As residents await the official opening of the Royal Watler Cruise Terminal, controversy continues to follow the facility at the George Town Harbour in Grand Cayman.

In May, a report from the Auditor General's Office slammed the project management for cost overrun and a questionable tendering process between the Port Authority and two contractors.

According to the report, the Port Authority stands to lose about $4.2 million as a result of the mismanagement by the Burns Conolly Group.

Burns Conolly, the Project Manager of the project, threatened to take legal action against the Auditor General's Office for what his company termed gross inaccuracies, poor assumptions and illogical conclusions in the 60-page report.

Auditor General Dan Duguay said the report was accurate and truly reflected the situation at the Royal Watler Cruise Terminal.

Mr Conolly's call for the Auditor to withdraw the report and offer a public apology that has not materialised.

Mr Duguay said his office would vigorously defend its findings in the courts if the Burns Conolly Group make good as its threat.

The controversy now seems to be worsening with McAlpine Ltd taking objection to some of the comments made by Mr Conolly on a Radio Cayman talk show in June.

A Joint Venture (JV) comprising McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey failed to secure the contract to construct the terminal and Mr Conolly sought to give reasons during the radio programme.

However, the JV took issue with the Project Management on statements he made regarding concerns with its bid.

"To suggest in anyway that McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey failed to submit a bona fide tender is completely false," said General Manager of McAlpine Ltd, Ian Pairaudeau.

"We fully understood this project and had the expertise to complete it successfully," he added.

On 18 November 2002, a proposal was submitted for Cruise Ship Tendering Facilities and Pier Improvements in the sum of $11.979 million by McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey.

According to the McAlpine official, the proposal included repairs to the cargo pier, marine work to the cruise facilities and the buildings and the associated upland work.

Mr Pairaudeau said based on the Auditor General's report the Port Authority will pay in excess of CI$20 million for work included within its tender.

To back its claim, McAlpine listed the Port Authority's expenses on the project as follows: Marine contractor $8,384,006, Upland contractor $6,287,483 and Finger Pier repairs (GIS report 8 April 2003) $5,500,000.

Mr Pairaudeau said Mr Conolly had in fact been 'clouding' the issues raised in the Auditor General's report.

In a letter written to the Auditor General and made available to the media, McAlpine Ltd labelled Mr Conolly's comments as "unacceptable".

"We find it unacceptable that Mr Conolly has attempted to cloud the issues raised in your report at our expense," Mr Pairaudeau said in his correspondence to the Auditor General.

Another issue the company has with the Project Manager of the Royal Watler project is his comment that it "planned to construct the facility from on shore".

Mr Pairaudeau said the statement is incorrect as the JV's submission mentioned, "piling work will be undertaken from a floating spud-led barge".

Mr Conolly said that the McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey's proposal required storage of its equipment and materials in areas where containers would be stored and that this would cause significant disruption.

To this statement, JV company spokesman responded by saying that it was misleading as it only requested a lay-down area for one week's supply of piles, knowing that it owned the land between the AALL building and the Wholesome Bakery.

Other areas raised on the talk show were also rebuffed by the McAlpine official whose team, according to Mr Conolly, did not guarantee that it could drive piles into the ground to the depth required by the engineer.

Mr Pairaudeau said that was never asked of his firm and he wondered what was the basis for such guarantee.

"It's extremely difficult to give this type of guarantee when sheet piling into unknown ground conditions. In some cases these piles were driven to 50 feet below mean sea level," Mr Pairaudeau said.

Misener, one of two companies working on the new cruise terminal, was described by the Project Manager as having "created a product that was at a higher engineering level than that proposed by McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey".

The Joint Venture company said it would like to know the engineering basis for this statement made by Burns Conolly on Radio Cayman.

Some observations noted by the JV are that the original design called for a Mooring Dolphin and removable bridge, but this has not been built.

"Has the client received a credit for this work? The McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey proposal included CI$384,725 for this work," Mr Pairaudeau said.

McAlpine and Arch and Godfrey said it has never understood why it was not awarded the contract to construct the Royal Watler terminal.

"Nothing said by Mr Conolly in the past few months has convinced us that we did not submit the most economical tender or that we failed to meet any of the requirements," the JV said.

"There is nothing in the finished product that would warrant the additional cost of using the highest bidder."

McAlpine built the original port facility in 1976 and have successfully completed marine projects throughout the Caribbean and United Kingdom.