Dionne Rose, Parliamentary Reporter

Desmond Hayle (left), architect and chairman of the forensic audit team, consults with Dr. Allan Kirton, former Permanent Secretary and member of the forensic audit team. The team appeared before Parliament's Public Account Committee yesterday to answer questions on the controversial Sandals Whitehouse project. - Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer

The Forensic audit team investigating the more than US$43 million in cost overruns on the Sandals Whitehouse project has said that it found no evidence of fraud but has blamed the excesses on management deficit and failure to meet completion deadlines.

The audit team, led by Desmond Hayle, architect, was appearing before Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for the first time and yesterday stood by its report which it had submitted to Parliament in August.

The report had blamed the cost overruns on poor management by the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), and the multiple roles of individuals involved.

But yesterday, PAC members questioned the team about its finding of a management deficit of US$15 million on the project.

Of this deficit, there were interest charges for late payments amounting to US$1.07 million and additional fees, due to an extended contract period, of $2.16 million and $2.3 million.

PAC chairman, Audley Shaw, asked whether fraud had been involved.

"And in the course of your examination of this case, have you found any basis on which to consider referring this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions?"

No evidence

But Mr. Hayle said the team had not found any evidence of fraud. Calvin Roach, another member of the team, said that the deficit was due to poor management.

"It boils down to people not performing what they were contracted to do," said Mr. Roach.

He pointed to major increases in general preliminaries and conditions of contracts, which he said would be time related.

The audit team also told the PAC that it experienced difficulties in getting vital information while conducting its investigations. The team confirmed that it had only seen 19 of 38 payment certificates.

"Is it possible that there could be costs that could have escaped your own sweep?" asked Mr. Shaw.

"The answer to that question is yes and we have stated that in the report," said Mr. Roach. "We have made several requests for information, but as you know, as an audit team, we cannot demand information."

The UDC, which has been at the centre of the controversy, will be appearing before the PAC next week Tuesday.