The company responsible for the development of Campus and Stadium Ireland has been criticised for lacking experience in the report on the project, published last night.
The report, by independent consultants High Point Rendel, states that the "breadth and depth" of skills available within Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd need to be reviewed.
"It is our view that the CSID's in-house team needs to be strengthened to create a well-rounded in-house management team with experience of projects of this size, complexity and challenge," the report says. CSID is headed by former secretary-general of the Department of the Taoiseach, Mr Paddy Teahon. Ms Laura Magahy, former managing director of Temple Bar Properties, is the executive director.
The report criticises the lack of a business model for the project. It recommends that the "key stakeholders" need to agree a business model in the very near future.
This model would agree on the range and specification of facilities, including who would use the facilities and on what basis; the capital budget, costs and income; the operational performance, including sinking fund; the risks the Government will accept; and how the facility should be managed and operated.
"As we have highlighted within this report, there are indicative answers to the majority of these questions, but it is apparent that there are currently inconsistencies and contradictions," it states.
Given that the analysis to date indicates that the current Design/Build/Finance/Operate (DBFO) strategy, as suggested by the Government, would produce a very small private investment, then "the key questions will all need to be addressed primarily by Government, as they are in effect 100 per cent funding the project".
The report identifies a number of areas which are "critical" to the project, and raises questions about the DBFO strategy.
It calls for a detailed review of each facility to examine basic needs. These reviews could result in a change in scale and size, such as a reduction in the size of the stadium, it stated, or the cancellation of a facility.
The report disagrees with recent CSID suggestions that a cheaper, sunken bowl-type stadium could be built. It points out that if CSID is to work within a very tight, fixed budget, then it is inevitable that "the specifications will deteriorate and/or facilities (will) not be included".
Alternatively, it states, if CSID is to maintain a "baseline specification" it will be necessary to agree on this base level, and to provide "sufficient funding headroom" to ensure that the project quality can be maintained.
Unless this is achieved in the near future, the project will continue "with little or no agreement, possibly leading to an impasse at some point in the future. If this does occur there could be significant abortive costs and delays".
The report is critical of the procurement process. It states that the brief provided to bidders was "vague". It is imperative that, irrespective of the form of procurement, the next round of negotiations with bidders commence with "clear, concise and detailed specification for all facilities, which is signed off by the key stakeholders". Addressing the issue of risk identification, the report says the two major sources of capital funding likely to be available are a private donation of €63.49m (£50m) and Exchequer funding which is "currently unquantifiable".
"Therefore, over time, due to inflation, the real value of the donation has already diminished and will continue to do so and the funding may be cash limited and not subject to any form of indexation."