FORMER chairman of the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), Dr Vincent Lawrence plans to take legal action against the Contractor General for what he says are ‘false and defamatory allegations’ made against him by the official.

Lawrence, appearing yesterday before Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) looking into the contentious Sandals Whitehouse Hotel project, said allegations by Contractor-General Greg Christie about a conflict of interest on his (Lawrence’s) part and the UDC’s endeavours had caused damage to his reputation.

He said he would seek legal advice as to the grounds on which he could take legal action to protect his good name.

And, yesterday’s meeting also decided to invite Gordon ‘Butch’ Stewart, head of Gorstew which is suing the UDC for losses caused by delays in completion of the Whitehouse project, to appear before the PAC at a later date, after Lawrence charged that the equity contribution payments by the joint venture partners, Gorstew Limited were not made on time.

The UDC, Gorstew and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) formed a three-way partnership called Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO) to build and run the Westmoreland hotel, Stewart’s vision of a project that would pave the way for development of Jamaica’s scenic and virginal southcoast.

Called in to investigate massive cost overruns of US$43 million on the project, the Contractor General accused the UDC of, among others things, withholding information he needed to determine who was culpable.

Lawrence, who was chairman of the UDC at the time, resigned shortly after.

In a prepared speech to the PAC yesterday, a confident Lawrence told acting chairman Mike Henry: “Mr Chairman, the false and defamatory allegations made by the Contractor General on which he has based his assertions of a conflict of interest on the part of myself and the UDC’s endeavours, has been widely accepted as the truth in various sections of the media.

“It has occasioned damage to my reputation. I have given public service with integrity for over 30 years and do not propose to have my reputation tarnished at this stage.”

The Contractor General in a previous statement had declared a “conflict of interest” concerning Lawrence’s position with the UDC and his role as shareholder and director of project consultants, Gentech Consultants Limited.

The statement, as it ran, said: “We have also highlighted the Gentech contract in view of the fact that Gentech is a civil and consultancy entity in which Dr the Honourable Vin Lawrence is a long-standing shareholder and director. Dr Lawrence was at all material times the executive chairman of the UDC, the entity which preliminarily engaged Gentech as a consultant on the project while purportedly acting on behalf of Newtown.”

Furthermore: “The recurring circumstances have undoubtedly raised compelling evidence of a conflict of interest, an absence of transparency, a lack of competition and the absence of an arms-length approach in the award of public consultancy contracts.”

Lawrence said the allegations in the Contractor-General’s Report had held him personally responsible for the hiring of the engineering firm of which he was a founding partner.

“These statements are false, in the first place the UDC did not engage Gentech preliminarily while purportedly acting on behalf of Newtown. Gentech was engaged in this project as far back as 1992 when the project was owned by Gorstew Limited and in respect of this the UDC was at that time not involved,” he told members.

Reading from a July 1992 correspondence between Dr Wayne Reid of Gentech and Gorstew, about the Beaches Whitehouse Hotel, later reconfigured to Sandals Whitehouse, Lawrence said it was evident that Gentech was recruited for the project by Butch Stewart and that a considerable amount of work was done by Gentech prior to 2001 when the joint venture company, ANDCO was formed.

Furthermore, Lawrence pointed out, Gentech had provided engineering consultancy services to the Sandals Group from the construction of the very first Sandals Hotel in the 1980s, in addition to several others nationally and regionally.

According to Lawrence, by virtue of the fact that the statements made by the Contractor General in this regard were not true, the privileges accorded the Contractor General under Sections 23 (1) and (3) of the Contractor General Act would not apply.

Lawrence said he would be taking advice on the redress available to him in the Courts. Failing this, he said, the matter would be brought before the Parliament since the Office of the Contractor General was a creature of parliament.

Meanwhile, in addressing other statements made by the Contractor General to the effect that the UDC had flouted the procurement procedures in the awarding of contracts, Lawrence charged “that in addition to his gross mis-statement of facts, the Contractor General’s Report also reflected a lack of knowledge of all the provisions of the current procurement regime”.

On further allegations that “misappropriation of funds, cronyism and mismanagement” were the root cause of the cost overruns, Lawrence said the claims were erroneous as “no such evidence” has been found.

And when it came to an explanation of the cost overruns, the more reliable source of information was the Forensic Auditor’s Report and not the Contractor General’s Report which he said concentrated mainly on the issue of procurement.

Referring to the “facts represented in the audit report”, Lawrence said an examination would reveal that the initial projection of US$70 million as the cost of the project was “grossly under estimated” and a more realistic initial estimate would have been US$88 million.

In addition, he said the unfounded allegations of misappropriation of funds had been dismissed by both the Contractor-General and the Audit Team who concluded that there was no evidence of fraud and that the project reflected value for money.

The decision was taken yesterday to have the Auditor General clarify the procurement guidelines relating to the award of construction contracts, on the basis of issues raised by former PAC Chair Audley Shaw.

Shaw broke the stony silence he had maintained throughout the sitting just minutes short of the adjournment to query the UDC’s observance of government procurement procedures in its awarding of construction contracts.

Last week he had vacated the chair for the period that Lawrence would be under probe, saying comments he had made at a political rally on the weekend before had cast a shadow on his chairmanship.