GSM Competition Report
Esat Digifone was announced as the winner of the second mobile phone licence competition on 25 October 1995. On that day, a final version 150 page Evaluation Report prepared by Andersen Management International A/S (“AMI”) was provided to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. It was this Final Evaluation Report, based on the intensive work of the PT GSM in the 10 week period between 4 August 1995 and 25 October 1995, which confirmed Esat Digifone as the clear winner of the second mobile phone licence competition process. The result was definitive.
A copy of this AMI Evaluation Report dated 25 October 1995 (including the voluminous Appendices 1-13 to that Report) can be accessed via the links below. This AMI Evaluation Report is the most important document in the Moriarty Tribunal’s inquiry into the second mobile phone licence process.
AMI Main Body Report Dated 25 Oct 1995 pdf
Appendices 1 to 13 to AMI Report dated 25 October 1995 pdf
This lengthy and extremely detailed document sets out the basis of the unanimous decision of the PT GSM (which included expert external consultants drawn from AMI, Civil Servants drawn from the Department of Finance and Civil Servants drawn from the 3 Divisions of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications) to recommend Esat Digifone to the Irish Government as the applicant best qualified to operate the second mobile phone licence in Ireland. In summary, the AMI Report concludes:
“On the basis of the selection criteria adopted by the Irish Government and an objective, transparent and non-discriminatory qualitative comparison of the six applications received, the PT GSM unanimously recommends that the Minister enter into licence negotiations with applicant A5” (Note: Applicant A5 was Esat Digifone)
At section 2.4 of the AMI Report (The marking and the nomination of the best application) AMI states:
“It is the view of Andersen Management International that the competition process including the evaluation has been conducted in a non-discriminatory way and with a high degree of transparency and objectivity, such that the result achieved is in our opinion a fair evaluation of the six applications”
Viewers of this material may also be interested in reviewing the section of this website dealing with Michael Andersen / Andersen Management International (“AMI”) and their central involvement in the second mobile phone competition process. This material can be accessed directly via the link below:
http://www.moriartytribunal.com/michael-andersen-andersen-management-international/
These recommendations as contained in the AMI Report (and indeed the substance of the AMI Report) have been wholly supported by every single civil servant involved in the second mobile phone licence process who has given sworn evidence to the Moriarty Tribunal. It has also been unequivocally supported in lengthy and detailed documents prepared and submitted to the Moriarty Tribunal by Michael Andersen / AMI. Every single person involved in the preparation of the AMI Report of 25 October 1995 who was called to give evidence has testified as to the integrity of the work represented by the AMI Report and also as to the integrity of the AMI Evaluation Report itself.
The only parties who have sought to challenge and undermine the integrity of the AMI report are certain members of disgruntled losing consortia who unsuccessfully bid for the second mobile phone licence (and who have since sued the State) and the Moriarty Tribunal itself. It is curious that the first recorded allegations being made against the civil servants in the context of the Moriarty Tribunal’s inquiries into the awarding of the second mobile phone licence are contained in an attendance note of the Tribunal on Mr. Tony Boyle, Chairman of Persona (one of the losing applicants and a party that has sued the State in relation to the second mobile phone licence process) dated 1 May 2001. The Moriarty Tribunal met with Mr. Boyle during its private investigative stage on a number of occasions. During these meetings, Mr. Boyle made a number of serious allegations against numerous parties involved in the second mobile phone licence competition process. For instance, during the meeting on 1 May 2001, Mr. Boyle is recorded by the Solicitor for the Moriarty Tribunal as stating as follows:
“As far as Tony Boyle is concerned, the reality of the situation is that strings were pulled by Loughrey, Brennan and Towey. They constructed the criteria, the weighting and effectively had Andersen’s rubber stamp them...”
Mr. Boyle gave evidence to the Tribunal in public some years later, but was completely unable to provide any material substantiating the very serious claims that he had made against the civil servants and others during his numerous private meetings with the Moriarty Tribunal’s legal team in 2001.
It was this Final Report of AMI dated 25 October 1995 that was privately scrutinised and attacked by Peter Bacon in conjunction with the Moriarty Tribunal’s legal team in late 2002 and early 2003. Before his work in Ireland on the second mobile phone licence process, Michael Andersen and his AMI team had worked in over 150 such processes in almost 50 countries worldwide. By contrast, Peter Bacon had no such experience in these form of competitions. Yet it was the draft report prepared by Peter Bacon in March 2003 in conjunction with the Moriarty Tribunal’s legal team that prompted the Moriarty Tribunal to write to Michael Andersen on 26 March 2003 attacking the integrity of his work (and the work of his AMI colleagues) in the second mobile phone licence process. The Tribunal stated as follows in this letter:
“The Tribunal has had an opportunity of further examining the AMI report relied on in the course of the GSM 2 licensing process in Ireland. From the Tribunal’s current reading of the report, it would appear that much of the analysis is unsatisfactory. Moreover, the Tribunal has obtained some expert assistance for the purpose of scrutinising the report and this has confirmed the Tribunal’s tentative view that the report appears to be flawed in a number of ways and indeed may contain a number of seriously fundamental flaws.
The Tribunal is anxious that your client, AMI-Merkantile Data should be afforded a full opportunity of responding to any queries concerning the report and in particular, in circumstances in which conclusions may be reached which may reflect poorly on the authors of the report.” (Emphasis added).
Peter Bacon was paid €97,000 for his work done in preparing reports in conjunction with the Moriarty Tribunal’s legal team which were critical of the AMI Report dated 25 October 1995.
Several years later, when Lawyers for Mr. Denis O’Brien made repeated applications to the Moriarty Tribunal to have Peter Bacon give evidence publicly before the Tribunal, the Sole Member would issue a ruling stating that Peter Bacon “was not an expert” in these matters after all. However, the secret interaction between Peter Bacon and the Moriarty Tribunal’s legal team (which gave rise to the preparation of the “expert report” referred to in the Tribunal’s letter above) remains a highly significant element of the Moriarty Tribunal’s attacks on the credibility of the second mobile phone licence process and on the integrity of those involved in that process.
