Vol. 477 No. 1
5 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will make a statement on the calls made by Leader group spokespersons who have looked for an investigation into the awarding of the tender to administer the Leader II national network arrangements in Ireland to a company (details supplied) in view of the fact that the tender selected was not the lowest tender received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8657/97]
The national network arrangements under the Leader II programme are being co-financed by the European Commission on the basis of 75 per cent EU and 25 per cent Exchequer contribution rates. The European Commission insisted, at the outset, that the contract for the administration of the national network would be awarded on the basis of an open competitive tendering procedure.
The procedures for the award of public service tenders are laid down in Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992. These procedures were followed in every respect by my Department and included publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 9 August 1996 of the notice of the invitation to tender; the preparation of a detailed brief for organisations to administer the network — this document was issued to more than 30 bodies and individuals who indicated an interest in the tender — convening an information session in my Department's offices on 4 September 1996 to further brief and respond to questions from interested parties — this session was open to all those who had requested copies of the brief and was attended by 13 people representing various interested bodies.
Following these arrangements, seven bids were submitted to my Department on or before the closing date of 20 September 1996. These were subject to rigorous evaluation and assessment based on objective criteria. The evaluation procedure included requests to four of the tenderers to make formal presentations to my Department on their submissions and subsequent formal discussion with three of those tenderers. The Department's recommendation on the award of the contract was submitted to the Government Contracts Committee, a body which is independent of my Department. The Department's recommendation was ratified by that committee. My Department maintained close contact with the European Commission throughout the process I have described.
While the tender recommended and selected was not the lowest tender received, it was the lowest priced of the three tender bids considered most suitable. The successful tender was selected on the basis of being the most economically advantageous having regard to the terms and conditions contained in the brief and the service to be delivered.
I am satisfied that proper procedures were followed at all times, that the tenders were examined in a thorough and objective manner and that the correct decision was made.
What was the value of each of the seven bids?
To date we have not published the value of each bid, but I can submit that information to the Deputy at a later stage. However, I can outline the bids without naming those who tendered. In descending order, the bids were £1,780,000, £819,000, £816,000, £760,000, £670,000, £596,000 and £351,000.
Which bid was successful?
The fourth lowest. It was the lowest of the tenders considered acceptable under the criteria outlined. The evaluation and assessment process was carried out over a period of time and involved close scrutiny by officials from my Department whom I hold in high regard. They worked with the Deputy when he was Minister. I accept their credibility in this matter. The Minister and I kept at arm's length from the procedure and accepted their final decision on the grounds that the tender complied with EU procedures and was accepted by the Government Contracts Committee. I stand over the procedures employed in this case.
There is grave concern about this matter. The Minister of State knows that the Leader network, Comhar, and ICOS submitted tenders. Three tenders were lower than the successful one. Of the seven tenders, three were sent to the Government Contracts Committee. On what basis was the third lowest tender accepted?
The Department undertook thorough and detailed analysis of the tenders submitted on the basis of the quality of the bids received, the skills, expertise and knowledge of rural development and Leader matters of the tenderers and the price and value for money of the tender by reference to the service being sought. The Department's view was that Farrell Grant Sparks was the most suitable and economically advantageous of the bids submitted. Lower tenders were not considered acceptable because of their failure to comply with the terms of the tender, poor quality of submissions or failure to demonstrate that the tenderer had a good understanding of the requirements or an ability to deliver the service required. Farrell Grant Sparks was selected on the basis of the quality of the tender submitted, the expertise available to the company, its capacity to deliver and the cost of its proposals.
In addition to its administrative competence, the company engaged, as part of the team which will deliver the networking arrangements, Dr. Andy Conway, an acknowledged expert on rural development who has wide experience and knowledge of Leader and other programmes and policies relating to Network and rural development. The company has also engaged an IT consultant as part of the team. It was selected on the basis of its competence.
The reason for the disquiet is that a Dublin city centre firm got this tender. How it could have knowledge of Leader and a rural development programme is beyond me? Will the Minister confirm that a partner in the company is a programme manager with the Labour Party? Is this not a cosy cartel where a Labour Party programme manager, Mr. Sparks, was fixed up with a tender?
It is not in order to mention names. If the Deputy wishes to make an accusation against someone outside the House, he should do so in a more responsible manner and table a motion, if necessary.
The leaders of Network said they will refer this matter to the Ombudsman and if I do not get a satisfactory answer, I will refer this matter to the Committee of Public Accounts.
I remind the Deputy that Dr. Andy Conway is an acknowledged expert on rural development and I have absolute confidence that he and those working with him will deliver the service required. It is outrageous and unworthy of the Deputy to suggest there was any political motivation behind this decision which was left to officials in my Department. The Minister and I kept at arm' length and accepted the final proposal. There was no suggestion of political involvement in this decision.
