A company which has spent £1.5 million preparing a tender for the 2,000-seat National Conference Centre yesterday brought a High Court challenge to the procedures involved in determining who wins the contract for the project.
Spencer Dock International Convention Centre Ltd - in which Treasury Holdings Ltd was stated to be the majority shareholder - is seeking orders against Bord Failte and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation.
The company wants to build the centre in Dublin's north docks. A number of other groups have also tendered for the project. Bord Failte is evaluating the tenders on behalf of the Minister.
The development is earmarked for EU financial assistance running to 33 million ECUs but, if it is delayed, it could lose such aid.
Yesterday, Mrs Justice McGuinness gave leave to Spencer Dock International to apply for an order by way of judicial review quashing a decision of the respondents, dated April 14th last, purporting to invoke a "negotiated procedure" under an EEC directive in respect of the centre.
The company is also seeking a declaration that Bord Failte and the Minister breached the requirements of the EEC directive in failing to follow procedures specified in the Official Journal of the European Communities and in the Invitation to Tender Document, and that they were not entitled to use the "negotiated procedure" except where authorised.
A declaration is also being sought that the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements of the directive necessary to justify the negotiated procedure.
Spencer Dock International also wants an order requiring Bord Failte and the Minister to invoke the procedure prescribed in the Invitation to Tender in respect of the competition to invite tenders to make a presentation to the management board.
Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for Spencer, said the issue was whether his clients were right in saying the decision-makers deviated from the procedures they were bound to follow. His clients had spent some £1.5 million in preparing its tender and dealing with the necessary arrangements.
They were concerned that the award procedure be concluded as quickly as possible so that the project would not lose EU grants.
In an affidavit, Mr John Ronan, a director of Spencer, said he was advised the negotiated procedure was unlawful and was a breach of the provisions of the EEC directive and his company's legitimate expectations and contractual rights. In summary, the determination communicated in the April 14th letter represented a fundamental variation from the terms upon which the competition was announced.
The deviation from the original procedures exposed Spencer to the risk of considerable loss and damage. It was critical from its perspective that the decision be reversed at the soonest available opportunity.
A notice in the journal of the EU in September 1997 made it clear EU funding required for the project demanded that it be completed by December 31st 2001.
Mr Ronan said it was with the greatest of reluctance his company brought the proceedings. It had no desire to halt or delay the tendering process. However, it found itself in an extremely invidious situation. If it participated in the negotiating procedure and the contract was awarded to it, it faced a real risk of the procedure being upset by a disappointed tenderer complaining of the patent irregularities which had occurred.
Spencer Dock International believed it would be successful in the tendering process. The proposals it had made involved an innovative and attractive design, located in a development which would bring immense economic benefits to both its immediate area, the city and the tourism economy generally.