THE contractor on the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project yesterday insisted that the company at no time acted without written approval by Nevalco Consultants, the project manager hired by the Urban Development Corporation (UDC).

Abraham Subocki, vice-president of Ashtrom Building Systems Limited, the contractor, was defending his firm’s conduct on the Sandals Whitehouse project before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament which has been probing the US$43-million cost overruns on the project since last September.

“At a certain stage it was clear that whatever instruction we go ahead without getting the written instruction of the project manager, it will be on our own risk and we won’t get paid. It was after a long argument I had with the project manager… and from that moment it was clear,” Subocki told the committee.

Opposition Member Audley Shaw, who questioned Subocki on the approval system, said the committee “had been led to believe otherwise” as the Ashtrom vice-president’s testimony was in direct contrast to previous reports from the state-run Urban Development Corporation and its contracted project manager Nevalco.

“It has been suggested to this committee from the project manager and the UDC that the contractor (Ashtrom) appeared to breach the project management guidelines by at times acting on the instructions given by persons other than the project manager and which had increased cost implications. Wouldn’t that testimony be in direct contradiction to what was testified earlier?” Shaw questioned.

Responding Subocki said even though the project had adopted a fast-track approach unless the project manager’s approval was received Ashtrom did not proceed.

“In order to speed up the thing we worked out a system that whatever instruction that we got that we think is above the contract. we sent it to the quantity surveyor and unless we got the approval from the project manager after he got the final assessment of the quantity surveyor, then we went ahead with it,” Subocki said.

In fact, he said, because of this procedure “many of the big items were delayed between six and seven months”.

“We couldn’t proceed until the project manager finally gave written approval. it took the project manager between six and seven months to decide on. I know because we tried to move but we couldn’t,” Subocki added.

Subocki further shot down earlier arguments to the committee blaming the breakdown in the approval system on the fast-track nature of the project.

Said Shaw: “Are you are saying despite having a fast track system you still had an approval system in place?”

Responding Subocki said: “Of course.”

“Are you are aware that this committee has been told that because of the fast track system the approvals system was violated?” Shaw persisted.

” I’m not aware of it, I know one thing that nothing that was approved in our final accounts unless everything was approved by the project manager in writing and if we did not manage to get it, the quantity surveyor ignored it and didn’t include it in our bid,” the Ashtrom vice-president said.

Subocki also complained that from the outset of the contract, problems were encountered because of lack of data, incomplete information, incomplete or no design, lack of specifications and were even paid late in instances.

“In fact, the control book for the design finishes was only given to us one year-and-a-half into the contract, and when the designs were submitted we realised that the specifications and the scope of works were totally different from the scope of works, design and specifications included in the contract. This doubled the cost. It took about a year-and-a-half to get a picture of what type of hotel was to be built,” he said.

As a consequence, he said, the extensions of time that had to be approved were a substantial part of the additional cost of the project.

Alston Stewart, rising to Nevalco’s defence, repeated claims he had made at earlier sittings that Implementation Limited which acted on behalf of Gorstew/Sandals had given instructions to the contractor without his knowledge.

Gorstew refuted the allegations when it appeared before the PAC last year.

“I objected strongly and after a special meeting I informed the contractor. Thereafter whenever they got instructions directly they would redirect said information to my office,” Stewart told the committee.

He said the lengthy delay on at least three or four items were directly related to several meetings in which he attempted to have particular item brought in line.

“Eventually a choice by me had to be made, either I would shut the project down or I would accede to the veto power Sandals Resorts International had on the specifications,” Stewart said, noting that there was significant proof of items insisted on by SRI.

According to Stewart, Shaw’s attempt to prove that he gave approval without hesitation was unwarranted.

“I had to approve having engaged the SRI people in debate, because if my signature did not accompany what was done I would disenfranchise the payment of the contractor,” Stewart insisted. He said Ashtrom had acted on a number of instructions which he had to approve retroactively in order to ensure that they were paid.

The UDC and Gorstew are to respond to the claims made during next week’s committee sitting.

The parties involved in the three-way partnership – Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO) – formed to build and run the hotel, includes Gorstew, the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), and the Urban Development Corporation.

Sandals, which also manages the hotel, has taken the UDC to court, blaming it for significant losses to the hotel chain because of delays in its opening and poor finishes that forced the hotel to refund huge sums of money to early guests.