PARLIAMENT’S Public Accounts Committee (PAC) yesterday inched closer to determining who was responsible for the US$43 million cost overrun on the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel project, after admissions by two key players.

Both the quantity surveyor and the contractor on the contentious hotel project pointed to Nevalco Consultants, the site managers for the state-run Urban Development Corporation (UDC), as the main ones approving variations in the construction costs.

“…The contractor is not allowed to take instructions from anybody else except the project manager and I believe in a lot of instances even the drawings that were issued came from the project manager’s office,” said Brian Goldson, whose firm was hired as quantity surveyors by the UDC.

Speaking for Ashtrom, the contractor, consultant Akiva Schiff told the PAC that “99 per cent of the times” directions on the project were given in writing by the Alston Stewart-owned Nevalco.

Appearing for the second straight week at the PAC, Goldson blamed the cost overruns on persons whom he said gave instructions for changes which were not provided for in the original US$70 million construction budget.

He declined to take any responsibility for the inadequate cost control exercised on the project, admitting that at times he did not point out the changes in costs that would accompany certain decisions. “I don’t usually pick up the phone for changes that come out of remeasurements.”

Goldson, questioned by Opposition PAC member, Audley Shaw whether upon identifying a ‘variation’ he had consulted with the project manager to discuss increased or decreased costs, said that as the contract was a “remeasured contract”, the term ‘variation’ did not apply.

But pressed further by Shaw, the quantity surveyor told the committee that the deviations from the contract were in fact approved by project managers for the UDC, Nevalco.

“What you are saying is that there was an approvals system and essentially it had to do with the project manager’s office?” Shaw questioned, reading notes from a dispute resolution meeting which quoted Nevalco’s Stewart as saying that as project manager all changes were made under his authority.

“Would you say this statement from Mr Stewart would be consistent with… the deviations from the original projected estimate that in all cases these were approved by the project manager?” Shaw queried.

Opting to answer, the mechanical and engineering consultant for the quantity surveyor, Basil Nelson, responded: “Yes, I can, but with one condition I was not part of the initial team, but I came into a system and I saw procedures outlined to me by Mr Stewart that I followed…”

Nelson’s statement contradicted Stewart, who, in his earlier appearance before the committee, had claimed that his authority on the project had been circumvented by Implementation Limited.

Goldson added: “The contractor is not allowed to take instructions from anybody else except the project manager and I believe in a lot of instances even the drawings that were issued came from the project manager’s office.”

When asked by Shaw to comment on Stewart’s insistence that Implementation Limited issued instructions on site on behalf of Gorstew, Goldson retorted: “I cannot comment on that, only that they gave instructions on the air condition….ask the contractor.”

Goldson was taken to task for not warning the parties of the escalating costs beforehand and angered Shaw with his noncommittal response that it was his duty to do so but when it “was known” to him.

“So how is it conceivable that a quantity surveyor could be on a site so important and costs are escalating and you don’t know about it, how is that conceivable?…was the contractor concealing information,” Shaw queried.

“Nobody was concealing anything,” Goldson replied.

In responding to questions from Government member John Junor as to whether the Technical Services Agreement gave Implementation Limited the right to give specifications on behalf of hotel mamnagers, Sandals Resorts International, Goldson said this was so. He further noted that even changes put forward by the lessee had to be approved by the project manager.

Auditor General Adrian Strachan, however, expressed puzzlement as to why with the apparent concerns about cost limits on the project from the onset, the costs still skyrocketed.

“It is clear that from the onset there were strong objections by the parties and they asked you to come up with a US$60 million cost.

From all indications cost was supposed to play a paramount role, it was supposed to be a serious limiting factor,” Strachan insisted.

Strachan also argued that while Goldson had said the parties who gave the instructions for changes were responsible, there must have been a process that the parties had agreed on to say what cost controls there would be.

Goldson caused a small stir when he responded by saying that at times there was “no time for approvals or for them to be signed off on”.

“For example, when somebody requested the energy management system, which cost $.5 million extra, there wasn’t time for anybody to report on that …the building was waiting on it.” he argued.

When asked by Shaw whether the additional half million dollar for the energy managment system had been approved by Nevalco, Goldson said “I’m sure it was”.

Also pointing to Nevalco, Ashtrom consultant Akiva Schiff told the PAC that that 99 per cent of the times directions on the project were given in writing by Nevalco.

Government member John Junor stressed that the issue was which instructions had caused the overruns and not necessarily that 99 per cent of the instructions had come from Nevalco.