Bacon: Mobile score system was flawed

AN EXPERT witness has told the Moriarty Tribunal that the scoring system used by a team of civil servants made it impossible to determine a winner from applicants for the state’s second mobile phone licence.

Economic consultant Dr Peter Bacon claimed the marking system used to assess rival bids contained significant “margins of error”. Dr Bacon said he also failed to understand why the group of senior civil servants had abandoned another “sound” element of the scoring system due to a lack of information.

“The margins of error inherent in that scoring system made it difficult to determine a robust and definitive result,” said Dr Bacon who was commissioned in 2002 to carry out a review of financial aspects of the competition for the phone licence by the tribunal.

The licence was awarded in 1995 to the Esat consortium led by Denis O’Brien. The tribunal is investigating whether there was any undue political interference in the process by former communications minister, Michael Lowry.

Both Mr O’Brien and Mr Lowry deny there was anything improper in the way the licence was awarded. However, the second-ranking consortium, Persona, has initiated legal proceedings against the state for damages.

In his second day of evidence at Dublin Castle, Dr Bacon said he could not understand why the civil servants had used a measurement of potential profit to assess the quality and accessibility of the planned phone service. Dr Bacon said its use was “inappropriate” based on his professional experience.

He also questioned why the group had abandoned an element of the marking system because they hadn’t received all the data which they had expected from applicants. “That strikes me as being odd. It was strange. They threw out the baby with the bathwater,” remarked Dr Bacon.

However, he agreed with Eoin McGonigal SC for Mr O’Brien that he had seen nothing to indicate any outside influence on the competition process.

But he strongly rejected any suggestion that he had discussed the presentation of his report with the inquiry’s legal team.

Dr Bacon explained that he had submitted a draft report to the tribunal to ensure it satisfied the terms of reference he was given.

He stressed that he would never allow a client to try and change or alter one of his conclusions.

Dr Bacon was also questioned about a record of a meeting with tribunal lawyers which noted that a Danish consultant who had assisted the Government in devising a scoring system had been “manipulated” by the team of civil servants.

Rossa Fanning BL for Mr Lowry expressed surprise that Dr Bacon had made no reference to such a significant view in his draft report to the tribunal.

However, the economist said he had confined the report to a technical assessment of the competition.