What specific role did AMI play in the second mobile phone licence process?

 

The central role played by Mr Andersen  /  AMI in the second mobile phone process became clear from the voluminous documentation provided to the Moriarty Tribunal by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and Department of Finance; as well as from the documentation and assistance provided to the Tribunal by Michael Andersen / AMI.   AMI’s role can be summarised as follows:

  

  • AMI provided expert guidance to all of the other PTGSM members (i.e. the individual civil servants) in all aspects of the evaluation process;

 

  • AMI participated in every one of the sub-groups (the Project Team was divided into sub-groups) and thus played a significant role in the scoring of each and every indicator and sub-indicator that fed into the final result;

 

  • AMI designed the evaluation model including both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations;

 

  • AMI were responsible for breaking the precise paragraph 19 criteria as set out by the Government in its original Request for Proposals (dated March 1995)  into aspects, dimensions, indicators and sub indicators;

 

  • AMI were heavily involved in, if not solely responsible for, designing the weighting process used in the licence competition and converting the principles established by the para 19 RFP criteria into a mechanism for scoring the applications;

 

  • AMI prepared a draft entitled “input into the memorandum concerning how the financial capability is going be assessed” on 25 April, 1995;

 

  • AMI advised DTEC on the preparation of the Information Memorandum issued to the interested parties on 28 April 1995;

 

  • AMI advised DTEC to prepare a memorandum of supplementary information on the subject of interconnection, which AMI subsequently drafted, and which was issued to the interested parties.  AMI also carried out benchmark studies for DTEC in relation to same;

 

  • AMI provided detailed expert advice to DTEC on the EU Commission’s position on the licence fee issue and drafted documentation in relation to same.  AMI also attended at a meeting, along with a delegation representing the Irish Government, with the EU’s Competition Directorate on this issue;

 

  • AMI prepared a memorandum for DTEC concerning the Commission’s approach to GSM tenders;

 

  • AMI participated in most of the important PTGSM meetings, a number of which were held in Copenhagen and which were driven by AMI;

 

  • AMI reviewed the detail of the applicant-specific questions;

 

  • AMI advised DTEC to circulate guidelines to the Request For Proposals and assisted DTEC in the drafting of same;

 

  • AMI identified, from the RFP, the measurable / quantifiable minimum requirements of the RFP;

 

  • AMI prepared a “reader’s guide” to assist all other members of the PTGSM in reading the licence applications;

 

  • AMI prepared the first draft licence;

 

  • AMI devised the timetable for the process;

 

  • AMI were responsible for amending the evaluation model and adapting the weightings following the fixing of the licence fee;

 

  • AMI devised the format of the Oral Presentations held on 12-14 September 1995 and Messrs Andersen, Bruel, Jacobsen and Feddersen of AMI attended at each of the six individual presentations took a central role therein;

 

  • AMI devised the sub-groups to assess the qualitative aspects of the evaluation and prepared timetables in relation to each sub-group;

 

  • AMI provided the separate “number crunching” team and carried out the “number crunching” process i.e. the quantitative evaluation;

 

  • AMI were responsible for the drafting and production of the evaluation report and as such were ultimately responsible for the amendments within the various drafts of the final report;

 

  • AMI were present at the meeting in Copenhagen with Martin Brennan and Fintan Towey at which, it would appear, the final result emerged. This meeting is also important for the following reasons;

 

-       AMI were ultimately responsible for the decision to abandon the quantitative analysis.

-       AMI were ultimately responsible for the decision to adopt the “holistic approach”.

-       AMI were ultimately responsible for the decision not to score “other aspects” including credibility, risks and sensitivities.

-       AMI were involved in the decision to convert the grades in the final report to points;

 

  • AMI had overall responsibility for carrying out the scoring of the applications that gave rise to the final result;

 

  • AMI were obviously intimately involved with the contractual issues which arose between DTEC and AMI and which were ultimately had an important bearing on the level of work to be carried out by AMI, particularly towards the conclusion of the evaluation process.

 

  • AMI prepared a memorandum for DTEC entitled “Note on the incorporation of information from the A5 application into the final Licence”;

 

  • AMI were involved in the first meeting with Esat Digifone after the announcement on 25 October 1995 which began the licence negotiation process;

 

  • AMI advised DTEC as regards dealing with disappointed applicants and sent a representative to Dublin to meet with disappointed applicants;

 

  • AMI provided oral advice to DTEC regarding the filing of a complaint filed by the Persona Consortium with the EU Commission.
  • Share/Bookmark


  • Print