Mr. Brian Murphy:

This is what we call a legacy project, and it has been hanging around for a long period. We were engaged as a financial adviser some years ago. Deputy Murphy will probably be aware - I think this matter was referred to previously - that a value-for-money letter from the NDFA issued in May 2007. The Deputy may not have seen it but I would refer him to the detailed letter we wrote two years ago. John Corrigan, chairman of the NDFA, wrote that letter, in which he set out our role and responsibilities in these matters. That letter was addressed to Deputy Sean Fleming in his capacity as a member of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government.

If it would be helpful, we will supply a copy of that letter afterwards to the secretariat. Let me give the background to it. The letter to which I referred was written by Mr. John Corrigan in March 2010. It set out the role of the NDFA and how it became involved. The project predates the NDFA's existence and is a legacy it inherited. The NDFA worked in the pre-existing arrangements which were already set up by the sponsoring authority, DCC and the sanctioning authority the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The arrangements included working with the client representative consortium, which had been chosen by the sponsoring agency and was led by RPS as technical advisers. The consortium also included PwC as project financial advisers and McCann FitzGerald as project legal advisers.

We issued a value for money letter in June 2007. The key role of the NDFA was to provide an opinion on the value for money testing as per the guidance issued by the Department of Finance. We were measuring what was tendered against the agreed benchmark. In essence the NDFA's role in the project was to compare the net present value of the private sector bid with the MPV of the agreed public sector benchmark. In the case of this project, the NDFA's role, as directed by the sponsoring authority, was to work with the pre-existing client representatives in order to carry out this value for money comparison. The value for money letter was issued in June 2007.

Earlier this year in light of everything that has been happening and the various negotiations, I wrote to DCC and advised it the 2007 value for money letter is now void and a new value for money letter will be required when outstanding commercial issues have been resolved. I understand there are various issues to be resolved including the provision of private finance. I understand that discussions on the provision of private finance are well advanced. We are not privy to those discussions obviously but there are also a number of other outstanding issues, namely, the question of state aid, on which a ruling from the European Commission is awaited. I understand a complaint was made to the Commission on the procurement grounds which must be ruled upon. Only when all outstanding commercial issues and the items I have mentioned have been resolved, will the NDFA be given a new financial model. The NDFA will provide a refreshed public sector benchmark and the final bid received will then be compared to test whether it provides value for money.