The Danish management consultant who acted as adviser for the 1995 second mobile phone licence competition, told the tribunal in a memorandum that the Esat Digifone submission was one of the best he had ever seen in any jurisdiction.
Mr Michael Andersen told the tribunal in a memorandum drafted last January that the consultancy firm Andersen Management International (AMI) had been involved in 120 mobile phone licence competitions. Prior to its involvement here in 1995, it had been involved in competitions in Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.
Mr Andersen was paid £20,000 by the Department of Public Enterprise in return for agreeing to write the memorandum. He has refused to attend to give evidence.
Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, said it was disappointing that Mr Andersen and AMI were not available to give evidence. Mr Andersen, who no longer works for AMI, has said he is confined by confidentiality clauses and that he could suffer financially if he did attend to give evidence.
He said he is owed money by the new owners of AMI, Ementor. Mr Coughlan said Ementor's determination not to give evidence "seems to be final".
AMI was not part of the project group set up to evaluate the bids received for the licence but attended some of its meetings. Mr Andersen said the evaluation model drawn up to assess the bids was finalised prior to the submission of bids on August 4th, 1995. Aspects of the bids were to be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively but it emerged that many of the aspects could not be quantitatively assessed, i.e., could not be measured. In September 1995 the group decided "the foundation for a separate quantitative evaluation had withered away".
He said that, in the main, the process was carried out in a correct manner. He considered there could have been increased security surrounding the group's deliberations, and gave as an example restricted access to the area where they were carrying on their work. "Security was surprisingly lax" in the department, he said.
