What is Michael Andersen / AMI’s view of the second mobile phone licence process?
During the course of its private investigations into the second mobile phone licence process, the Tribunal wrote to AMI on 19 June 2001, and stated, as follows:-
“The Tribunal apprehends that you may be able to provide it with assistance in connection with its inquiries concerning the second Irish GSM Licence (1995/1996) and, in particular in connection with the setting up of and the conduct of the competition to evaluate the bids for the licence.
On foot of that letter, Mr Andersen voluntarily attended a number of meetings with the Tribunal and provided the Tribunal with no fewer than five reports detailing the involvement of AMI with the second mobile phone licence process, namely: -
- Confidential Memorandum on Andersen Management International’s involvement in and some cornerstones of the GSM 2 tender in Ireland (20 July 2001)
- Memorandum on AMI’s experience as the lead consultant in the GSM 2 tender in Ireland, 1995 (January 2002)
- Memorandum to the Moriarty Tribunal concerning the transparency of Evaluation Criteria (20 February 2002)
- Statement re Minister Lowry’s access to the Evaluation Methodology document (20 February 2002);
- AMI’s response to issues raised by the Tribunal (20 June 2002)
Notes of Mr. Andersen’s private meetings with the Moriarty Tribunal at Dublin Castle during their private investigative stage can be viewed at the link below:
During the course of his involvement with the Tribunal, Mr Andersen repeatedly stated that Esat Digifone was the best application and won the competition fair and square. At page 37 of the “Memorandum on AMI’s experience as the lead consultant in the GSM 2 tender in Ireland, 1995,” Mr Andersen states:
“The quality and consistency of Esat Digifone’s application with regard to the extent and content of the information provided is among the absolute best that AMI have seen during the many evaluations that AMI at that time and since then has participated in.”
The same page also states:
“It is also the opinion of AMI that Esat Digifone – objectively and after taking into consideration the issues of criticism mentioned below – handed in the best application as against the other applicants according to the evaluation criteria and their descending order of priority. In AMI’s opinion the evaluation result nominating Esat Digifone as the winner thus was and is the right result”.
In addition, at a private meeting with the Tribunal on 20 February 2002, Mr Andersen stated, “he had never seen a bid as well documented as that of Esat Digifone”. He further stated that the evaluators were very impressed with Esat Digifone’s preparation. He noted that AMI would categorise bids as being of three categories, (i) off the shelf, (ii) local touch and (iii) pre-implementation. Mr Andersen confirmed that Esat Digifone’s application was very much in the latter category.
Mr. Andersen further confirmed that he never met Michael Lowry and had no dealings whatsoever with him during the second mobile phone licence process or otherwise.
All of the information and material provided by Michael Andersen to the Tribunal clearly shows that Mr Andersen and AMI would, had they been called to give evidence, been in a position to give critical evidence that Esat Digifone’s bid was the best bid and that it properly won the competition. However, such evidence will not be put before the Tribunal.
Such a situation will only benefit those parties who have a preference for adverse conclusions being made by the Moriarty Tribunal in its final report into the second mobile phone licence process.
