Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I asked the Minister for Health in a parliamentary question why there was not a fixed-price contract for the national children's hospital. I got quite a long answer and I wish to tease out some parts of it. First, the Minister stated there was a two-stage procurement process, a full tender and contract for phase A, below ground, and then a tendering of phase B for the works above ground. He went on to state that the procurement strategy of phases A and B was developed and finalised between 2014 and 2016. Was that not when the Taoiseach was Minister for Health and does he not bear some responsibility for that? The reply goes on to state that there were several reasons for adopting the two-stage process. One was that market engagement with Irish and international contractors identified that this procurement approach would attract increased competition. Was it BAM which stated that market engagement with Irish and international contractors would attract increased competition, because somebody in the market said it? The contractors also went on to state that one would reduce the exposure to rising inflationary pressures in the construction markets throughout the procurement at 2016 tender market rates versus 2018 tender rates. That worked nicely, did it not? Could the Minister indicate who gave the Government that advice? I suggest to the Minister and the Taoiseach that the issue is not as the latter suggested, namely, that some bids are too low to be unrealistic, but that the entire process renders the State financial hostage to private companies that have various mechanisms to inflate their profits and margins. It is underbidding, but the State is entering a very useful cartel arrangement for the builders and developers. My final question is whether the State is also hostage to the EU procurement processes or if it can step outside them.

See this speech in context