Reference is made to the article ‘Probe into Parliament cost overruns goes over budget’ (December 20), which asserted that “an investigation into cost overruns at the new Parliament building went over budget”.

The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure takes note of the findings and recommendations of the Auditor General, however, it would like to make the following clarifications with regard to the article in question.

With the change in government, a new board of directors for the Grand Harbour Regeneration Corporation was appointed. It insisted on an updated position on the City Gate projects, particularly with reference to the new Parliament project which suffered critical delays and hefty cost overruns. An investigation to identify the reasons for the delays and cost overruns was requested.

The investigation was split into two phases and the cost of the second phase was based on the analysis carried out in phase one. One could not estimate the cost of the second phase before the completion of phase one.

Phase one was intended to be carried out by the auditors to test the research methodology to be adopted and define a structured process to perform the investigation. Phase one was conducted by RSM Limited at a cost of €8,000, including VAT.

Phase two was in continuance to phase one, that is the implementation of the investigation process drawn up in phase one and the drawing up of an expert report on the findings. The cost of phase two was €74,692 and was carried out by Insight International Ltd.

However, these were neither additional expenses nor budget overruns.

Additionally, when detailing the cost of phase two, the contractor quoted a lump sum that included the cost of the whole package; that is, all the services involved to carry out the physical scrutiny of the documentation to attest flaws in procedures, roles, contractual obligations and other financial implications.

The investigation company appointed three foreign experts to conduct an independent investigation and the cost of the second phase was based on audit fees based on hourly rates of the experts and other expenditure incurred on the assignment. The ministry would also like to further clarify that the matter was of extreme urgency and the investigation needed to be completed by June 2014, when the claims for extra work for the new Parliament were to be assessed.

This was the reason why the specific procurement procedure of direct order was adopted.