What does the AMI Evaluation report say?
The AMI Final Evaluation Report of 25 October 1995 is a lengthy and detailed document comprising of the following sections (which are in turn further broken down into internal sub-sections):
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Outline of the Conduct of the Competition Process
- Key Characteristics of the Applications
- The Comparative Evaluation of the Applications
- Sensitivities, Ricks and Credibility Factors
- The Final Evaluation
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- Appendices 1 to 13
Although it is recommended that visitors to this website review the AMI Evaluation Report in full, the following extracts from that AMI Report are particularly instructive:
In the Executive Summary of the AMI Report, the final ranking of the second mobile phone competition is set out with Esat Digifone (A5) coming first, Persona (A3) coming second with Irish Mobicall (A1) coming third.
The Executive Summary states:
“A3 (Persona), pursuing cost leadership as part of the strategy, is particularly strong on experience and tariffs. A5 (Esat Digifone), opting for market leadership, is also strong in these areas and is furthermore the strongest application of all regarding the approach to market development, coverage, quality and viability of the technical approach, and performance guarantees of the project. A5 (Esat Digifone) thus presents an application which is comparatively stronger than the application from A3 (Persona). It is emphasised that the credibility of the business plan and approach to market development and the technical approach ranked higher than tariffs in the selection”:
Based on this appraisal, the AMI Report goes on to state:
“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 (Esat Digifone)”
At section 2.4 (The marking and the nomination of the best application) AMI state (at the foot of page 6)
“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”
The AMI report runs to almost 150 pages (including 13 appendices) and contains a huge level of detail concerning the design of the evaluation methodology and the scoring process applied in the competition process. However the most essential section of the AMI Report is Section 7 of the main body report entitled “Conclusions and Recommendations” in which the basis for Esat Digifone’s emergence as the best applicant is addressed in summary terms.
The full body of this Section 7 can be accessed via the link below. Even as a summary of the preceding sections of the AMI Report, it demonstrates the huge level of endeavour and expertise that was put in by the PT GSM members and AMI in identifying Esat Digifone as the best applicant for the second mobile phone licence process. Indeed, the prescience of the remarks made by AMI in relation to Esat Digifone’s application and potential in the marketplace are very telling. Esat Digifone subsequently went out and proved its credentials where it mattered most; in the marketplace.
Section 7 of AMI Report- Conclusions and Recommendations
