outbythem,did not 5 meetthecriteriasetbythem.

(2)There wasnomaterialbefore theCourtastowhatthetermsofreferenceoftheSpecial Committeewere,andifthey wereentitled tosetthecriteriathey decided toapply forthe selection oftheconsulting firms forprequalification. 10

(3)There wasnoindicationthatcriteria,asthoseapplied,weretobeappliedindetermining thepreselection.

(4)Iffollows that the subjudice decision must be annulled onthe grounds that the respondents failed to(a)carry outaproper inquiry as regardstheprojects that hadbeencarried outby theapplicants,and (b)give 15 theirreasoning forreaching theirdecision toexcludethem for prequalificationoncenonoticeorinformation was giventothemastothecriteriaon whichtheirapplication was tobeconsidered. Subiudicedecisionannulled. £100.-costsagainst respondents. 20 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents whereby the applicants were informed that they were prequalified for submission of tenders for the Paphos Tourism Development Plan on the condition that they should cooperate with one of the prequalified 25 16 foreign firms. G. Cacoyannis, for the applicants. N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 2266 30 3 C.L.R. 5 Colakides & Associates v. Republic DEMETRIADES J.read thefollowing judgment.Thefirst applicants areapartnership of Architectsand Civil Engineers.The second andthirdapplicants,whoarean Architect andaCivilEngineer respectively, are the partners of the first applicants. The fourth applicants in this recourse are a body incorporated in Greece,which carries,inter alia,theprofession ofEngineers,Architects andConsultantsfor tourismdevelopment andplanning. As it appears from the documents in the file of the case, the facts of thepresentrecourseare: 10 15 2Q Atits meeting of the4th January, 1984,theCouncil ofMinisters, by their decision No.24.053,decided toapprove theprocedurefor theprequalification of firms which weretobeinvited to submittendersfor thepreparationof atechnoeconomic study for thetourist development of the District of Paphos.As aresult,an invitation for tenders waspublished intheOfficial Gazetteofthe Republic on the-3rd February, 1984,and the local press. At the sametime,noticeoftheinvitation wasgiven through theMinistry of Foreign Affairs totheEmbassiesof anumberofcountriesand tofirms that weresuggested by International Organizations.The notification published andcirculated appears in Appendix2tothe Opposition andreads: "NOTIFICATION PAPHOSTOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREQUALIFICATION OF CONSULTANTS 25 30 TheGovernment of Cyprus,theCyprusTourism Organization and the Cyprus Development Bank invite applications from consulting firmsqualified andexperienced in undertaking comprehensive tourism development plans and interested in being prequalified for tendering for thecaptioned project. The prequalified firms will subsequently be furnished with the Termsof Reference and will beinvited togive afull proposal of their servicesincludingquotationsof their fees. 2267 Demetriades J. Colakides &Associates v. Republic

(1988)Consultingfirmsinterestedinbeingprequalified mayobtain general information of the study to be undertaken and on the itemstobeincluded intheprequalification applicationfrom: Director-General CyprusTourism Organization P.O.Box 4535,TLX 2165 CYTOUR Tel.: 021-43374 Nicosia -CYPRUS. 5 Applications for prequalification must reach the DirectorGeneral, CyprusTourism Organization by the 31.3.1984." 10 Onthe30thMarch, 1984,thefirst andfourth applicants, inresponse to the above notification and after they were supplied by thesecondrespondents with adocument whichis headed: "PAPHOSTOURISMDEVELOPMENTPLAN INVITATION FORPREQUALIFICATION OFCONSULTANTS" 15 applied for prequalification. This document is appended to my judgment as Appendix "A"anditcontains instructions andother information toconsultingfirmsinterested inbeing prequalified. The "Paphos Tourism Development Plan" shall bereferred to, 20 hereinafter, asthe "project". The application of the applicants wasaddressed to the second respondents. It is Appendix "B"to therecourse and for the purposeof myjudgment Iconsider it necessary tocopy it in its full text.Itreads: "With reference to notification No. 286, published in the Cyprus Gazette of February 3, 1984,we would like to apply, on behalf of ourselves and our associates, Messrs. Frank E. Basil, Inc. - Consulting Engineers, Athens, Greece, for prequalification for thePaphosTourismDevelopment Plan. 2268 25 30 3 C.L.R. 5 Colakides & Associates v..Republic Demetriades J. The experience of Messrs. Frank E. Basil, Inc. in the execution of studies of similar nature in several parts of Greece andothercountries,asdetailed intheenclosedpamphlet, with the title 'Paphos Tourism Development Plan', combined with our experience in the design and construction supervision of somerof thetbiggest tourist projects in Cyprus, is, we believe, arecommendation for such a prequalification. Messrs.Frank E^Basil^Inc. have undertaken and completed thefollowing studies: 10 1. TheTouristDevelopment of theIsland ofCrete. 2.The Tourist Development of the Alentejo Region in South"ern Portugal. , , „ 3. Master Plan and General Development for theTourist and EconomicDevelopment of theIsland ofCrete. 15 4.Master Plan and Feasibility Study for theTourist DevelopmentofFleves Island (off theAttica Coast)inGreece. 5'. Master Plan for theDevelopment of the Afandou Area, on theisland of Rhodes,Greece. -' 20 6.Project Olympia (aregional conservation and development programme for the general and economic development of theOlympic area in Western Peloponnissos). 7.Porto Carras Resort,Development Plan. 8.Tourist Development Study of the Cassiopi Area in Corfu, Greece. 25 9.TouristDevelopment Study,Zopheria, Spetsai,Greece. 10.Tourist Development Kakouri, Corinth,Greece. 2269 Demetriades J. Colakides & Associates v. Republic

(1988)A.Theroleof the Paphosregion within theframework of the overall tourist development planof Cyprus. B.Thetypeoftourists aimedtobeattractedtoPaphos. C.Determination tothemaximum capacity of theregion,considering allpertinent factors, including theproposed image tobeestablished (exclusive,or masstourism). 5 D. Type of facilities desired, traditional hotels,camping sites, motels, holiday villages, flats/villas for rent or for sale, time-sharing units,etc. 3.Market Analysis: 3 10 A.Origin -Destination analysisof Mediterranean tourism. B. Present tourism traffic toCyprus. C. Types of tourists, mode of transport, types of desired accommodations. D. Comparison with the tourist flow pattern in the islands of Crete, Rhodes and Corfu. J5 E. Preparation of a probable tourist market profile for thePaphosregion within thecontextoftourism toCyprusin general. •4.Preparation of theDevelopment Programme: A.Preparation of anoverallmaster plan which willdetermine:

(1)Type,capacity and locationofhotel facilities.

(2)Type,capacity and location of other type of tourist accommodations. 2272 20 3*m:R. aColakides &>iAs9ociat«SvMRcpubiic y berhetri&es j. ! ot3vG(Qf|IiFypei(aa£acityto £ 5 10 QJ βί .bsisqmq sd

(4)Basic infrastructure requirements, including roads, sd γΒΓπ ri^tospfjo^tf-rffe^ -siq lo niasta1laii0fls.rioi052 oJBvhq aril χό bsinsfnsiqmi .lOihim jnarrmsvnr

(5)Ancillary facilities, such as Marinas,additional airport facilities, shopping areairHe^lth^faciliiiePUnd^other support services. :si60ilqrn niΙΙΠΜΕΓΠgniwolloi tirii«riizobns me,sW

(6)Priorityareas andscheduleof implementation. -bivoiq 'nijl^ JnsrnqoisvsG mzhuoTgoriqr,*! Jolriqmfiq arIT.1 B. Evaluario^%3rivlr3fe of design criteria,legislative policy andprotectionstandards. .emit \\,o \o aturiooid sriT X C. Cost estimate for the realization of the above programme, within apre-determinedtimeframe'and^valuatior^of local andnationalbenefits cost/benefit evaluation. rne^iIUOsldena Iliw h-jiiqqua noiJfirmoini sr'ijisrij lauti aW 5*>Ppeparatk>ri'ot<amastepplah for'a ^n^nfy'deVtfeinftefil firea. -aQ ίπζπυοΤ zoriqi;^ orii nogijizoqoiq bslifiiab iuo uov oi Toinclude: -ΠβΝirramqobv A. Selectio^in-'collaboration with theappropriate Government ^authonties^df'in^area^tb tie-developed first. 0^ 20 ci tefcEstablisfiemeT^ £ b3]fiioqq£ bfu! aiSJginiM lo IionuoO fril .rioiJfiortfOiiJpaiq ιοί 5iIC?^paranonfof»ihfe m^sfeYplan forVfieTpropo^^. i f i b 5 c l g -BsinjsgiO mznuoT ztnqyO odl Ίο -ωοΐΉΟ rnanuoT JZIH Ίο iioq 2SD:)PrepMtioh;of!cohceptplans'foralPmajoTfacilities.^^ n o h sd oi stubaanq srii adoi babtoobaiswiniM"loiionuoDoriiifiriw OJ ^lEiiEStaWish-mght'ofdesign criteriiand parameters.y-6 ^/offot -itesiavz grrnflrforriwOJ ?echains nwo zii wo iaz MttimrnoOaril F. Preparauah^f^basla study for thisparticular project -2rrnilJoriJ STOWoaJiimmcOarliyd JUOiax chamosriT • G. identification of particular bankable projects within thepri- Demetriades J. Colakides & Associates v. Republic

(1988)ority area for which detailed feasibility studies will haveto be prepared.

1. Identification of projects throughout theregion,which may be implemented by the private sector, preparation of preinvestment studies. 5
2. Implementation'programme. Weareenclosing thefollowing materal intriplicate: 1.The pamphlet 'Paphos Tourism Development Plan' providing the background of Messrs. Frank E. Basil,Inc. 2.The brochure of our firm. 10
3. TheC.V. 'sof our staff. We trust that theinformation supplied willenableour team toprequalify, in which case we shall be pleased to submit to you our detailed proposals on the Paphos Tourism Development Plan. Yours sincerely, COLAKIDES &ASSOCIATES" For the purpose of the selection of the firms that had applied for prequalification, the Council of Ministers had appointed a Special Committee presided by Mrs. Fr. Michael, who held the 20 post of First Tourism Officer of the Cyprus Tourism Organization. Although thereisnothing inthefile of theadministration as towhattheCouncil of Ministersdecided tobetheprocedure tobe followed by the Special Committee in the selection of the firms, the Committee setout itsown criteria astowhichfirmswereeli- 25 gible for prequalification for tendering for the project. Thecriteria setout bytheCommitteewerethatfirms- 2274 15 3 C.L.R. 5 Colakides & Associates v. Republic Demetriades J. (a)hadtoshow that thestudiesthat they hadcarried outrelated toplans/programs of Touristic Development -and not simply to TownPlanning orgeneral Development -on anational orperipheral areaoran area which wascomparable tothePaphos District and which has to include the element of an integrated development approach; (b)hadtohaveprepared atleast two

(2)similar studies,oneof which after 1977. 10 15 20 25 30 The Committee considered criterion (b)as an advantage, asit considereditindicativeof therecent experience and qualityof the studyof thefirmand,also,asan indication ofdemand for its services. Sixty-nine

(69)Consulting firms interested in being prequalified applied buttheCommitteedecided thatonlynineteen

(19)of them satisfied the above criteria. The Committee then considered these nineteen

(19)firms in more detail and it further evaluated themonthebasisofcertain othercriteria after anumberof marks was allocated toeach oneof them.Thesecriteria and the number of marks corresponding to each one of them appear in detail in part 4 of Appendix C to the Opposition. In this respect, five markswereallocated tofirms which hadprepared three studiesor more in 1977or after. On thebasisof thisevaluation, the Special Committee suggested to theTender Board the selection for prequalification of seven

(7)firms which concentrated more than70 marks.Allof them were foreign firms, and their names appearin part 5of Appendix C to'the Opposition. Three"of thesefirms had Cypriot associates whilst theremaining 4 wereforeign firms applying on theirown. Atits meetings which were heldon the 16th and 24th August, 1984,theCentralTender Boarddiscussed thematterand decided toadopt therecommendations of theSpecial Committee astothe selection of the7firmswhichconcentrated over 70marks.Italso decided torefer thematter totheMinisterial Committee of Tenders for final decision, suggesting that adecision had to be made 2275 Demetriades J. Colakides & Associates v. Republic

(1988)r as to whethe lociO- ^Timw lor i_ ^ r iii^i.qoi ; -π" -.·η ίο /.".nc· ί τί hit• inarnc.ivoG 'πο.'υι ν» amr/mi^ ην/Ό.' , The,problem of. the.Cypript consultants,none,of,whom,was 5 addressed to the Minister of Finance, in which it was suggested that it should be broughuo theattentioaof the preselected firms that theirco-operation with Cypnot Consultants would be considered as an advantage. : , „ ''JII; . ' N ntt'•><• if' '.-ΜΤ-ΙΠΟboi l '. - w . rirnnT· ·'''" At its meeting of the 11th September, 1984, the Ministerial., in canon: ^ ; , .(a)All foreign firms which concentratedover 60 marks (16in , number) on condition that they·co-operate with Cyprus,· Consultants. . JT . . . - · , „ , , . . ιSV-vLtlv/j^lji.j. ·' '... - -ib.wirn nijirnii 'J I;J'.. '-'3ri· (b) The Cypnot firms which showed interest,provided,that, •nifeiP^W w l t h ί?π? ?ί JhP*Bf/IT;-P^FJi^f¥TO.7 . , (Appendix Ζ ' ) . f , , r τ, ^ π ο d - J f i 0 O I 2 - , i b , M r , , ^ l J 0 ^ U . - P Π The Director-Generalof.theCyprus Tourism Organization was^ ° informed of the aforesaid decision by letter dated the 13th Sep- 20 tember, 1984, and he then, by letter-dated the 19th December,· 1984, informed thefirst applicants thatthey wereprequalified for submission of tenders on condition that,they should cooperate' with one of the 16prequalified foreign firrns (amongst which ap­ plicant No. 4 was notincluded). . ., 25 By their letter dated the9th January, 1985, thefirst applicants asked the second respondents toinform them why,theirjoint ap­ plication with the fourth'applicants was separated whilst other. joint application's were approved jointly, and why their partners' (fourth applicants) were notpreselected. They also informed the 30 second respondents that it was difficult for them to co-operate with thepreselected foreign firms since many of them had already 2276 - L 3 C.L.R. Colakides .'&/Associates w. Republic local co-operates. Demetriades.J._ .3πο mioj spondents informed the first applicants of theprocedure that.had u r 11 J t_ ι. Ρ •i n ·· J o y ιΟ/Ι01ΐσθ*.>Π03 been followed by the Special .Committee; that the decision was -, -,__. appli cants were by this letter also informed ;that they-nad been prese­ lected together with three other.Cypriot-Consultants on thcsame condition andMnat.it was possible thatmot.all of the 16 foreign tr JfUlFMlft ΐΟ3ΐΓΠ0Π'.ΊΠ JflJ lO nOMlilOIV ill D3l'J£ ,υΠΟ ΙΠΙΟϊ JO firms had Cypnot associates. notoii?iJnafijbriiicriJ sipspilanfi oiijlo *ai«[arjp3 sriinniixuiiiaJi .By letter dated the 14th February., 1985, addressed to the second respondents, the first.applicants.reverted to the.matteragain , rtl 01 -jjiaannocrisi nnooiis am iuT5?U3l υπΊ "'.oKif.-sinoryaiii mo*;t IJSJIO ?.i requesting^ior an answer to,their question since their application, for prequalification was addressed to them and requested, once 15 again, to know the reasons why,their partners were rejected. The ••nKi^rlftot/ioriioan.iiriiJiilj brri. fionii'jitiifiuinTairArrjariTJOf.iaz second respondents replied that thejoint application of the appliMiiw.siinSno-o:) variiΊν/Π nombpob no ϊΓΛιοιίαπί.'.ΠΐΜ,i>fll fi» nod „, cants had been repeatedly considered,by,the Special Committee and its report, which was confidential, had been submitted to the lender Board. The first applicants finally, by telegram informed 20 lastdatefor submitting tenders) they would take legal action. . t orij icrf] nuo'J arnaipac: sm <α tyjnmb nssa yiDOissq3i < ..1 il -jfjoifAitiaiJK *jd νcm j:oi<ior;b.io n u tiviiir;tym!rnV: η, NJ«»«ιί^ο*"οι As there was no reply to their telegram, the applicants filed the n r Oi ?irh iRriJ hna nnitimiriinpfca ?ril -+,o ^J&Vorii n: itri-yBrn v u rr-.οτΐ Di> present recourse on the 8th.April, 1985, and,.at the same time, '.joD tri-i rtc-'zrjsb "ίοκκ. JV'jni^tmV'bJi.nK njiw Vi.*:nyn. Ιυπili< 25 applied for a provisional order for the.stay of theoperation of the_ subjudice decision until final determination of thematter. The application for provisional order was·dismissed by me on the 3rd July, 1985, and the decision is.to be found t as Colakides & Asso, r c/aru oana Others v. The*Republic and Others,

(1985)3 C.L.R. 30 178n' l n<JUiZ0'¥i<> '·>& biiu J Z . U O J U ^rti oi banouJic &w nmi zin^w -JBrfi bnfl I.Ksoibnsqc ·. ^If I have correctly understood the prayers to the recourse of the τη.πηί?κ)ίιϊ3 am nt sntnozfisi Rfifiuoi κι r;7aisnwon 2i »"isri)(β) j applicants, these can be summanzea as.follows: _ ρ. . ... -J3i 1Ι3Π]ni onw ,2JiiE0iiqqfi em ynw soriimrnoJ Ι ,ιυ?αΛ om f · Γ \ ' Τ Ϊ . Ι »νΓ?3ν:ΐφί ίΐ'ΐ,νΛ';: ,-! :°I 'ί'.ηΓΜ.,ί'ΓιΓ γ:ίί\ο i3l (a) The respondents failed to consider their application as a 1r* ' - γJ jai ϋπ'Λΐιο ortj ;*>jrn J^-I bib .rnoni vc« u o oSirM ' i»jjoL 1 ? ; 227.7. r Demetriades J. Colakides &Associates v. Republic

(1988)joint one. (b)That in failing todo so,therespondents acted underamisconception of fact. (c)That thedecision oftherespondents not totreat theirapplication asajoint oneisnotdulyreasoned, and 5 (d)That therespondents, infailing totreat theapplication asa joint one,acted inviolation oftheprincipleofequality. Regarding thecomplaint oftheapplicants that their application was nottreated asajointone,Ifind thatthereisnomerit initasit is clear from the contents of theletter of the second respondents, 10 dated the 19th December, 1984,that the Special Committee did consider theapplication submitted byall theapplicantsbutdid not select them for prequalification and thatthedecision for theselection of the first applicants on condition that they co-operate with oneoftheforeign firms that hadbeen selectedforprequalification 15 was taken by theMinisterial Committee. However, Ifeel that themattercannot rest here. It has repeatedly been decided by the Supreme Court that the reasoning of an administrative actordecision may be supplemented from thematerial in thefiles of theadministration and that this 20 Court will not interfere with anadministrative actordecision ifit finds that on the material before it it wasreasonably open to the administration toreach thesubjudice decision. In the present case, having carefully gone through the documents that are attached to therecourse and theopposition toit as 25 Appendices,Ifind that(

1. a)thereis nowhere to be found areasoning inthedecision of the Special Committee why theapplicants,whointheirletterof the 30th March, 1984,gavean impressive listof projects carried out by them, did not meet the criteria set by 30 2278 3 C.L.R. Colakides & Associates v. Republic Ί > . t· . . •" • '•' . Demetriades J. .: ' them; • 5 - . . " · - · Μ ; \ Ι . . i -. , . (b)thereis nomaterial before meas towhat thetermsof refer. enceof the Special Committeewere, and if they wereentit­ led to set thecriteria they decided toapply for the selection of theconsulting firms for prequalification; and, (
2. c)therewas noindication eitherin the Notification which is earlier mentionedin thisjudgment, or in thepamphletgiv­ ing information toapplicants thatcriteria as.those decided by theCommitteeweretobe applied for their preselection. 10 15 Inthe light of my above findings, I have come to theconclu­ sion thatthepresent recourse must succeed andthesubjudice de­ cision must be annulledon thegrounds thattherespondents failed to (
3. a)carry out a proper inquiry as regards' the projects that had been carried out by theapplicants,and(b)give theirreasoning for reaching their decision toexclude themfor prequalification once no noticeor information was given to them as to the criteria on which their application was tobe considered. In theresult, therecourse succeeds. 20 The respondents to pay £100.- towards thecosts of the applicants. Subjudice decisionannulled, Respondents topay £100- costs. 2 5 PAPHOS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN INVITATION FOR PREQUALIFICATION OF CONSULTANTS Introduction The Government of Cyprus wishes to engage a firm of Con­ sultants to prepare a Tourism development study for thePaphos region. 2279 Demetnades J. Colakides & Associates v. Republic (19S8) Paphos is the second largest district of Cyprus located onthe opulation „. ,__,_._„ , ,._ coastal belt and an upland hinterland with a mainly rural character and an ** "D'-Lbiraniιοί vigcifi 01IMDIWD \.o.i'M-ism;>-Γϋψι oiotti ,. economy supported mainly by agriculture. In thelast few years 5 ,.T)he;oor>/;oi?iKuo3iq>'i - ^ " 9nni"^rioa3iiT'<•' . . many new hotels andhotel apartmentsas wellas otherresidential buildings have been constructed mainly in the coastal area and there is much pressure for further tounst development..The pur• > j-jiiic'nf^Tcij at 10 ^nsmnpfJi :-•/ j η .oanonrfbrn ι^πικ;» Γ pose of the Study is to establish the basis for tourism develop- r •l-jbl&ufa r'a βποΐΐϊΑΑβιν 8ίΠΕ·".απι, ·ι που<:σπ(ΓΓπ' '"' mentor thearea up to,1996by ensunng thattourist-development 10 is incomplete harmony with thenaturalenvironment andcultural heritage of,thearea anditenhancesthequality of life., .. ,, . ,.'-<> 'irll 01 3ΓΓΙ00 Wf · >-\r<' : ' . - J •' " ' r I :') ' Π £ Ι Ι iff J " 1 Thebasic objectives of the study would be toappraise the 1171pactoi existing tounst development,undertakeaninvestigation or" market prospects, assess the potential obsorption capacity of the 15 region, set desired development targets, policies,and strategies, propose appropriate type of accommodation,preparera tourism, development programme, idemify^prionty, areas,prepare,a.master, plan for apriority area andidentify and suggestbankable projects to be undertaken by thepublic orprivate sectoror jointly andfor- on mulate andassess specific project tobe selected tofull feasibility stage. , , lT ϊ The study will be financed with Cyprus Government funds. Arjplicadpns for^requalificatipn^shall be prepared and submit­ ted in accordance with thefollowing: Name and Address of Applicant: The^plicaTit sKaWnaicate fits full and proper-liarriVaiid ad­ dress to which' alPcorrespondence is ίο be sent. Information of the company should be'included,'as well as a CV of theManag­ ing Director,members of the Board of Directors and.Associates.; - 30 .>-> 1 i o rp-<Ft H · > τ ; κ 2 π ^ ' , T ^ ' ^ Ι Λ ' Ο ~< 'f 'J\ '0/ ι'^ΟίΐΓ Studies of similar extent, and, nature. Only applications from consultants exprerienced in the execuji tion of studies of a similar naturewill be considered. The appli2280 25 3 C.L.R. Colakides & Associates v..Republic Demetriades J. similar (a)thenatureof theservices provided, -arfeifrftS9gBfi^M»ffi5iSiy 3jjGU2neΛ fiflPtim^J^Ori^t^atign.i^rjcJirnent r l (c)theclients^names ahtfaddresses,3d Jzurnrrwrli gni (niiqfrio3 10 0ί (d)dateof preparation, ..v _ -. . . . ,. enoilfiiilaqfc lo jioitnulBv3 (e)countryfor which thestudies have beerrcarnedout. noriEouiiiiupoiqicti anohfioilqqc sifcbgnraofo ariltonexttqmmH -niSimilariKfdrn^^ ^nsiSftffli'fir^s^fef? the'appiitlSfipropbfe^ ^loVfofrfifi? Λι&[< execution of part(s)of the study. * J^mqo bid oi fioitiiiivril Applicant's personnel. 15 cf tficT study with m&^umculum^vi^ m'trie'preparation of which the above personnel has been involved should be indicatedwith details regarding sco^'a^da^Wpreparatib'f?. • -naqqfi Ιίκrftrv/isrljsgoi noftsoilqqc aril'to2aiqoossnri)"io132 A Research' and! suppdrtfifaeilities>t-< vijijnirfiialqqua bns 23'jib 20 "'^δΗ&S&cnftt<c!rrese^arcir1aKS ^ ^ t e i i r i e ^ o Y m f e c a ^ l P cah^ncil&^suornrtieS:" 0 1 ^^ 1 "^-·^mzhuoTainqyO .UnenaD .2inqy_0Proposed-study teamlaridrlplan ofrWrttevns bslsag m\T 0 i -aCTh^appiicamsisffould'sub^^ tendtocarry outwork required by theclientsgivirjgifetails'of the odioniiiwjroiDanT 75c t^^^^φ£^lgasΏβ^^mnoq^i^ -iGqaiq aril niinsoilqqfi χηκ χό bffnuoni 3d x&mrioiriwzzolio ?.az Other information .noiifioilqqe girf^o fiorezirxidua bris noils — Year of establishment of the firm, as well as of othercon­ sulting firms which the applicant proposes toemploy for thepreparationof part(s)of thestudy. 3Φ — Annual reports for thelast 3years,if available oranyother publicationontheactivities of the firm/s. 228l· Demetriades J. Colakides & Associates v. Republic

(1988)—Bankersfrom whomreferencescanbeobtained. Language Thestudyistobepreparedintheenglishlanguage.Allcorrespondenceandcommunicationsinconnectionwiththeprequalification, tendering andexecutionof thestudyandallmaterial ac- 5 companyingthemmustbeintheenglishlanguage. Evaluation of applications Promptlyafter theclosingdateapplicationsfor prequalification willbeassessedandevaluated.Prequalified applicantswillbeinvitedtosubmitdetailedproposalsfor thePaphosTourismDevel- 10 opmentPlan. Invitation to bid Prequalified firms will subsequently be furnished with the Termsof Reference for theabovementioned study,forsubmissionofdetailedproposalstotheCentralTenderBoard. 15 Submission of applications Asetofthreecopiesoftheapplication togetherwithallappendicesandsupplementary information shallbeenclosedinasealed envelope and should reach by the 31.3.1984, the DirectorGeneral,CyprusTourismOrganisation,P.O.Box4535,Nicosia, 20 Cyprus. Thesealedenvelopeshallbearthefollowing inscription: "Application,for Prequalification for thePaphosTourismDevelopmentStudy". TheClient willnotberesponsiblefor, norpayforanyexpen- 25 sesorlosswhich maybeincurredbyanyapplicantinthepreparationandsubmissionofhisapplication. 2282