It is a hard read but a good read, Mr Editor. In fact, it should be considered required reading for those who want to better understand the proposed airport project.

I am, of course, referring to what has come to be more commonly known as the Deloitte Report which is appropriately also titled, Government of Bermuda, Appraisal of Bermuda Airport Development Business Case.

Few will find it easy to wade through all 200 pages, a 45-page document with eight Appendices which, thankfully, features an executive summary.

Some of the language, terms and concepts will not be familiar and while it takes time to work your way through the entire report, it does make for compelling reading.

The appraisers identify what they term “gaps” and “opportunities”. Some of those gaps are described as “substantive”, like the one which they state “makes it difficult to assess that the most economically advantageous solution has been selected”.

Adding: “This is particularly significant in satisfying Government that the optimal solution for Bermuda has been selected, prior to engaging with potential suppliers.”

This brings us to what the report calls opportunities. Here, the appraisers identify several “key areas” which they believe “offer opportunities for the Government of Bermuda to add significant value to the process and substantially reduce risks in the project”.

Hmmn. These identified gaps and opportunities sounded very much to me like cautions and warnings, otherwise also known as red flags.

There was no escaping the feeling when reading the report that Government has put the cart before the cart before the horse — way, way before the horse — in deciding to go the route (it has) with this PPP.

The reader is left with the distinct impression that there is still plenty of work to be done to make this proposed project fly — and fly right.

What is also clear, perhaps ironically, is that there will need to be the same sort of due diligence and oversight taxpayers expect and deserve with any project of this magnitude, whether outsourced to a PPP or built the traditional way after competitive tendering.

There is no scope for cutting corners here. The opportunity to get it right is now. At the outset.

The kind of oversight that will be required is the kind of oversight that has been lacking around here. No need to belabour the point here. Not again.

The report is expected to come up for debate on the Hill and for those MPs who read it through the contents should make for strong and searching argument — as it should do whether for or against. But it won’t be enough whatever the outcome of the debate.

What will be underscored once again is the need for continuing and close scrutiny by our Legislature whether through the Public Accounts Committee (which arguably has its plate full already) or through a specially struck parliamentary committee which, if I may make a suggestion, might also feature one or two independent senators who should be invited to join in.

Already we have heard from the Government of the gaps that have to be plugged: not so surprising, they say, given how far along they are in the process.

Still, you can’t help thinking this may also be a case where the plug needs to be pulled.

A couple of excerpts from the report, Mr Editor, to make the point — starting with what I regard as the biggest tell:

n “In June 2014, representatives of CCC and the Government of Bermuda met, marking the start in documentation of a new procurement approach.

“The documentation we have viewed does not set out how the Government of Bermuda analysed the costs and benefits of a sole-source procurement strategy against those of the anticipated competitive RFP process for a PPP, except at a high, conceptual level.

“As a result, there is no robust evidence indicating that a sole-source PPP would offer more VFM (value for money) than a competitive procurement strategy for a similar concession.

n “There is therefore a potential gap in evidence to support the sole-source procurement strategy opted for from June 2014 as compared to previous evidence suggesting a competed PPP procurement process could be viable.”

Some more revealing excerpts:

n “The available evidence is typically quite generic and frequently theoretical — there is very little specific assessment of procurement strategy in this context, recognising the specifics of the Bermuda airport.”

n “It should be noted that the conclusion in favour of a sole-source procurement (notably citing lack of investor interest) is made by CCC, and Government may want to perform independent analysis on procurement strategy to satisfy itself on the validity of this analysis.”

n “CCC’s internal processes will naturally consider their own commercial position rather than the position of the Bermuda Government.

“While their proposed deal may aim to offer VFM, a supplier’s estimation of VFM will not consider all components affecting the Bermuda Government.”

n “The documentation we have viewed does not set out how CCC selected Aecon, how their process follows best practices, or how competitive tension in the supply chain between Aecon and their competed sub-contractors would benefit the Government of Bermuda.”

n “It is likely that Bermudian Government will not want to rely on CCC’s proposals to assess VFM.

“There is limited evidence of consideration of specific mechanisms to benchmark or assure VFM through assessing the proposed deal.”

There is more, lots more, but I will stop there, Mr Editor.

That’s sufficient, I think, to make my point.