John Brassil (Kerry, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister on his recent good news and wish him every good fortune. I do not want to be repetitive but I ask him to look at the reasoning behind the two-stage process that has been outlined. When we look at what it was supposed to achieve versus how it turned out, we can see that it is contradictory to say the least. Therefore, I would very much question the board's reasoning, particularly when it came to deciding that the best option for phase two was to award it to the phase one contractor. Did anybody flag to the Minister that the €631 million price for phase one of the job was €131 million, or 20%, lower than the next bid? As I pointed out here last Wednesday, to be 20% lower in any construction bid would ring alarm bells at any level, and I find it very difficult to understand why it did not ring alarm bells with the board.

Regarding some of the figures that were given, €90 million was given for a nine-month extension of contract, including preliminaries. I ask the Minister to investigate that thoroughly because I cannot see how €90 million can be justified for increased preliminaries for nine months. A figure of €27 million was given for increased spend as a result of fire regulations. As I pointed out last week, €27 million would build a 90,000 sq. ft state-of-the-art office block. That is just to put it into context.

The Minister was made aware in late August that there was a significant increase in costs. On 7 November, the board recommended BAM as the second phase contractor. Was the Minister consulted in respect of the decision to appoint BAM for this part of the work? On 18 December, the Government signed off on it. Why was PwC not brought in in August, when significant increased costs were flagged to review a potential overrun of €400 million that was subsequently approved? What we are doing now is closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. That review should have been carried out prior to the second phase being awarded that landed us in a situation where we are at the point of no return and cannot go back but must go forward. As I pointed out here last week, the nature of the contractor is to get the work and then maximise the money it can get from it. It has happened consistently with public contracts for years. The way this contract was structured allowed for a golden opportunity, which the contractor took.