In Cabinet papers:

“On 4 June 14, Cabinet agreed that specialist expertise be commissioned to advise on the specialist area of European procurement, relating to Skypark. This advice has confirmed that a European procurement process for site acquisition and development was likely to be required, with additional cost and associated delay. Since June, however, as the body of the report explains, Skypark has in any case become less affordable due to the reduction in projected capital receipts likely to be available for the office relocation project.”

So, how come that for around 3 years no-one spotted that the new HQ project would require that it be done under EU regulations to promote fair competition and that this would result in additional costs?

What was EDDC planning to do that would have fallen foul of the regulations?

Who spotted it and how?

How much did the expert advice cost?

Why did the Relocation Manager not spot it earlier – wasn’t he recruited as an expert in these matters at huge cost?

Why is the construction of a new HQ in Honiton not under the same rules (or is it)?

Has anyone checked?

Why was Skypark dependent on the “all eggs in one basket” approach that fell at the first hurdle when the supermarket lowered its offer?

Was this included in the risk assessment?

Was there a risk assessment?

Whose head will roll?

And for future reference councillors and officers, here are the thresholds above which strict EU procurement guidelines are mandatory:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/rules/current/index_en.htm

We like to be helpful where we can.