Department of Taoiseach contracts in relation to EU presidency

There are the contracts awarded by the Department of the Taoiseach as a direct result of the planning and administration of Ireland’s Presidency of the EU 2013. Costs include the website, which cost €244,741.71.

Thanks to Vinnie O’Dowd for obtaining the data.

14 thoughts on “Department of Taoiseach contracts in relation to EU presidency”

  1. As I’ve mentioned on another site, this is an absolute joke. The site doesn’t even look up to par and the code quality is mediocre. I’m a web developer myself and I can’t imagine how much more than a months work went into this, even with the CMS they’ve most likely provided (and probably re-used from other projects).

    Absolutely disgraceful. Not even some of the best sites around would warrant such extreme costs. They/we’ve been had.

    1. TerminalFour’s main product is their CMS, so of course it’s been re-used from other projects – it’s what they’re selling (along with support of their products/etc)

  2. Would the website contract have gone to tender?

    Who are the directors of the Terminal Four Solutions Ltd?

    1. Actually I kind of got that wrong. The ‘Development and Management of a Presidency Website Service for Ireland’s Presidency of the European Union, 2004’ was divided into four lots, website design and development, information publication and translation, hosting (by a government agency) and webcasts for a total of over 2.25 million ( Why so expensive? And why is the 2004 site not available any more?

  3. couldn’t agree with Matthew more, the site is full of `spaghetti code` not to mention they are doing crazy stuff like sending their sql queries back tot he browser on many of the ajax calls:

    “select * from dbo.event WHERE ID IN (select DISTINCT eventid FROM dbo.keyevents where (topics like ‘GAC’ OR topics like ” ) and eventlanguage = ‘en’) AND eventlanguage = ‘en’ AND MONTH(startdate) = 1 AND Etype like ‘Presidency’ ORDER by startdate”

    Somebody should be jailed for misuse of public funds over this.

    1. I agree also, but even if the site was technically proficient, would it be worth the public monies expended on it?

Comments are closed.