This website uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to use this website you agree to our use of cookies. For more information on our use of cookies, click here to review the Cookies Policy.。
DISPUTE HANDLING FOR PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
YU, ANNIE
The PCC recently drew up its Principles for Handling Disputes Concerning the Application and Selection Process for Private Participation in Public Infrastructure Projects. The main points are as follows:
Where an applicant to participate in a public infrastructure project believes that the han-dling of the application and selection process by the authority-in-charge of the project con-travenes the Law for Promotion of Private Participation in Public Infrastructure Projects or other relevant legislation, and that its rights or interests have been harmed as a result, it may submit a written protest to the author-ity-in-charge within a set time limit. The au-thority-in-charge should respond appropri-ately within 20 days after receiving the letter of objection, and should inform the protestor of its response in writing.
Where the response involves alterations or additions to previous public announcements in order to obtain further documents from pro-spective private-sector participants, the au-thority-in-charge should make a separate public announcement, and extend the time limit for applications if necessary. However, the application and selection procedure should not be halted because of a protest by an ap-plicant, except insofar as the author-ity-in-charge deems necessary.
If the protestor is not satisfied with the re-sponse to the protest, or if the author-ity-in-charge fails to respond within the pre-scribed time, the protestor is entitled to com-plain to the Complaint Review Board (CRB) of the PCC.
Unless there are grounds for dismissing the complaint unconsidered, the chair of the CRB should designate one to three CRB members as preliminary examiners, to investigate the facts of the case. A complaint may be con-sidered purely by examination of documents, or the committee may, ex officio or upon re-quest, give notice to the complainant, the au-thority-in-charge and other interested parties to attend and state their opinions.
The CRB statement of findings should indicate clearly whether the authority-in-charge has contravened the law. Where such a contra-vention is held to have occurred, the author-ity-in-charge should make correction in ac-cordance with the law. Before completing its examination, the CRB may, where it deems it necessary, pass a resolution to instruct the authority-in-charge to suspend the application and selection procedure. The author-ity-in-charge should act upon such an instruc-tion. When issuing such an instruction the CRB should consider the public interest, the interests of applicants, and other relevant factors.
Where the authority-in-charge believes that an objection or complaint is justified, it should on its own initiative revoke, nullify or modify its original response, or suspend the application and selection process, except when respond-ing to an emergency situation, where neces-sary in the public interest, or where the matter concerned does not affect the continuation of the application and selection process.
