Tweet
Lawrence defends performance
published: Friday | November 10, 2006
Lawrence defends performance
published: Friday | November 10, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
A smiling Dr. Vincent Lawrence (right), former chairman of the Urban Development Corporation, enters Gordon House, to testify before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament Tuesday. Beside him at left with hand across face is Alston Stewart, head of Nevalco, the firm Lawrence contracted as project manager. - Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer </DIV>
Although I have not been directly invited by this committee to appear, I have accepted Mrs. Campbell's invitation to attend on behalf of the Urban Development Corporation and welcome the opportunity to be present because I believe that I can assist the committee to better understand the main aspects of the Sandals Whitehouse project.
These are firstly, the disparity between the initial projected cost of US$70 million and the eventual outturn of US$113 million; and secondly, the lessons that may be learnt from this experience as to how joint ventures of this nature between a public sector entity and a private entrepreneur may be structured so as to accommodate the legitimate requirements of both.
The documents which the Contractor General claims to have looked at also show very clearly that Jentech was one of the team of consultants inherited from Gorstew Limited. In fact, from the very first Sandals hotels in the 1980s Jentech has provided Engineering Consultancy Services to the Sandals Group. It has provided those services to Sandals Negril, Sandals Montego Bay, Sandals Antigua, Sandals Barbados, Sandals St. Kitts, Sandals St. Lucia and was also employed on the Beaches Negril project.
It was the same on the project Gorstew attempted to undertake at Whitehouse.
The second issue that I wish to address is the assumption that appears to underlie the Contractor General's report, namely, that the only way to achieve impartial and meritorious awards is by some process of public tender. He states that as CEO of the UDC, I must have been aware of the procurement rules established in 2001 and, therefore, the failure to select the consultants by public tender is evidence of impropriety and irregularity on my part.
This contention overlooks the fact that the procurement rules permit in appropriate cases authorisation for the use of direct contracting through 'negotiation or sole source processes'.
TO EXPLAIN LATER
The Contractor General has also complained that none of the consultancy contracts that exceeded $4 million or the appropriate amount in U.S. dollars had been submitted for approval by the National Contracts Commission.
At a later stage, I will explain why it was genuinely felt that in this particular case these approvals did not have to be sought.
Now to the general issues.
As chairman of the UDC, in 2000 I personally made representation to National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) for them to participate in the project.
NIBJ agreed and the joint venture among Gorstew, UDC and NIBJ was born.
We (the proposed partners and consultants) started working together on the project in 2000, and a Heads of Agreement was finally executed in July 2001, among Gorstew, NIBJ and UDC.
This agreement included a requirement for a joint venture company to be incorporated, with the three parties as shareholders, to undertake the development. Ackendown Newtown Development Company Limited was thus incorporated also in July 2001.
The UDC certainly felt we were entering into a meaningful partnership.
Regrettably, while the expected standards were met,
published: Friday | November 10, 2006
Lawrence defends performance
published: Friday | November 10, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
A smiling Dr. Vincent Lawrence (right), former chairman of the Urban Development Corporation, enters Gordon House, to testify before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament Tuesday. Beside him at left with hand across face is Alston Stewart, head of Nevalco, the firm Lawrence contracted as project manager. - Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer </DIV>
Although I have not been directly invited by this committee to appear, I have accepted Mrs. Campbell's invitation to attend on behalf of the Urban Development Corporation and welcome the opportunity to be present because I believe that I can assist the committee to better understand the main aspects of the Sandals Whitehouse project.
These are firstly, the disparity between the initial projected cost of US$70 million and the eventual outturn of US$113 million; and secondly, the lessons that may be learnt from this experience as to how joint ventures of this nature between a public sector entity and a private entrepreneur may be structured so as to accommodate the legitimate requirements of both.
The documents which the Contractor General claims to have looked at also show very clearly that Jentech was one of the team of consultants inherited from Gorstew Limited. In fact, from the very first Sandals hotels in the 1980s Jentech has provided Engineering Consultancy Services to the Sandals Group. It has provided those services to Sandals Negril, Sandals Montego Bay, Sandals Antigua, Sandals Barbados, Sandals St. Kitts, Sandals St. Lucia and was also employed on the Beaches Negril project.
It was the same on the project Gorstew attempted to undertake at Whitehouse.
The second issue that I wish to address is the assumption that appears to underlie the Contractor General's report, namely, that the only way to achieve impartial and meritorious awards is by some process of public tender. He states that as CEO of the UDC, I must have been aware of the procurement rules established in 2001 and, therefore, the failure to select the consultants by public tender is evidence of impropriety and irregularity on my part.
This contention overlooks the fact that the procurement rules permit in appropriate cases authorisation for the use of direct contracting through 'negotiation or sole source processes'.
TO EXPLAIN LATER
The Contractor General has also complained that none of the consultancy contracts that exceeded $4 million or the appropriate amount in U.S. dollars had been submitted for approval by the National Contracts Commission.
At a later stage, I will explain why it was genuinely felt that in this particular case these approvals did not have to be sought.
Now to the general issues.
As chairman of the UDC, in 2000 I personally made representation to National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) for them to participate in the project.
NIBJ agreed and the joint venture among Gorstew, UDC and NIBJ was born.
We (the proposed partners and consultants) started working together on the project in 2000, and a Heads of Agreement was finally executed in July 2001, among Gorstew, NIBJ and UDC.
This agreement included a requirement for a joint venture company to be incorporated, with the three parties as shareholders, to undertake the development. Ackendown Newtown Development Company Limited was thus incorporated also in July 2001.
The UDC certainly felt we were entering into a meaningful partnership.
Regrettably, while the expected standards were met,
Comment