The consultant who advised the Department of Transport, Energy and Communciations on the awarding of the State's second mobile phone licence has said he is surprised at the description of the process in the Moriarty tribunal's report.
Prof Michael Andersen of Andersen Management International (AMI), who was the last person to give evidence to the tribunal late last year, also said the report contained a number of factural errors.
Mr Andersen, a telecommunications consultant, only agreed to appear before the Moriarty tribunal after businessman Denis O'Brien agreed to cover the costs of indemnifying him.
After hearing his testimony, the tribual said it was of "limited" use as it "fell so appreciably below what might have been expected".
The tribunal was also critical of the amount of time it took for Mr Andersen to make himself available to appear as a witness, saying it has led to considerable extra expense.
Speaking this morning Mr Andersen said the tribunal's portrayal of the competition process as being "disorganised" was wrong.
"In general terms one gets the impression that it was a disorganised process, and I think that picture is not correct," Mr Andersen said on RTÉ Morning Ireland.
Mr Andersen claimed the tribunal displayed a "hostile attitude" towards him as a witness, which was the reason why he had sought an indemnity. He also dismissed the tribunal's criticism regarding the amount of time it took him to appear before it.
In its report, the tribunal said Mr Andersen gave a number of different reasons why he was unable to attend as a witness. Mr Andersen rejected this claim.
He said he eventually decided to appear before the tribunal following the publication of provisional findings by the tribunal that he described as containing a number of factual mistakes, which he said were repeated in the report published yesterday.
Among the mistakes cited in the report by Mr Andersen include the decision to revise the evaluation model used, the assertion that no records were kept of meetings held and reported changes to weighings and grades.
"None of this is correct in my view," he said.
"It seems to me when I read the report now - though I haven't had the opportunity to read all the details - that the Moriarty tribunal has written the report a very long time ago and most certainly has not taken the last evidence into account," Mr Andersen added.
