The failure of Mr Paddy Teahon to inform the Government that Waterworld UK was a dormant company was "difficult to understand", the Attorney General said today in his final report on the aquatic centre affair.
In his analysis of the decision to award the Aquatic Centre contract to Waterworld Dublin limited, Mr Michael McDowell wrote it was very difficult to understand how the Assessment Panel and the Government were not informed by "those with executive functions in CSID" of the true situation regarding Waterworld UK Ltd.
Especially when Mr Teahon, then executive chairman of Campus & Stadium Ireland Development (CSID), had the opportunity to brief orally members of the Government on the day it approved the CISD decision to award it the Aquatic Centre contract [19 December 2000].
In his introduction Mr McDowell stressed the purpose of the report was to provide the Government with an analysis of issues and to highlight some features. The report was not intended to "resolve any conflicts" or to pass any final judgment on the merit or demerits of the behaviour of any individual or company, he wrote.
Mr McDowell acknowledged the time constraints facing the Assessment Panel and the CISD when making its decision to select Rohcon/Waterworld over two other bids.
But he did find a shortcoming in the assessment of Waterworld UK at the pre-qualification stage and wrote no "due diligence searches" were made at that stage.
"The operation and maintenance aspect of the bid [from Rohcon/Waterworld], however, appears to have received far from adequate attention at the Assessment Stage," the report said.
The failure by Mr Teahon to inform the members of the CSID Board that Waterworld UK was a dormant company which had never traded and whose share capital was £4 sterling was also highlighted in the report. This was disclosed by PricewaterhouseCoopers when it checked the bidders credentials in November 2000.
While the Assessment Panel was appointed to select a preferred bidder, the report said that "despite the complete uncertainty during the period 18 to 21 December, no direction was sought from the board of CSID on the question of the relevant securities and guarantees or what might be contemplated as a replacement."
Mr McDowell also wrote that the failure to alert those politically accountable to the true situation "seems to seriously call into question the existence of a proper relationship between the executive and the board, and between the board and its State shareholders."
"However embarrassing the failure of Waterworld UK Ltd as a contracting party may have been, no excuse has been offered for failing to inform the board, the Department, or the Government of the true situation as would be expected in the case of a semi-State or State-sponsored company seeking a major Exechequer commitment to a project," the report wrote.