Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

If we do not get the answers, we will not learn the lessons. We are not getting the answers and do not seem to understand what happened. The PwC report reads: "The understanding of the risk profile associated with the procurement and contracting strategy was poor at all levels of the governance structure." Understanding the risk profile of a capital project is the first step. Who did not understand it and why?

The report also reads: "The strategy identified that a lack of interest from the market was a 'primary potential risk' to the procurement and mitigation strategies were put in place to address this." Why was a different form of contract not considered? Why was an International Federation of Consulting Engineers, FIDIC, contract not used? That would have attracted European interest.

The Tánaiste stated that there was a gross underestimate that should have been flagged earlier, but a public benchmarking exercise provides an advance estimation of what a project will cost. Why was one not done? Who decided not to undertake one? Why was phase A a stand-alone contract? Who made that decision? Was it the advisers, McCann Fitzgerald, the executive or the board? The bill of quantities was only based on a preliminary design. Why was it not based on a detailed design? Who made that decision? If McCann Fitzgerald did not ask the right questions or give the right advice, will its public indemnity insurance be called in? How much has McCann Fitzgerald been paid for its work?

See this speech in context