UDC denies withholding information on Sandals Whitehouse project
THE Urban Development Corporation (UDC) yesterday categorically refuted claims made by contractor-general Greg Christie that it had deliberately withheld information from him during his investigation of the US$43-million cost overruns on the Sandals Whitehouse project.
The contractor-general’s July 2006 report had accused the UDC of deliberately hiding information requested in August of 2005.
But Marjorie Campbell, the UDC’s president and chief executive officer, told yesterday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament that documentation relating to some seven of the nine items requested by the office of the contractor-general had been supplied.
She said that only items six and nine had not been submitted. Item six had requested all site meeting minutes from conception, implementation and final close out of the project, while item nine requested the copy of revised and original cash flow.
Campbell told the meeting that these outstanding documents had been “copied but inadvertently not sent”.
“It was just an oversight, it was not deliberately withheld. During the same time we were dealing with the forensic audit team,” Campbell told the PAC.
In the argument that ensued, the UDC head said the agency was by no means trying to absolve itself of its responsibilities. She, however, noted that it could not be overlooked that even though the office of the contractor-general had been advised that the outstanding documents would be sent later, at no time did that office contact the UDC when the items were not delivered as promised.
“The OCG did not point out to the UDC at any time that these two items remained outstanding,” she maintained.
But Opposition member Clive Mullings countered this point by pointing out that the contractor-general, in requiring information, had the status of a supreme court judge.
“Are you telling us Ms Campbell that you are waiting on the contractor general to remind you of the things that you have not sent, although you indicated that you had not sent them?” Mullings queried, while demanding to know why the UDC’s “inadvertence only resided as far as the contractor-general was concerned”.
“I’m not saying that at all. All I’m saying is…it was just a mere oversight of the officer…it was not deliberate,” Campbell insisted, adding that while the information had not been sent to the office of the contractor-general as promised, the same information had been sent to the forensic audit team in January of this year; three months before the Office of the contractor-general had requested additional information.
“There could never be any intent of concealing the information from the OCG,” Campbell, stated pointing out that it was due diligence on the part of the UDC that the oversight had been discovered.
Government member John Junor pointed out that the “inadvertence” “did not seem to inadvertently alarm the contractor-general,” as correspondence received from the office six months later still made no reference to the outstanding documents. Furthermore, Junor said while no attempt was being made to say the UDC was right, it was clearly an oversight on their part and not a deliberate attempt.
In the meantime, the UDC president also sought to clarify statements made by the Forensic Audit team in appearing before the PAC last week that only 19 of 38 payment certificates made to main contractor Ashtrom Building Systems had been received from the UDC. She said 19 certificates were provided as hard copies, while the remaining 19 had been provided as electronic copies all at the same time.
“We know we sent it and sent it more than once,” Campbell maintained, despite the insistence of opposition member Delroy Chuck that the forensic auditors had gone into great details about the 19 they said they had received. According to Chuck “I would find it most unusual if the forensic team had all 38 and did not do for the second 19 what they did for the first”.
A further look revealed that the appendix of the forensic audit team’s report had acknowledged receipt of all 38 payment certificates. The audit team is to clarify this.
In the meantime opposition member Delroy Chuck in further seeking to identify the cause of the overruns questioned whether monthly reports had been submitted and whether they had provided information as to the actual as against projected expenditure.
UDC’s Chief Legal Counsel Vivalyn Downer-Edwards confirmed that monthly reports had been provided to directors but admitted that between October 2003 and 2005 no board meetings had been held.