Members would agree that this particular sporting project has generated a significant amount of media and political publicity since the proposal was first mooted. I have on many occasions in this House and in the Dáil made extensive contributions to discussions on the project. I am pleased to be afforded this opportunity to address the Seanad about the position in relation to the aquatic and leisure centre, which is being developed at Abbotstown, to be ready to host the Special Olympics Summer Games in 2003. Since January 2001 funding for the development of this facility is being provided through the Vote of my Department.
A year before that, in January 2000, the Government decided that the feasibility of developing an aquatic centre to host the Special Olympics Summer Games in 2003 should be actively considered by Campus and Stadium Ireland Limited, CSID, the company set up to oversee the development of the Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland project at Abbotstown. This project is one of the highest priorities of the Government. This is reflected in the quality of the people appointed by the Government to the board of CSID, which is made up of people of the highest calibre in the fields of sport and business.
In July 2000 CSID commenced an international competition by inviting tenders under the EU public procurement directive to participate in a negotiated procedure to design, build, finance, operate and maintain an aquatic and leisure centre on the site at Abbotstown. Tenders were to be assessed by CSID, which was also the designated contract awarding authority for the competition. Eight expressions of interest were received. An assessment process, under the auspices of CSID, shortlisted five consortia which were invited to submit outline bids, on the basis of which three were selected to proceed to detailed negotiation stage. The consortia selected were Waterworld UK-Rohcon with S&P Architects, Dublin International Arena Limited and Prospero. Panels including members of CSID, the Office of Public Works, the Irish Sports Council, Fingal County Council, the National Coaching and Training Centre, Special Olympics 2003 and an international leisure and sports expert assessed the bids. Expert legal advice was provided by McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors and PricewaterhouseCoopers also provided a report on the bidding consortia.
The assessment panel recommended to the board of CSID that the Waterworld-Rohcon bid, which was also the lowest cost proposal submitted by some €15 million, merited overall top ranking for the award of the contract for the project. The Government, on the basis of the board's recommendation, agreed, in December 2000, that CSID sign heads of agreement with the Waterworld consortium. Heads of agreement were signed by CSID, Rohcon and Waterworld UK on 22 February 2001. The tender included a requirement to establish a special purpose company to operate the pool.
Dublin Waterworld Limited was set up as the company to act as operators of the pool on completion of the construction phase. This is a private company limited by shares with a shareholding of 4% held by Waterworld UK and the balance by three directors who already have an involvement in the operation of swimming pools in Ireland. Final contract negotiations, on foot of the signed heads of agreement, continued between CSID and the successful consortium through spring into summer 2001. In May 2001 my Department, in consultation with its legal and technical advisers on the project, agreed to CSID's request for approval to issue a letter of intent. The purpose of this was to allow work on the pool to commence pending completion of the final contract negotiations in order to meet the Government's objective of having the pool ready in time for the Special Olympics World Summer Games, which will take place in Ireland next year.
Following the completion of these negotiations, and subsequent consultations with my Department and its legal and technical advisers, CSID late last year submitted final draft contracts as agreed with the consortium for formal approval prior to signature. Last January, the Government, on the basis of a memorandum submitted by me on the negotiations and resulting final draft contracts, approved the conclusion by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited of its negotiations with the consortium, which I am advised signed the contracts on 7 February last. Following a recent media inquiry, I asked CSID for a comprehensive report on certain issues raised in relation to the contract for operating the aquatic and leisure centre, including specific reference to the role and status of a named company in the tendering process and final award scheme. I received a response from CSID and subsequently sought some further clarifications, which were supplied by CSID.
In its report to me, CSID again outlined the process, which it undertook in giving effect to the Government decision to procure an aquatic and leisure centre at Abbotstown. In relation to the status of the operating entity, CSID has confirmed that when the detailed proposal from the consortium which included Waterworld UK Limited was received, the assessment panel's recommendation was that this consortium, based on all aspects of the bid, including design, price, etc, should be selected as the preferred bidder. CSID insist that notwithstanding that Waterworld UK Limited was a dormant company it was entitled, under EU procurement rules, to proceed as part of the bid provided that it was in a position to satisfy CSID that it had available to it the resources from a third party or parties on which it could rely in the performance of the contract, if awarded.
CSID requested that independently verifiable proof of sufficient backing for Waterworld UK be provided. This was provided to CSID on 7 February 2001 by way of letter of comfort from Anglo Irish Bank, indicating that it was prepared to provide a €3 million guarantee to Waterworld UK Limited in association with the national aquatic centre project. Furthermore, the track record of the individuals who were identified as having responsibility for managing the centre was also considered by CSID to be satisfactory.
CSID and its legal advisers are satisfied that the contract has been awarded in full accord with the bid received by CSID and in compliance with EU procurement regulations and that the arrangements entered into between Waterworld UK Limited and Dublin Waterworld Limited are the result of normal business negotiations between the parties. There were, however, a number of aspects of the handling of this matter which needed to be urgently reviewed by the board of CSID. I therefore recommended that the executive chairman call an immediate meeting of the board, which took place on 8 March 2002. I received a report on the outcome of the board's review immediately after the meeting. At the same time, the Government informally decided at its meeting on 7 March that I would arrange, following consultation with the Attorney General, for the preparation of an independent report on the matter for the next meeting of the Government.
It was subsequently agreed on 10 March, by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Attorney General and myself, that an essential input into this report would be an inquiry on issues surrounding the award of the operator's contract for the aquatic and leisure centre at Abbotstown. This inquiry was carried out under the auspices of the Attorney General and focused on issues relating to the corporate governance of CSID in so far as it concerned the process of selecting the preferred bidder. It also examined the processes and procedures adopted within CSID leading to and including the selection process. The Attorney General's team initially examined all documents relating to these issues and followed this up with clarifications with particular individuals where necessary. The Attorney General stresses that his report does not purport to resolve any conflicts of fact or recollection or to pass any final judgment on the merits or demerits of the behaviours of any individual or company. On the contrary, the purpose of this report is, as requested by the Government, to provide it with a provisional analysis of the issues and to highlight some features of the matters dealt with to assist the Government.
The draft report was brought to Government on 20 March 2002 and the completed report was delivered yesterday. The Government has made the report available to the Committee of Public Accounts. The Attorney General's report repeats the executive chairman's explanation that he did not bring certain information regarding the contract for the operator for the aquatic centre to the attention of the board of CSID or the Government. However, the Attorney General states that it is important to emphasise his analysis is not suggesting that the decision of the assessment panel to select Rohcon-Waterworld in preference to the other two bidders was unreasonable. For reasons of price and design, the preferred bid was obviously clearly ahead of the other contenders. It has been stated on a number of occasions that even if the information in question had been made available to the assessment panel and the Government, the consortium which was eventually selected as the preferred bidder would have been the same.
At its meeting to discuss the report yesterday, the Government decided to act on the proposal of the board of CSID to separate the roles of chairperson and chief executive. To ensure that the project proceeds to completion on schedule and in the light of the controversy which has arisen, the Government decided to appoint a senior official of my Department, who is also a member of the board of CSID, as interim chairman of the board. The Government will also make available to the board the services of an appropriate official as an interim chief executive. Mr. Teahon will remain a member of the board of CSID.
I reiterate the Government's statement that Mr. Paddy Teahon is a person of outstanding integrity and commitment to public service. In carrying out his duties as executive chairperson, he has been committed to contributing to the construction of a set of facilities of which the people of Ireland would be proud. His commitment and achievement in a long career of public service have been widely and deservedly applauded, not least in respect of his contribution to social partnership and the Northern Ireland peace process, especially the Good Friday Agreement. That same commitment is evident in his efforts to ensure that the Government's challenging target of having an aquatic centre available in time for the Special Olympics would be met.
Despite the recent adverse publicity, I assure the House that the aquatic and leisure centre remains on course for completion by the end of December next, well in advance of the Special Olympics Summer Games in June 2003. The Special Olympics will be the largest sporting event in the world in 2003 and will involve 7,000 athletes and 3,000 delegates and coaches. All will be accommodated in Ireland during the period of the games. This is the first time the Special Olympics will be staged outside America.
In addition to the Special Olympics, the pool at Abbotstown will provide state of the art swimming facilities for our competitive swimmers and will also be a major leisure facility for families and the local communities. The pool at Abbotstown will be one of the largest indoor water centres in the world. It will comprise a 50-metre international standard swimming pool, an international standard diving pool-warm up pool, extensive leisure waters, including adventure water rides, seating for 2,500 spectators, a fitness centre and cafes. The pool will feature a moveable boom and floors to allow the pools to be reconfigured for leisure activities. Under the terms of the contract, the operators will make the 50-metre pool available for agreed periods of time for training for Ireland's elite swimmers, as well as emerging promising top class swimmers. The pool will also be available to host competitions. We will have an aquatic and leisure facility of which the country can be proud.
In relation to the main element of the stadium and campus project, a tender competition for the stadium and other sporting facilities, in the form of a design, build, finance, operate and maintain process, DBFOM, commenced on 20 November 2000. The outline bid stage of the competition closed on 21 June 2001. Bids from three consortia have been received. No decision has been taken to move to the next stage, the detailed negotiation stage, pending the Government's clarification of the future of the project.
As the stadium and campus project advanced, concern at the potential overall cost of completion was a matter of public comment. To assist it in determining final Exchequer allocations for Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland, the Government decided on 1 May 2001 to conduct an overview study of the likely costs arising and to review the overall approach and contracting strategy with regard to risk identification, management processes and structures, timing and overall cost effectiveness. A steering group was established, under the chairmanship of my Department, and following a public competition, High Point Rendel Limited was appointed to conduct the overview study.
High Point Rendel finalised its report in November 2001 and it was published on 31 January 2002. The overview set out to assess the estimated costs and revenues arising from developing Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland as defined both at the beginning of the outline bid process and as currently envisaged by CSID. Based on the proposal for a revised scope of project, the HPR report estimates the total cost of the stadium, arena and other facilities are broadly similar to those of CSID. In addition, the HPR projection provides for a higher contingency amount because of the still evolving nature of the brief and a slightly higher than anticipated inflation level. It also provides for professional costs and a sinking fund.
HPR considered that a rationalisation of certain facilities within the project could be made, but the extent could be confirmed only after agreement with the main stakeholders. The report also identified a number of issues critical to the realisation of the project, including the need for detailed planning and strong management of the project. The Government has requested that I should report on the implications of the HPR recommendations and options and in particular to evaluate the viability of the existing tendering strategy as a basis for any modification of the stadium design and operation; the implications for the Exchequer of the options and recommendations; and specific issues raised in the report. The consideration of these issues is underway.
The Government remains committed to the concept of a national stadium and is convinced that a stadium project at Abbotstown is both desirable and feasible. It remains convinced that the Abbotstown campus can, and will be, a vital infrastructural asset for the achievement of national aims in the field of sports, recreation and related tourism.