Tweet
<TD width="24" valign="top">
</TD> <TD width="469" valign="top">
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=450 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>'The system broke down,' Alston Stewart admits</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline>PAC continues Whitehouse probe</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>By Alicia Dunkley Observer staff reporter
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>ALSTON Stewart yesterday continued to deflect blame from himself for the massive US$43 million cost overrun on the beleaguered Sandals Whitehouse project being investigated by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=120 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Stewart. failed to satisfy the PAC that he had adhered to the terms of his contract </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Stewart, head of Nevalco Consultants Limited which acted as site manager for the project managers, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), told the PAC that while there had been a breakdown of the approval system for increased expenditure he was not in breach of the terms of his contract.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At last week's PAC session, Stewart had claimed that most of the US$43 million cost overruns could be attributed to the actions of one partner, the Gorstew-owned Sandals Resorts International (RSI) and its agent, Implementation Limited which he claimed "circumvented" his authority and exercised undue influence over the lead contractors on the project.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Ackendown Newtown is the joint venture company which built and owns the Whitehouse Hotel in Westmoreland. The other two partners are the UDC and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ).
Sandals, which also manages the hotel, is in court with the UDC, blaming it for massive losses suffered by the hotel chain because of delays in opening the hotel and poor finishes that forced Sandals to refund huge sums of money to the early guests.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Continuing his submissions yesterday, Stewart told the committee he was not prepared to quantify the costs incurred on the project because of the interference on the part of Implementation Limited as this was a matter before the courts.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Asked how approval had been granted for increased expenditure in several areas of the project, Stewart claimed that of the 15 consultants employed to the project 11 had been selected by the Gorstew representative, giving the company direct access to changing the specifications on the project and incurring additional costs.
He, however, admitted that some of the consultants had fallen down in their duties with respect to the delivery of drawings.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Quizzed by opposition member Audley Shaw as to whether there was a paper system of written approvals for each area in which costs were increased, Stewart insisted that there was "no simple 'yes' or 'no' answer". According to him, the system was violated by persons in all instances and this resulted in the increased costs.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"The system broke down, I made several attempts to retrieve the system. I am the butler in the house, the owner of the house I can make all the recommendations to, but if the owner insists on not following those recommendations I have no choice but to mitigate as much as possible," Stewart told the PAC meeting.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This was de
</TD> <TD width="469" valign="top"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=450 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>'The system broke down,' Alston Stewart admits</SPAN><SPAN class=Subheadline>PAC continues Whitehouse probe</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>By Alicia Dunkley Observer staff reporter
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>ALSTON Stewart yesterday continued to deflect blame from himself for the massive US$43 million cost overrun on the beleaguered Sandals Whitehouse project being investigated by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=120 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Stewart. failed to satisfy the PAC that he had adhered to the terms of his contract </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Stewart, head of Nevalco Consultants Limited which acted as site manager for the project managers, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), told the PAC that while there had been a breakdown of the approval system for increased expenditure he was not in breach of the terms of his contract.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At last week's PAC session, Stewart had claimed that most of the US$43 million cost overruns could be attributed to the actions of one partner, the Gorstew-owned Sandals Resorts International (RSI) and its agent, Implementation Limited which he claimed "circumvented" his authority and exercised undue influence over the lead contractors on the project.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Ackendown Newtown is the joint venture company which built and owns the Whitehouse Hotel in Westmoreland. The other two partners are the UDC and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ).Sandals, which also manages the hotel, is in court with the UDC, blaming it for massive losses suffered by the hotel chain because of delays in opening the hotel and poor finishes that forced Sandals to refund huge sums of money to the early guests.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Continuing his submissions yesterday, Stewart told the committee he was not prepared to quantify the costs incurred on the project because of the interference on the part of Implementation Limited as this was a matter before the courts.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Asked how approval had been granted for increased expenditure in several areas of the project, Stewart claimed that of the 15 consultants employed to the project 11 had been selected by the Gorstew representative, giving the company direct access to changing the specifications on the project and incurring additional costs.
He, however, admitted that some of the consultants had fallen down in their duties with respect to the delivery of drawings.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Quizzed by opposition member Audley Shaw as to whether there was a paper system of written approvals for each area in which costs were increased, Stewart insisted that there was "no simple 'yes' or 'no' answer". According to him, the system was violated by persons in all instances and this resulted in the increased costs.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"The system broke down, I made several attempts to retrieve the system. I am the butler in the house, the owner of the house I can make all the recommendations to, but if the owner insists on not following those recommendations I have no choice but to mitigate as much as possible," Stewart told the PAC meeting.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This was de
ffice
>When yuh big, yuh big to rahtid.</o
Comment