What did Mr. John McQuaid, Director in the Telecommunications and Radio Technology Division DTEC, say in his evidence?
Mr John McQuaid was a Director in the Telecommunications and Radio Technology Division of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. He was a member of the PTGSM.
In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 204 (28 March 2003), Mr McQuaid said that Esat Digifone was the clear winner of the competition.
“Q. That’s what I am coming to. Whatever about the wording of the report, there was agreement on the result?
A. There was consensus on the result, yes.
Q. And it was clear that no matter how much drafting or redrafting was going to be done of the report, that was not going to change the result?
A. No.
Q. And that was clear to everyone?
A. That was clear, because all of the dimensions had been evaluated at that stage. There was consensus on the final scores. The evaluation criteria was known, published, and the weightings for those evaluation criteria had been decided at the main meeting with the 3% correction.”
In addition, Mr McQuaid stated that neither he nor the PTGSM was subjected to any undue pressure or influence:
“Q. Now, in relation to your own position, I think you made it clear that you felt that the — your own experience within the Department, and I think you also — or now, in the private sector, you would have fairly well-tuned antennae to what was happening around you, if pressure was being put on people or if pressure was being put on yourself?
A. Indeed.
Q. And at any time during your involvement in this evaluation process, were you personally ever subjected to influences intended to compromise your independence?
A. I was never subjected during this process to any influences.
Q. If you had been subjected to something that was intended to compromise your independence, would you have any difficulty or doubt about complaining about this?
A. No.
Q. Were you aware of any other person who was subjected to any influences intended to compromise his or her independence or overpower his will?
A. Within the Evaluation Team?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Insofar as you were concerned, there was no outside interference in the way this team conducted its work?
A. No.
Q. In relation to AMI, you dealt with AMI, and you participated in the sub-groups with them?
A. Yes.
Q. At no stage did they ever try to influence you in any particular way?
A. No, no. I found — on the technical side, I found –
Q. That’s all you can comment about?
A. That’s all I can comment on. I found the two individuals very knowledgeable and very helpful, and in particular, I found Mr. Marius Jacobsen extremely knowledgeable. He was a fairly elderly gentleman who had been involved in the development of mobile cellular telephony and the design of it, going back to the original Scandinavian systems, the original mobile telephony systems, which were originally deployed in the Scandinavian countries. So he had a tremendous knowledge of mobile — the technical aspects of mobile telephony. And he had been on various international committees over a long period of time and was recognised as an expert.
Q. So as far as you were concerned, these were people who were highly — perfectly well qualified to participate in this, of considerable expertise, and were of considerable assistance to you?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And I think that was the way with AMI, that while they weren’t delegated with the job of carrying out the evaluation process, they were an integral part of participation in the evaluation process, they participated in sub-groups, they produced drafts of reports?
A. Yes.
Q. And so on?
A. Yes, because we did not — AMI had experience previously in other competitions. We did not.
Q. And so far as you are concerned, therefore, the result that was arrived at was an agreed result and was never changed, nor was it ever suggested that it be changed?
A. No.
Q. Thanks very much, Mr. McQuaid.”
