RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reviewing the contracts procurement process

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reviewing the contracts procurement process

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Reviewing the contracts procurement process</SPAN>
    <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Dennis Morrison
    Sunday, August 06, 2006
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    <P class=StoryText align=justify>Recently, public attention has been drawn to situations where contractors and consultants have been hired on government-owned or sponsored projects without complying with procurement procedures that have been established. The Whitehouse hotel project involving the UDC and NIBJ, two government entities, is the current case being discussed.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Dennis Morrison </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I agree that the fact of non-compliance with these procedures indicates that they need to be made mandatory and that there be penalties for breaches. But it is also important that penalties be carefully calibrated to match the severity of breaches if the public sector is to function at all. Thus, a review of the procurement process and the rules governing it, which have been in effect for a few years, is essential.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Every conscientious taxpayer and responsible citizen would accept that compliance with the procurement procedures is vital to ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of public resources. We would equally want to be assured that in applying these procedures we do not compromise timely decision-making on the part of the state.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This is particularly important where the state is involved in commercial operations on its own, or in public/private sector partnerships. In other words, transparency and accountability are vital to raising the quality of our governance; however, in striving to meet these ultimate objectives, we cannot ignore the central need for the bureaucracy to be efficient.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The government's procurement procedures involve several routes in arriving at contractual arrangements for acquiring goods and services. Public tender is the most important of these and the most talked about. But in overall terms, an even more important aspect for the public to understand is that the procedures specify that appropriate approvals be sought and received at each step of the procurement process.<P class=StoryText align=justify>It is where there are violations of this that penalties should be imposed. I suspect that a dispassionate review of the workings of the process will show that this is the real problem area, and not whether there is public tender or not.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=330 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>A section of the Northcoast Highway. (Photo: Michael Gordon) </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>While a public tender system will cut down on chicanery, it is also vital for us to understand that this system, which is what everyone seems to expect in every single case where government is procuring goods and services, does not guarantee the best prices. It also does not mean that the person selected will deliver the best performance.
    There are so many examples, both here and in other countries, where bidders offering the best prices turn out later to be non-performers by not delivering on time or on the basis of the prices originally quoted.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The procurement procedures now in place require that the lowest tender be given preference, unless there is comp
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

  • #2
    RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>'Wrong man' appointed contractor-general</SPAN>
    <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Ken Chaplin
    Tuesday, August 08, 2006
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Ken Chaplin</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Many government contractors are reportedly expressing concern over the approach and aggressive attitude of the new contractor-general, Greg Christie, especially in relation to the importance of tendering for road construction projects.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Some of these projects are considered the government's gravy train for contractors through the scheme of high cost overruns. But the contractor-general is insisting that taxpayers get value for money and that a close watch is to be kept on the implementation of contracts.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Some contractors aligned to the People's National Party and Government are said to be bawling about Christie's appointment, saying it was a case of the 'wrong man' put in the job. It was a mistake, one contractor who prefers to remain unnamed, told me bluntly.<P class=StoryText align=justify>On the other hand, many public service heads and private sector leaders have said that given the suspicion and corruption in the whole business of contracts and their implementation, Christie is the 'right man for the job' at this particular time. A colleague who knows Christie well told me that he is tough, determined, not afraid to confront people and is fiercely independent. He is the type of official that if anyone interferes or intervenes in his work, he will quit and say publicly why he did so.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In his report on the controversial Sandals Whitehouse hotel construction, Christie lashed out at the breaches of the government's procurement procedures, mainly by the Urban Development Corporation (UDC). Top public servants have expressed shock at Dennis Morrison's frontal attacks in his column in the Observer on aspects of Christie's report, especially relating to the need and importance of contractors tendering for projects.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The public servants were shocked because Morrison is chairman of two major public bodies - the Airports Authority and the Jamaica Tourist Board. He is also an economic adviser to the Government and a strong supporter of the ruling People's National Party. Christie appeared angry because Morrison questioned the legitimacy and logic of putting to tender certain projects in the construction of the Sandals Whitehouse hotel in the normal way.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Christie made a devastating response to Morrison. Said he: "As senior public officers such as Mr Morrison should know, the reasons for having these rules and procedures are quite simple and rudimentary. One is that public bodies and public officers, when they award government contracts, are spending the taxpayers' money - not their own. Another is to ensure that there is absolutely no place in the public sector procurement process for the subjective opinions or discretion of public officers, especially those who may be inclined to usurp the prescribed and mandatory contract award and tender process by summarily deeming it to be 'irrelevant' or 'unnecessary' whenever it suits them to do so."<P class=StoryText align=justify>He continued: "The bottom line is that public officers must follow the prescribed procurement rules. They must do so irrespective of whether they like them or not. If they do not comply, they should be held accountable. For what is at risk is not only the irretrievable loss of the trust that the public has reposed in its servants, but also the v
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

    Comment


    • #3
      RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

      <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Gorstew may have been right afterall</SPAN>
      <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Dennis Morrison
      Wednesday, August 09, 2006
      </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
      <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Dennis Morrison</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Statements made by representatives of Sandals/Gorstew on a public radio broadcast last week appeared to answer one of the questions I had raised in an article on July 30, 2006. This related to how practical it was for the contracts of service providers on the Whitehouse hotel project to have been terminated when ownership of the project changed.<P class=StoryText align=justify>According to these representatives, the contracts were actually terminated and the various consultants and contractors who had formerly been hired by the private sector developer were re-engaged by the new joint venture company.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This joint venture company, which eventually implemented the project, involved the former private sector developer working with two major State entities. On this basis, and assuming that the government procurement guidelines were in force at the time these contracts were being negotiated, contracting for these services ought to have been undertaken with the approval of the relevant authorities.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The remaining question, therefore, is: when did the procurement guidelines become applicable to the hireage of such services? The contractor-general's report seems to suggest that the guidelines became applicable after. This is a very important question that needs to be resolved.<P class=StoryText align=justify>As I have argued earlier, the board members of Newtown, both public and private sector, should have ensured that the transition from entirely private ownership to a private/public sector partnership was handled with due care. This would have involved consulting with the National Contracts Commission and consideration by Cabinet itself. In such a process, the issue of which contracts ought practically to have been put to tender would have been highlighted.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I am in no doubt, as I have stated before, that tendering of some of these contracts would have been regarded, and will still now be regarded, as impractical, given the proprietary nature of the services involved. This point must not be missed, even though we are angry about cost overruns related to waste and the burden they impose on taxpayers.<P class=StoryText align=justify>We await further examination of the contractor-general's report by Parliament, where it was tabled a few weeks ago, and answers to queries made by the leader of the opposition about certain findings of the report. One of these pertains to whether the switch from a Beaches to a Sandals concept involved additional costs.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The contractor-general had claimed that it did, but representatives of Gorstew rejected these claims, pointing out that the use of Beaches Negril as the reference by the contractor-general was wrong. According to them, the correct reference should have been Beaches Turks and Caicos.<P class=StoryText align=justify>My own view, having visited Beaches Negril and the Whitehouse hotel is that the layout of the two is completely different. It is, therefore, hard to see how the Whitehouse property could ever have been patterned off Beaches Negril.
      Based on what I have seen in brochures of the Beaches Turks and Caicos hotel, there is a close resemblance to Sandals Whitehouse and hence Gorstew's denial could be accurate.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In any case, further details of the design c
      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

      Comment


      • #4
        RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

        <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Whitehouse saga takes new turn</SPAN>
        <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Observer Reporter
        Thursday, August 17, 2006
        </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
        <P class=StoryText align=justify>THE Sandals Whitehouse Hotel saga took a new turn yesterday, with the Contractor-General (C-G) now saying he had received information not previously made available to him, suggesting he could come to new conclusions on the controversial project.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a press statement, Greg Christie, the contractor-general, said the documents he now had in his possession included minutes of project site meetings and original and revised cash-flow particulars which his office had requested from the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), but not previously received.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Christie also said that Gorstew provided information which "it claims, among other things, supports its contention that the change in the concept of the project from a 'Beaches' to a 'Sandals' brand, did not result in any project cost or time overrun".<P class=StoryText align=justify>Gorstew is one of three partners with the UDC and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) on the hotel project.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Cost and time overruns amounting to US$41 million are at the centre of the controversy triggered by a lawsuit from Gorstew to recover losses accrued when the hotel was not handed over on time and with serious defects that resulted in significant refunds to guests.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Sandals, which manages the hotel, also said its international brand and reputation had suffered serious damage.
        Christie in his report to parliament on the hotel project, had accused the UDC of deliberately concealing key information that would have given a more accurate picture of what took place.<P class=StoryText align=justify>For its part, Gorstew maintained that the C-G did not seek to get the copious information it had before coming to his conclusion. That information was later voluntarily sent to the C-G by Gorstew's attorneys.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In his statement yesterday, Christie said: "The Office of the Contractor-General is currently reviewing the documents and will issue a further statement upon the conclusion of its review.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"...We have written, in the interim, to both the UDC and to the attorneys for Gorstew Ltd to advise them to provide the Auditor-General with copies of the documentation which they have submitted to us," the statement said.<P class=StoryText align=justify>See tomorrow's Observer for the full text of the contractor-general's statement.
        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

        Comment


        • #5
          RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

          <DIV id=printReady>

          Whitehouse Vindicated - Hotel was 'value for money'
          published: Tuesday | September 5, 2006
          <DIV class=KonaBody>

          Edmond Campbell, Senior News Coordinator

          Theforensic audit into the US$41 million (J$2.7 billion) cost overrun at the controversial Sandals Whitehouse project in Westmoreland has concluded that the project delivered value for money.

          Speaking yesterday at the weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at Jamaica House, Information Minister Colin Campbell told journalists that the auditors are of the view that Sandals Whitehouse was of the highest quality and that it was not only a valuable asset to the south coast development programme but also the wider tourist industry.

          According to Mr. Campbell, the report made it clear that the original project cost of US$60 million was inadequate for the kind of hotel that was to be constructed.

          The original budget for the hotel was about US$86 million based on the Beaches Negril concept.

          "However, it was determined that that cost was too high and eventually it was reduced to US$60 million based upon a recom-mendation by a company called Capital Options Limited. The auditors conclude, however, that it is clear that this figure bore no relationship to the size or specification of the proposed hotel as was conceptualised and proposed by thearchitects in May 2000," Mr. Campbell explained.

          The auditors noted that if the US$60 million budget had been adopted, the scope of the project would have had to be substantially reduced.

          Another point highlighted by the auditors is that the project incurred some costs due to management deficits, including interest charges, additional fees due to the extended contract period and fluctuations in the cost of labour and material.

          Record occupancy rates

          Mr. Campbell said to date, the hotel has enjoyed record occupancy rates. The Information Minister said that if this performance continues, the company would be able to service its debts without having recourse to shareholders.

          Meanwhile, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) says it is ready to challenge in court any claim brought against it by the Gordon Butch Stewart-led Gorstew company.

          "It is the contention of the UDC that the Gorstew construction of the contract is fallacious and that their version of the fact is incorrect. If Gorstew persists in their claim, the UDC will resist with every legal resource it can muster," Mr. Campbell reported. Gorstew and the UDC are both partners in the controversial development.

          The forensic audit report will be tabled in the House of Representatives today and a copy submitted to the Audley Shaw-chaired Public Accounts Committee of Parliament for examination. Government spent $28 million to conduct the forensic audit.</DIV></DIV>
          "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

          Comment


          • #6
            RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

            <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Audit team sees 'value for money' at Whitehouse</SPAN>
            <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>BY BALFORD HENRY Observer writer
            Tuesday, September 05, 2006
            </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
            <P class=StoryText align=justify>THE forensic auditors assigned to investigate the controversial Sandals Whitehouse Hotel project from inception to completion have concluded "there is value for money" in the south-coast hotel, according to Colin Campbell, the information and development minister.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Campbell told journalists at yesterday's post-Cabinet press briefing at Jamaica House that the team also felt the construction of the hotel was of the "highest quality".<P class=StoryText align=justify>The team was assigned by former Prime Minister P J Patterson to audit the construction of the hotel, after it became bogged down in controversy over a US$41 million overrun and a quarrel between the three partners - the state-run Urban Development Corporation (UDC), the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) and Gorstew, the holding company for Sandals, manager of the hotel.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Gorstew sued the UDC and NIBJ for damages, contending that the hotel was handed over later than agreed and at a quality which hurt the Sandals name and forced it to refund huge sums of money to the early guests.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Gorstew also contested the claim that there was value for money, noting that the Whitehouse hotel was modeled off the ultra chic Beaches Turks and Caicos, while the contractor-general had compared it with Beaches Negril, a lesser hotel.
            But the team apparently disagreed.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"The audit report concludes that there is no doubt that the hotel is not only a valuable asset to the south coast development programme, but is an asset to the tourist industry and Jamaica," Campbell said.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The minister gave journalists selected portions of the report from the $28 million audit which was triggered by concerns raised by the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) about the US$41 million overrun on the hotel, which was built in Patterson's East Westmoreland constituency.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The full report is to be tabled in the House of Representatives by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller later today. Copies of the report were not available to the media, but the minister confirmed that the full report was reviewed by the Cabinet yesterday, following last Monday's perusal of a summary.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Campbell said that the forensic audit report made it clear that the originally projected cost of US$60 million was totally inadequate for the kind of hotel that the parties intended to create. The original budget was in the order of US$80.6 million, based upon the Beaches Negril concept. However, it was determined that that cost was too high and, eventually, it was reduced to US$60 million based upon a recommendation from a company known as Capital Options Limited, New Kingston.<P class=StoryText align=justify>He said that the auditors reported that "it was clear that this figure (US$60 million) bore no relationship to the size and specification of the proposed hotel as was conceptualised and proposed by the architects in May 2000", and "if the US$60 million budget was to be adopted, then this would have required a substantial reduction in the scope of the project".<P class=StoryText align=justify>He said that additionally, the auditors had concluded that the net effect was that the additional costs would result in a project costing in the region of US$97 million.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"...The project incurred some costs due to management deficits, that is, cost for elements such as interest charges, additional fees due to the extended contract period, additional preliminaries and from fluctuations in the cost of labour and materia
            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

            Comment


            • #7
              RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

              <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Whitehouse auditors blast UDC</SPAN>
              <SPAN class=Subheadline>Cost overrun jumps to US$43 million</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>BALFORD HENRY, Observer writer
              Wednesday, September 06, 2006
              </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
              <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=190 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Vin Lawrence, former executive chairman of the UDC, which managed the project a</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>THE forensic audit report on the contentious Sandals Whitehouse hotel project was far less complimentary to the state-run Urban Development Corporation (UDC) than the selective picture painted Monday by Information Minister Colin Campbell.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The already massive overrun on the project that was put at US$41 million has now been established at US$43.3 million, an additional US$2.3 million, and the auditors blasted the UDC, which managed the project, and its sub-contractor, Nevalco Consultants, as being primarily responsible for the excessive cost.<P class=StoryText align=justify>UDC and Nevalco failed to exercise proper control and to conform with the various protocols established for the execution of the project, adversely affecting "the various checks and balances consistent with good management and cost control", the audit found.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=135 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Alston Stewart, headed Nevalco Consultants, sub-contractor for the development </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Yesterday, one day after Campbell culled portions of the report to tell journalists that the project had given value for money, the audit report was tabled in Parliament, providing the complete picture of an idealistic project that went awfully wrong.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The report, commissioned by former Prime Minister P J Patterson, took 10 months to complete and cost the government $28 million. It came amidst heightening controversy over the Westmoreland-based hotel that was originally the dream of hotel magnate Gordon 'Butch' Stewart to drive development of the south coast, a still unspoilt stretch of lush splendour and virginal scenery.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But the dream was dashed when Stewart's Gorstew, one-third of the hotel partnership, with the UDC and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), complained that his Sandals brand had been badly a injured because the hotel was completed later than scheduled and well below the quality visitors had come to associate with the name.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The audit team put much of the blame on the UDC, then led by Chairman Vin Lawrence and the Alston Stewart-led Nevalco.<P class=StoryText align=justify>It said the project manager and its sub-contractor had a responsibility to report project cost overruns to the board of the Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO) the joint venture company conceptualised in 2000 to develop the project - advise on how to reduce costs, and obtain the board's permission to proceed with the works but, "from all indications, this was not done and this was one of the main downfalls of the project".<P class=StoryText align=justify>Unfazed by the report, the UDC said in a statement yesterday that it had been "vindicated by the report of the Forensic Audit Team, as well as by the quality and viability of the final product".<P class=StoryText align=justify>But the auditors also slapped the ANDCO board, saying it "abrogated its responsibilities to
              "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

              Comment


              • #8
                RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

                <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Public purse well protected at Whitehouse, says UDC</SPAN>
                <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Observer Reporter
                Wednesday, September 06, 2006
                </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
                <P class=StoryText align=justify>THE Urban Development Corporation (UDC) said yesterday that the public purse was well protected in the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project, and that the corporation had been vindicated by the report of the Forensic Audit Team that investigated it.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The UDC, one of three partners of the hotel and the one mostly blamed by the auditors for the US$43.3-million cost overrun, said in a statement that the report "now provides the Jamaican public with a professional report which incorporates a detailed analysis of the technical, managerial and corporate issues supported by relevant documentation".
                "It is now clear that the imputation of corruption and waste of public funds which has been bandied about is groundless and that the funds expended on the project have resulted in the creation of a hotel facility which represents value for money".<P class=StoryText align=justify>The UDC said it was always confident that the agreements between the client and contractors, consultants and sub-contractors, contained adequate provisions for the requisite level of services needed for the design and construction of the now 400-room hotel development.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"This confidence has been vindicated by the report of the Forensic Audit Team, as well as by the quality and viability of the final product. We are indeed satisfied that the report has established the fact that 'the total amount paid out for the negotiated professional services amounted to approximately six per cent of the projected construction budget.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"When compared to the then and present market rate of 12%, there can be no doubt that the public purse was well protected," it said.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The state-run corporation accepted that the consultants were selected by "a non-competitive process", but argued that some of those consultants were not only leaders in their respective fields of expertise, but also had previous knowledge of the project and site, having provided services to the project "prior to the publishing of the guidelines for public sector procurement in October 2000, and the establishment of the relevant sector committee in August 2001".<P class=StoryText align=justify>It said the hotel had already achieved the objective of stimulating economic development in the region as was evidenced by housing, job creation, improved skills training, growth of support industries and services and the expansion of physical infrastructure.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The UDC became the main casualty of the fallout at Whitehouse when its chairman, Dr Vin Lawrence resigned from the board, as well as all other state boards, following the Contractor-General's Report which also blamed the corporation for much of the problems besetting the project.
                "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                Comment


                • #9
                  RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

                  <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

                  <SPAN class=TopStory>Observer EDITORIAL</SPAN>

                  <SPAN class=TopStory>Mr Campbell's Whitehouse whitewash</SPAN>

                  <SPAN class=TopStory></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>
                  Thursday, September 07, 2006
                  </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
                  <P class=StoryText align=justify>Our readers will forgive us if we have a tendency to believe the best in people, until we have reason so not to do. In the case of Mr Colin Campbell, the information and development minister, we are finding it dreadfully hard to believe that any good could have been meant in the way he informed, some would say misinformed, the country about the Forensic Audit Report on the contentious Whitehouse hotel issue.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At his Monday evening post-Cabinet press briefing, Mr Campbell studiously reproduced the most flattering sections of the Audit Report, leaving the impression that the team of auditors had vindicated the state-run Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and, by extension, the government. In fact, one media house fell into the trap and trumpeted "Whitehouse vindicated", based on the information minister's statement.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But the true story, as is to be expected, is in the full Audit Report, which took all of 10 months to complete and cost $28 million. When the Parliament and journalists got the chance to go through the entire document the day after Mr Campbell's revelations, it turned out that the UDC and its sidekick, Nevalco Consultants Limited, were not smelling so good after all.<P class=StoryText align=justify>We figure that Mr Campbell might have been smarting over the resignation of powerful party man, Dr Vin Lawrence as chairman of the UDC, in the wake of the damning report by the contractor-general on the Whitehouse hotel imbroglio. The contractor-general had accused the UDC of withholding key information that he needed to get a fuller picture of the affair.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In fact, the UDC statement on the Audit Report uncannily resembled the spirit, if not the letter, of the minister's own statement to the Press. We don't want to believe that the information minister, in his very selective presentation, was more interested in spinning on behalf of the UDC, in the hope that he could sanitise the image of the corporation, after its thrashing by the contractor-general. Because there is something really much bigger than the image of the UDC at stake here.<P class=StoryText align=justify>A massive US$43.3 million in cost overruns - US$2.3 million more than we were told at first - was established by the forensic auditors. In essence, they have concluded that the UDC, as the project manager, and Nevalco Consultants, its sub-contractor, were largely to blame for the mess that was caused.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Leaving no doubt about what it had found, the auditors said the UDC and Nevalco had failed to exercise proper control and to conform with the various protocols established for the execution of the project, adversely affecting "the various checks and balances consistent with good management and cost control".<P class=StoryText align=justify>When this results in a cost overrun of US$43.3 million, the public, in whose name the UDC acts, must, understandably, be concerned. We suggest that Mr Campbell's first duty is to the people of Jamaica - the hard-working taxpayers on whose behalf he is in office. It can't be first to the UDC.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Honourable men would understand this. And since we believe the best in people, we earnestly want to believe that Mr Campbell will do what an honourable man would.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Copyright© 2000-2001 Jamaica Observer
                  "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

                    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Alice in Wonderland</SPAN>
                    <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark Wignall
                    Thursday, September 07, 2006
                    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
                    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=86 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Mark Wignall</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Further revelations on the scandal surrounding the involvement of the UDC (Urban Development Corporation) with the Sandals Whitehouse project have begun to read like Alice in Wonderland. First, the forensic report, which tore into UDC and Nevalco itself, ate up a nice 'chunk of change' in the region of $28 million as reports have suggested.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At the very time that the forensic report has been tearing into UDC and the project management firm Nevalco (headed by Alston Stewart), the remnants of the UDC board under Dr Vin Lawrence remain in place and seem not unduly bothered that their once powerful and nationally influential chairman has resigned. It has not yet occurred to them that as trustees of the people's patrimony, in the days of the Lawrence-run board, they were mostly seen as 'rubber-stamps' to the directives of Dr Lawrence.
                    In reality it may have been different with much heated debate being the norm. The fact is, the powerful UDC chairman resigned under a cloud at a time when the board had not distinguished itself by any opposition to policies laid out by Dr Lawrence or directives issued by him. Were I on such a board, why would I want to remain, especially in light of this most damning report?
                    In the world where little Alice lives, that is Jamaica, the forensic report blasts the UDC for irresponsibility, but the present UDC states: "It is now clear that the imputation of corruption and waste of public funds, which has been bandied about, is groundless and that the funds expended on the project have resulted in the creation of a hotel facility which represents value for money."<P class=StoryText align=justify>In other words, the UDC is in essence saying to the public of this country that we are lucky that there is a hotel on the site. It could have disappeared like those schools which went unaccounted for in the 1960s under the JLP administration. This is the ultimate cheek of power in this country.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In one breath, Colin Campbell, the information minister, has told us that all is well, it is not as bad as 'Butch' Stewart and the JLP and some pesky journalists are making it out to be. I sympathise with the minister. His party is feverishly making plans for an election which the PNP might lose, so why should he be taken up with an extra US$43 million which just happened to be tacked on to the project?<P class=StoryText align=justify>Let me ask a stupid question which none of the principals on the project have been able to answer for me. Before that, let me state that although I have strong skills in mathematics, I know a little about accounting and construction project management.<P class=StoryText align=justify>If I am a poor man building a two-room house on a gully bank and I have $100,000 in the bank, which took me 20 years to save and which I have earmarked for spending on that house, then that is all I will have to spend on the house.
                    When I withdraw the last $1,000, then anywhere the house is in terms of completion, that is where it will remain until I find extra funds either by working for it, borrowing it or stealing it.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the Whitehouse project, was there a bottomless pit of funds always available from Alice in Wonderland? In addition to the US$70-million earmarked, are the principals, especially the UDC, telling us that they did not know at what stage they had broken the US$70-mill
                    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

                      <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Sandals Whitehouse scandal: Resolution?</SPAN>
                      <SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Geof Brown
                      Friday, September 08, 2006
                      </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
                      <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Geof Brown</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>THE Forensic Audit Report should have brought some clear measure of resolution to the persisting scandal of the $43.3-million construction cost overrun at Sandals Whitehouse Hotel, bandied about for many months now. But there seems to be more confusion than resolution. One day the public hears that the hotel represented 'value for money'. The next day (literally) one leading newspaper steps back from that "vindication" it hailed the day before. Instead, it advised on its front page that the audit report "slams" the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) - previously under the chairmanship of Dr Vin Lawrence - for poor management contributing to the cost escalation. This newspaper also reported that the audit report "slams" the UDC. It turns out that the first run 'media-rosy' report was the result of what one leading daily called the "selective" version of the audit findings, as presented to the nation by Information Minister Senator Colin Campbell.<P class=StoryText align=justify>For the ordinary Joe, not to mention much of the general public, the question was: Which version of the Forensic Audit Report was correct? Well, they both were. The report did say the highly inflated cost of constructing the hotel nevertheless represented "value for money". But it was certainly disingenuous, if not deliberately misleading, to leave it largely at that, as the information minister appeared to have done. I did hear him on a morning talk show saying that he had not yet read all of the "bulky" document and he did concede that there were some "management deficits". That, however, was a far cry from the "slamming" and "blasting" of the UDC the media at large subsequently emphasised after journalists got a chance to take a closer look at the &#100;ocument.<P class=StoryText align=justify>As it turns out, the claim of Sandals Deputy Chairman Chris Zacca was pretty correct when he declared that the position of the Sandals partner in the tripartite development group was closer to the contractor-general's position in the latter's condemnation of the UDC's role in the scandal. For the audit report found that the board for the project knew of the cost overruns only one month before the hotel opened! This means that the UDC and its implementing companion, Nevalco failed to report what it should have until that last month, leaving the Sandals partner in the dark. In other words, it was a "Caesar reporting only to Caesar" situation.
                      To my mind, there is an important lesson there. It also answers the question asked in this column concerning the affair (à la Reagan and the infamous Iran Contra affair), "What did they know and when did they know it?" (See column of July 28 this year).<P class=StoryText align=justify>I quote from that column: "Even more fundamental are the questions to be answered by the major partners in the Whitehouse venture...What did they know and when did they know it? That will be enlightening. It will expose the honesty or otherwise denials by both the UDC and Sandals in response to the Contractor-General's Report." Well now, it appears that the honesty of one of the partners is exposed in the Forensic Audit Report. It seems strange that the incidental finding that there was "value for money" confirmed by the audit is being substituted for proper management, which could have prevented or curtailed the massive overruns in the first place. Of course, that major hotel had to have s
                      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

                        <DIV id=printReady>

                        Governance and conflict of interest
                        published: Sunday | September 10, 2006
                        <DIV class=KonaBody>

                        The findings of the forensic audit of the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project highlighted a problem in Jamaica, which was, to a limited degree, addressed in Parliament last week in answers by the Industry and Technology Minister, Phillip Paulwell, to questions posed by the Opposition's Spokesman on Energy, Clive Mullings.

                        Mr. Paulwell reported that the Cabinet had recently ruled that no member of a board of a Government company should benefit from any contract with that company. This goes beyond the traditional declaration of interest to board colleagues, or, in the case of parliamentarians, asking the legislature for exemption from the rule that members, of firms in which they are beneficial owners, should not have contracts with the Government.

                        Mr. Mullings's concern was apparently triggered by an Opposition discovery that Ms. Barbara Clarke, a ruling party politician who is chairman of the Government service station company, Petcom, in her private capacity, owns a company that until recently, trained staff at Petcom's service stations.

                        No one here questions Ms. Clarke's integrity or the quality of service provided by her company to Petcom. But all of us would be aware of the potential for conflict of interest in circumstances such as those in which Ms. Clarke found herself, notwithstanding the fact that contracts may have been in place prior to her elevation to the Petcom chairmanship.

                        In that regard, we support the administration's decision as an interim measure, but feel that the issue is one that demands deeper and rigorous analysis ahead of a broad, clear and transparent policy on who can serve on the boards of government companies.

                        The Sandals Whitehouse debacle of cost overruns, cronyism and flagrant mismanagement demands no less.

                        The audit team that tried to make sense of the $2 billion fiasco makes the point that a major part of the problem with the project that led to the runaway cost, was its "more than fair quota of shared executives." For instance, Dr. Vin Lawrence, the chairman of Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO), the government/private sector joint venture that developed the hotel, was also chairman of the Urban Development Corporation, one of its shareholders. Other UDC executives had senior posts in ANDCO while the private entities of shareholders and executives also operated in the project. "These relationships were not good for the project, for ... there was too much power in the hands of some executives, leading to a lack of objectivity and accountability," says the report.

                        We know of this debacle because of the falling-out between key players. But what else do we not know about? For the fact is that the public sector is riddled with cross-membership of boards, causing some people to wield enormous power with public resources, but with little or no accountability.

                        Dr. Lawrence may have been the archetypal éminence grise with his many hats. There are others, however, who, maybe not of the same power, but are of substantial influence.

                        We will certainly be told that in a small country with a limited talent pool, it is to be expected that there will be cross-membership of boards. It happens in the private sector.

                        That may be true. Yet we have to be creative in limiting the incestuousness and in holding people to public accountability and serious sanctions when they fail in their responsibilities.


                        The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.</DIV><!-- end of Kontera div //
                        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          RE: Reviewing the contracts procurement process

                          <DIV id=printReady>

                          'Badly-managed Whitehouse project' - Audit team finds poor supervision, incestuous linkages
                          published: Sunday | September 10, 2006
                          <DIV class=KonaBody>


                          The Sandals Whitehouse European Village and Spa in Westmoreland.

                          The Forensic audit-reportinto the Sandals Whitehouse project which was commissioned by former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson into the multi-million-dollar overruns at the Westmoreland-based hotelwas tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday. Here are excerpts from the report.

                          "In reviewing The Project Cost and Final Account prepared by the consultant Quantity Surveyor, the Audit Team can report net project overrun of approximately US$43.36 million. This is over and above the budget of US$70.0 million.

                          "These overruns can be summarised as follows:

                          1. Overruns Construction ContractUS$38,420,056.33
                          2. Other Project Overruns US$6,443,374.12
                          3. Underexpenditure on Project US$1,957,401.00
                          4. Expenditures without Budget Provisions US$452,637.00
                          5. Net Project Overrun US$43,358,666.45



                          "Non-payment of shareholders equity also contributed to the overrun on the project. When these funds were not available, ANDCO was forced to seek funding elsewhere. Interest charges on these loans also contributed to the overruns on the project."

                          "In respect of the performance of contracted parties, we can make the following comment on the overall management of the project and the performance of the Project Manager. One of the items in the contract between Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and Nevalco Ltd. is that Nevalco "shall not without prior written consent of the UDC give instructions to any contracted parties which could increase the project cost or time taken to complete or procure anything that is not provided for in the bills of quantities of the project."

                          "As a large percentage of the bills of qualities were provisional sums, it meant that UDC/Nevalco should have closely monitored the expenditure of these sums. In the event that the final designs for these items of work resulted in a cost in excess of the provisional sum, permission should have been sought from the ANDCO board. The Audit Team has not seen any such request or written consent.

                          "The UDC had to "ensure compliance of designs to brief." It is clear that this was not effectively done as the designs far exceeded the original brief and Project Budget. It was not until the latter stage of the project when UDC's chief architect got involved with the project full time on site, that more concerted efforts were made to rationalise the cost of construction and to achieve completion.

                          "The Project Manager/Project Manager Representative had a responsibility to report projected cost overruns to the ANDCO board, advise on how to reduce these costs, and obtain the board's permission to proceed with the works. From all indications this was not done, and this was one of the main downfalls of the project.

                          No effective management

                          "The Project Manager/Project Manager Representative did not effectively manage the project. However, it should be noted that the ANDCO board did not meet formally between October 2003 and January 2005 and, therefore, this avenue of formal approval was not available.

                          "In respect of Gorstew Ltd./ Implementation Limited, Gorstew was greatly influential in determining Furniture Fixtures and Equipment (FF&amp;E) and specialist items through the architect and interior designers.

                          "Although they assisted in determining the revised US$70 million project budget, it appears that the special system items, such as the air conditioning, standby generator, kitchen equipment, garbage disposal, specia
                          "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X