AP Valletta has released architectural renders for the proposed regeneration of Valletta’s Evans Building, offering a visual glimpse into a project that has, for over three years, remained largely theoretical. The images arrive against the backdrop of one of Malta’s most contested public concessions in recent years, a process marked by legal appeals, procedural questions, and a prolonged institutional stalemate.
The Evans Building occupies a strategic 3,327-square-metre site at the tip of the Valletta peninsula, close to Fort St Elmo and within the UNESCO-listed historic fabric of the capital. Constructed in 1952, the four-storey building was originally designed as university laboratories and later housed government departments. The surrounding grounds contain significant buried heritage, including the remains of the Nibbia Chapel, the Chapel of Bones, and an Anatomical Theatre.
In November 2022, Malta Strategic Partnership Projects Ltd (MSPP), issued a Request for Proposals (RfP) for a 65-year concession to redevelop the site into a high-end hospitality project.
Award-winning designs, still unbuilt
The newly released renders by AP Valletta, commissioned by AX Group for its bid to redevelop the site, suggest how the Evans Building could be transformed into a five-star hospitality destination while retaining its historic façade. Yet their publication also highlights the gap between architectural vision and administrative reality. More than three years after the RfP was issued, and over a year since the concession was recommended for award, no definitive outcome has been reached.
Until the PCRB rules on the pending appeals, the future of the Evans Building remains unresolved - emblematic of broader concerns about transparency, governance, and decision-making in large-scale public-private partnerships. The renders may signal intent and ambition, but for now, the project remains firmly in limbo.
The brief required the retention of the building’s external shell, with internal interventions subject to consultation with UNESCO and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.
In February 2024, MSPP recommended Valletta Luxury Projects for the award of the concession. The joint venture, comprising Eden Leisure Group and hotelier Mark Weingard, proposed a development reportedly intended to bring the Anantara luxury hotel brand to Malta.
The consortium’s offer was presented as a €1.2 million annual concession fee, amounting to a total of €78 million over 65 years, making it the highest bid received. Competing proposals included a €40.7 million bid from Katari Hospitality Joint Venture, involving GAP Group’s Paul Attard, a €39.3 million bid from Iconic Hotel Malta – Nobu JV, a partnership between European School of English Limited and the Arrigo Group, a €24 million bid by Hili Ventures' HV Hospitality, a €22.6 million bid by AX Group and a €20.9 million bid by db Group's Seabank Hotel and Catering Ltd.
The controversy centres on the financial submission itself. Valletta Luxury Projects entered €1.2 million in the global bid field of the financial offer form. The evaluation committee interpreted this figure as an annual rate rather than a total sum, and recalculated the bid accordingly. Rival bidders argue that this interpretation amounted to an unlawful correction of raw data rather than a permissible arithmetic adjustment.
Adding to the irony, one of the competing proposals has since received recognition. In October 2025, the design submitted by architect Chris Briffa on behalf of Iconic Hotel Malta – Nobu JV won the Galizia Design Award in the “Unbuilt Projects” category. The jury praised its sensitive integration of contemporary luxury within Valletta’s historic context, underscoring the architectural potential of the site even as the project remains frozen.
Legal challenges and procedural deadlock
Both Katari Hospitality JV and Iconic Hotel Malta – Nobu JV filed appeals before the Public Contracts Review Board (PCRB), contesting the decision to award the tender. Katari Hospitality’s appeal, filed by lawyer Ryan Pace, describes the evaluation committee’s assumption as “nothing but conjecture” and argues that the tender rules required bidders to submit their total financial offers explicitly.
The appeals also question whether the evaluation committee, controversially chaired by a criminologist rather than a contracts or hospitality specialist, had the authority to reinterpret the bid in this manner. While tender rules do allow for the correction of arithmetic errors and the multiplication of annual rates by concession duration where totals are missing, the extent to which this applies remains at the heart of the dispute.
Despite the appeals having been filed more than 18 months ago, the PCRB has yet to issue a ruling. Government sources confirm that the concession cannot proceed until the review process is concluded, and any decision may itself be subject to further court challenges.
Check out all the renders here, here and here.
