International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 1

Number 4

December 2007

447

The Public Private Partnership Model on

Which the National Maritime College of

Ireland Was Conceived and Delivered

E. Doyle

National Maritime College of Ireland, Cork, Ireland

ABSTRACT: Ten years ago, maritime education and training in Ireland was seriously under-resourced. Cork

Institute of Technology, as the designated national centre for maritime education and training, was responsible

for seafarer training for the Merchant Marine. The Irish Naval Service, in addition to its military obligations,

had an ongoing need to provide similar training for its personnel. In discharging their responsibilities each of

those entities aimed to implement a range of multi-disciplinary training programmes designed to produce

skilled seafarers, qualified to international standards. But neither organisation had the requisite scale of

technical facilities or equipment needed to satisfy the growing aspirations under STCW 95. The solution was

found in a partnership agreement between Cork Institute of Technology and the Naval Service, to establish a

national centre for the conduct of common maritime training. The Irish Government agreed and decided that

the new National Maritime College of Ireland (NMCI), should be funded and managed under a Public Private

Partnership model.

1 BACKGROUND TO MERCANTILE

TRAINING

1.1 Provision of qualified mariners

Historically, the national shipping line of Ireland,

Irish Shipping Ltd, was the recruitment entity for the

majority of new entrants to seafaring. The company,

though not the sole recruiter, promoted a shipping

and seafaring culture through its ‘Follow the Fleet’

programme for schools, and consistently recruited

more deck and engineering cadets than were actually

required for its own fleet needs. The policy ensured a

stream of qualified mariners to meet the general

demand of shipping and, in addition, it met the

general maritime administration needs at the national

level.

1.2 Designated training establishment

The shore training structure supporting this policy

had been consolidated and centralised at Cork, at the

Department of Nautical Studies in Cork Regional

Technical College as it was then known, now

thriving as the Cork Institute of Technology (CIT).

Sadly, Irish Shipping Ltd, went into liquidation in

1984 and CIT, as the designated national centre for

maritime education and training (MET), had to

assume greater responsibility for seafarer recruitment

and training. The Nautical Studies Department took

up the challenge, instituting a new programme in

1985 (coincidentally, as a severe slump mauled

international shipping!).

448

1.3 Employment output

Fortuitously, the first trainees qualified at the

commencement of a sustained upswing in demand

for deck officers and engineers and since then the

training programmes have flourished; between 50

and 70 young school-leavers commence as trainee

deck officers or trainee marine engineers each year.

The officer training programmes conducted at Cork

had then, and continue to achieve, a distinguished

record of 100% career placement for all trainees who

achieve primary qualifications as deck officers or as

marine engineers.

1.4 Resource deficiencies

All of this was achieved with very limited resources;

Nautical Studies was one of the smallest academic

departments of CIT, located on the Bishopstown

campus which is not adjacent to the sea. And relying

on access to an old training vessel—the redundant

liner tender, mv Cill Airne—to meet certain essential

training needs simply highlighted the shortcomings

and equipment deficiencies on campus at that time.

1.5 Pressure to move to new campus

Coming into the mid 1990’s the general maritime

education and training situation confronting the

Department of Nautical Studies was becoming

critical, for a number of reasons. In the first instance,

the mother Institute was growing dramatically,

giving rise to intense pressure and competition

for space on the Bishopstown campus. Moving

the ‘sailors’ off campus was becoming a serious

consideration in light of a strengthened case for

more space and much increased investment. But the

prospect of STCW 95 coming down the tracks was

rightly identified as an instrument heralding major

change.

1.6 Impetus from STCW 95

The 1995 Amendments called for standards of

competence rather than knowledge, unlike the

original 1978 Convention, which specified required

knowledge but did not address the question of ability

to put that knowledge into practice. Competence,

being a measure of a seafarer's ability to perform a

task safely and effectively, cannot be easily assessed

at a shore establishment that lacks significant

hardware and facilities. And what was very new in

these 1995 amendments was the specific criteria for

evaluating the competence of the individuals under

training. To remain compliant with the STCW Code,

considerable investment would be necessary,

particularly in simulation and survival training

facilities. Even without the pressure of the Code, the

need for such upgrading was becoming more and

more obvious. The Code simply made it critical.

2 NAVAL SERVICE EDUCATION AND

TRAINING NEEDS

2.1 Naval training shortcomings

The Irish Naval Service, in addition to its military

obligations, had an ongoing need to provide similar

training for its seagoing personnel. At about the

same time the Navy’s shore training facilities,

located at the Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork

Harbour, were under review. The training

accommodation and equipment resources were in

need of serious improvement. The buildings were

old, small and in varying stages of disrepair, and the

Base infrastructure gave rise to an overall training

effort that was unavoidably fragmented; an

operational base makes inevitable demands on the

personnel resources of a co-located training

establishment. The training environment was further

weakened by the lack of simulation facilities.

2.2 Navy would seek to apply STCW

Though not constrained or bound by STCW the

Naval Service management decided that naval

training programmes should be compliant with the

provisions of the Code, wherever possible. This

policy would have the further merit of expanding the

career possibilities for naval personnel in later

civilian life, by affording them the opportunity to

acquire STCW compliant qualifications. It was

equally beneficial as a recruiting measure; new

entrants are more likely to be attracted to a military

organization where they see a realistic possibility of

achieving a recognized civilian qualification.

2.3 Availability of green-field site

In order to address the problem, a 10-acre site at

Ringaskiddy had been acquired by the Navy in 1993.

The site, immediately south of, and convenient to,

the Naval Base on Haulbowline Island, was part of a

reclaimed land bank and possessed good harbour

frontage. Outline plans had been formulated for a

dedicated Naval School on this site, but funding for

its development had not materialised. Lacking also

at that time, was the necessary level of co-operation

and interdependence between the mercantile and

naval training entities, a relationship that was to

flourish so productively some years later.

Nevertheless, the procurement of state-of-art MET

449

facilities remained a key Naval Service training

objective.

3 NEW CO-OPERATION

3.1 Common needs identified

In April 1997 a Joint CIT/INS Steering Group took a

new look at the maritime education and training

needs of each entity. A comparison of Mercantile

and Naval training procedures flagged courses and

programmes where economies of scale were thought

possible, or where there was felt to be scope and

potential to avoid unnecessary duplication of

training effort and expensive resources. It was

recognized that whether the training objective was to

teach seafarers how to drive merchant ships or naval

vessels, the fundamentals of safely navigating and

propelling those ships were very similar.

3.2 Partnership approach

The Steering Group believed that by combining

the training functions and requirements of both

organisations in partnership on a common campus

the primary education and training needs of each

could be fulfilled, and in addition, specialist training

services, not otherwise available, could be offered

to the commercial sector and to various public

and government agencies. The establishment of

a common centre and the consolidation of training

and related technological resources in a designated

institution would undoubtedly provide the vehicle

for greater cohesion and co-ordination of maritime

training, offer a solid basis for future RTD,

and make a strong contribution towards the

implementation of national policy for maritime

development.

3.3 Recommendation of the Steering Group

In a very short time the Steering Group reported and

recommended that CIT, in partnership with the

Naval Service, should establish a national centre for

the conduct of common maritime training, and

suggested that it be known as the NATIONAL

MARITIME COLLEGE. With an eye to possible EU

financial support, the military aspects of naval

training would have to remain the exclusive

responsibility of the Navy and not feature on the

curriculum of a civilian establishment.

3.4 Further backing from the Task Force on

Seafarer Training & Employment

The Steering Group recommendations were

acceptable to both organisations, and more detailed

studies and consultations were commenced. Around

this time, several maritime stakeholders were

lobbying the Government for structural support in

the sector. The industry was concerned with issues

such as ‘flagging out’, crewing costs, seafarer

taxation, training and such like. And to address

those issues, the Minister for the Marine and Natural

Resources established a broadly based Task Force on

Seafarer Training and Employment. The Task Force

reported back in 1999, and came in strongly in

favour of the NMC concept as “…an ideal

innovative and essential venture’.

4 GOVERNMENT DECISION

4.1 Expert working group

The Government accepted the Task Force findings

and agreed to the development of a National

Maritime College “in principle”. But before any hard

dec-isions would be made an Inter-Departmental

Expert Working Group (IEWG) was established, to

make an in-depth examination of the proposition

with respect to costing, financing, and timing and to

make suitable recommendations. Once again, a

favourable outcome blossomed for the proposers.

4.2 Agreement to proceed under the Public Private

Partnership model

The IEWG Report became the basis for the

Government Decision, in May 2000, to build the

new National Maritime College of Ireland (NMCI)

on the Department of Defence green-field site at

Ringask-iddy. But in financing the project the

Government was taking the public partnership

proposal between Cork Institute of Technology and

the Irish Naval Service one step further by seeking

the involvement of a private partner. The Public

Private Partnership (PPP) funding model as a

procurement mechanism for major public projects is

a relatively new concept to Ireland. It has been used

to fund some road and infrastructural projects and, in

the education sector, to build and manage a pilot

project of secondary schools known as the ‘Bundled

Schools’ PPP. The NMCI project would be the first

such PPP in the third level sector.

450

5 THE BIDDING PROCESS

5.1 Preliminary invitation to negotiate

The next stage in the procurement process, seeking

‘expressions of interest’ from potential bidders,

required the publication, in April 2001, of a PIN

(Preliminary Invitation to Negotiate) notice in the

Official Journal of the European Communities. A

potential bidder has to make a careful judgment at

this point; an inadequate response to the PIN will

most likely exclude that entity from selection to the

short list, while a substantial response designed to

ensure inclusion on the short list will lead to

significant bidding costs at the ITN stage of the

process, with no guarantee of any return.

5.2 Short list of bidders

The Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) document was

issued to just three bidders; the short list was

confined to this number in the belief that success

odds of 1 in 3 were considered to be sufficiently

attractive for bidding consortia, whereas greater

odds of 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 were perceived to be a

disincentive. Short-listed bidders must incur

substantial expenditure in preparing their bids, but

only one of them, the ultimate ‘preferred bidder’, can

recover those costs. The unsuccessful bidders are left

nursing their costs—an expensive lesson in the PPP

exercise.

5.3 Bidder takes the risk

The ITN had to become a very substantial document,

encompassing the output specifications, space

data sheets, legal information and financial data.

The tactic of writing an ‘output specification’ as

distinct from the more usual ‘inputs’ transferred a

great share of the risk from the public entities to the

private bidder. But it did require the public partners

to take the pain up front in the laborious compilation

of the ITN document.

5.4 Bidders need to have common understanding

Three separate stage meetings were held with each

bidding consortium to afford them the opportunity to

present their design and architectural ideas, projected

costs and timelines, and to

ensure that each bidder

received the same technical guidance. An evaluation

process and marking criteria were agreed before any

bid was received.

5.5 Attraction for the private partner

But what were the private interests bidding for?

And why risk a probable €1 million outlay on a

possible unsuccessful bid? The prize for the

successful ‘preferred bidder’ would be a contract

agreement to design, build, finance, operate and

maintain the new College and manage the facility

for a 25-year term. Very few commercial enterprises

can project their earnings beyond the immediate

short term, with any certainty. Having a guaranteed

income stream for 25 years sets the prize in its

proper context. There was further icing on this PPP

cake in the form of Third Party Income (TPI). This

means that any of the agreement partners have the

qualified right to sell-on those College facilities that

are not required for the core curriculum hours, to

third party interests, and the profits from such TPI

activity are shared 50/50 between the public and

private partners. At the end of the 25-year agreement

term the facility reverts to State ownership.

6 THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

SOLUTION

6.1 The successful bidder

In April 2002, a bidding consortium under the name

of Focus Education were selected and appointed as

the preferred bidder. The members of this

consortium and its associated sub-contractors were:

− Bovis Lend Lease—FM, HBOS—Bankers,

− Pierse Construction—Builders, BDP—Architects,

Nolan Ryan—Quantity Surveyors,

− ABROS—Financial advisers, Linklaters—Legal,

− Farrell Grant Sparks—Financial &Tax

It was to be another ten months before the formal

contract agreement was signed, on 13

February

2003.

6.2 Construction

Construction, fitting-out and commissioning, to the

cost of about €52 million, were scheduled to take 18

months, targeting the facility start-up for the

commencement of the following academic year. But

there was a little slippage to that scheduled which

delayed the start of training activity until early

October 2004.

451

7 FACILITY DELIVERED

7.1 Substantial modern college

The final outcome was an impressive, purpose-built,

maritime college on the available ten-acre site,

adjacent to harbour frontage. The buildings gave

floor space of some 13,800 m2, with capacity for

750 students, accommodated in twenty classrooms,

and extensive simulation and laboratory facilities.

7.2 Core features

The key education and training facilities of the

College include:

− 20 Lecture Halls/Classrooms,

− 12 Laboratories,

− 6 Workshops,

− Engine Room

− Learning Resource Centre,

− Multipurpose Hall,

− Survival Centre with Environment Pool, HUET,

Cold Water Training Tank and MER,

− Survival Craft Jetty and Pontoon,

− Fire Fighting and Damage Control Centre,

− 360° Full-Mission Bridge Simulator,

− 270° Full-Mission Bridge Simulator,

− 3 x 150˚ Secondary Bridges,

− 12-station part-task simulation suite for NARAS-

O, Fleetwork and VTS,

− 12-station GMDSS Simulator,

− 8-station GMDSS (Navy) Simulator,

− 20-station Engine Room Simulation,

− 12-station Liquid Cargo Handling and Ship

Stability Simulator.

As the list above clearly shows, the simulation

suite was a major element of the project agreement.

The public partners were rightly concerned to ensure

that such key facilities should remain state-of-the-art

for the 25-year term of the agreement, and to this

end the specification included the requirement that

all simulation software should be upgraded at least

every five years and that simulation hardware should

be replaced every ten years.

7.3 NMCI layout

The NMCI layout is arranged around three distinct

structural blocks, all joined by the main concourse

which accommodates the front-of-house services.

Block A houses the Engine Room and M&E work-

shops, R&D laboratories, Seamanship Bay, Divers,

Shipwrights, Firefighters and the Survival Training

Centre. Block B is devoted to classrooms,

laboratories, simulation facilities, and staff and

administration offices on the upper floor, while

Block C accommodates the canteen, library,

computer laboratories, lecture theatre and

management offices.

8 GOVERNANCE

8.1 Special character of NMCI

The governance of the National Maritime College of

Ireland, as a publicly funded project procured by

the Minister for Education and Science, is regulated

under the Institutes of Technology Acts and

the Higher Education Authority Acts. And under

the provisions of the former, NMCI is subject to

the administrative and financial control of Cork

Institute of Technology. However, recognising and

acknowledging the special character and cooperative

nature of the project, the NMCI is described as “…a

constituent College of Cork Institute of Technology

in partnership with the Irish Naval Service and

Focus Education.”

8.2 Need for MOU

The possible problems and frictions that might arise

from this combination of cohabiting civil and

military training entities exercised minds from an

early date. It would have been foolhardy to ignore

the tradition-al divisions and mutual suspicions

between the mercantile and naval codes of service.

The Irish authorities were breaking new ground with

this project; so far as one could tell, there were no

similar (combined mercantile and naval service)

enterprises in Europe or elsewhere in the western

world that might offer a benchmark model. With

these and related considerations in mind, it would be

necessary to agree a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) for the day-to-day operation and utilization

of the facility.

8.3 Executive Committee

The MOU provided for the establishment of an

Executive Committee, operating as a committee of

the Governing Body of the Institute (CIT) and in

accordance with the same rules of good governance.

The Executive Committee is required to advise on:

− policy, strategic planning and ongoing

development of the NMCI;

− links with external stakeholders; and

− relationships within the NMCI, and between

the NMCI and relevant Government Departments.

The Committee consists of the Head of College

and two other persons, as nominated by the

Governing Body of CIT, and the Associate Head of

452

College and two other persons, as nominated by the

Irish Naval Service.

8.4 Common NMCI identity

While the NMCI has its own identity and all

the manifestations of that identity, both CIT and

the Navy are each restrained from promoting or

maintaining a separate identity or image within the

NMCI. Also, each entity is expected to conduct their

education and training activities in a manner which

is not materially detrimental to the best interests of

the other party.

8.5 Management and ethos

The day-to-day management of the NMCI is

primarily the responsibility of the Head of College in

consultation with the Associate Head. The Executive

Committee is required to protect, to the fullest extent

practicable, the reputations and ethos of both the

Navy and the Institute in the manner in which the

NMCI is managed. If a conflict arises and remains

unresolved at the local level it must then be referred

to the Governing Body for resolution.

9 CONCLUSIONS

The NMCI project agreement has delivered a world-

class maritime education and training facility

broadly on time and within budget. The new College

has the capacity to deliver any and all of the

programmes that professional mariners, civilian or

naval, may require, and the many related activities of

which the general maritime community stands in

need. Whether the project could have achieved the

same measure of success as a purely public capital

project rather than its PPP actuality is open to

debate. But what cannot be disputed is the core

success factor of the enterprise, the essential

partnership arrangement between the two public

agencies, Cork Institute of Technology and the Irish

Naval Service. The NMCI has been regarded as a

flagship project within the Irish public service: it is

hardly stretching the point to hold that it could well

stand as a benchmark model for the maritime sector

within the European Community.