Opposition MP blasted Government for the ?deplorable? lack of accountability regarding the status of the incomplete Senior Secondary School project in the House of Assembly on Friday.

And she said that the problems hounding the project were the result of ?poor management? by Government.

However Government MPs used their majority to reduce her motion to a take note motion put forward by Premier Alex Scott. Instead of deploring the ?systematic misinformation and lack of accountability surrounding the PLP?s mismanagement? of the Berkeley project, the new motion called on the House to ?take note of the management and accountability of the second senior school construction project at Berkeley?.

Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin spoke after House Speaker Stanley Lowe suggested an amendment to the initial wording of the motion since the original ?offensive words? breached the rules of the House. She said that although not intended to offend, the initial strong wording of the motion showed a ?commitment to follow the diminution in value of the public purse?.

And she added, ??Deplorable? is a mild adjective to describe what?s happened over time (with the project)?.

Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin reminded MPs that the Senior Secondary School project was initially set for completion by September 4, 2003.

She said despite allegations to the contrary, then-Works and Engineering Minister Alex Scott insisted the project would be finished on time.

Not only has the project yet to be completed, stated Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin, but the project has also massively exceeded its original budget of $68 million.

She added that one of the most disturbing aspects of the situation is that Government did not re-evaluate and keep the public informed when it became clear that the project would not be finished by the projected date.

?There were 68 million reasons why the contractor said the project would be completed on time... but because (Mr. Scott) put his head in the sand, we?ve all been done a disservice? said Mrs. Pamplin-Gordon. ?The new TAF is now over $102 million and still counting?.

Mrs. Pamplin-Gordon said that the delayed school opening had ?dashed the aspirations of children who anticipated taking advantage of the new state-of-the-art facility?.

She added that the new proposed completion date of 30 September, 2004 was ?doubtful?.

Mrs. Pamplin-Gordon also questioned who exactly was to blame for the significant delays. Although she accepted that there were some delays with steel delivery as the result of 9/11, she said those circumstances only account for a delay of one additional month.

Criticising Premier Scott for his role as Works and Engineering Minister, she said: ?The more ineffectual you can be, the better you get promoted?, and added: ?Under normal circumstances, a CEO would have been fired?.

She also made accusations that the HR Lubben Group was in bed with Pro-Active. The HR Lubben Group handled the negotiations resulting in an extra $13 million for Pro-Active in February of this year after the company submitted a claim against Government, and Ms Gordon-Pamplin said they were ?part and parcel? of the original Pro-Active bid for the Berkeley contract.

February was also when Housing Minister Ashfield DeVent announced what Ms Gordon-Pamplin termed ?major changes in the bill of quantities? for the project.

However she said when she submitted formal questions to Mr. DeVent, who she called ?the fall guy?, asking the reason for those changes, she said he hid behind a technicality.

In her question, Ms Gordon-Pamplin said Mr. DeVent announced those changes in the House of Assembly. In fact, Mr. DeVent wrote in his reply, he made those statements to the Press, not the House.

?He hid behind that one-line response,? Ms Gordon-Pamplin said, admitting she had made a mistake. ?So now I ask again ... Somebody messed up. We need to know who.?

Ms Gordon-Pamplin also asked the Minister if work on the job site had continued during the 26 days of negotiations. In his statement to the Press in February, Mr. DeVent announced that, along with a 12-month extension to finish the project, Pro-Active also had an extra 26 days to make of for the 26 days lost during negotiations.

However in his reply, Ms Gordon-Pamplin said, Mr. DeVent said work continued on the job site for the 26 days of negotiations, leading her to question the reasoning behind his statement to the Press. ?Why not just say they needed more time?? she said. ?This was an inability to effectively negotiate on the part of this Government.?

Questioning the breakdown of where the extra $13 million awarded to Pro-Active was going, Ms Gordon-Pamplin said ?extended overhead costs? were cited twice as part of the award. ?Are we paying them twice?? she asked. ?Are we doubling up? ... What kind of management is this??

Premier called Ms Gordon-Pamplin?s comments ?over the top?.

To laughter from the Opposition, he said people ?have been mesmerised by what has been accomplished ... By what has been accepted as a challenging project?.

The Opposition was misleading Bermuda about the cost of the project, he said, adding that most people missed the fact that the TAF (total authorised fund) and the cost of the contract were two totally separate and distinct costs.

The TAF, ?soft costs? such as the cost of purchasing the land and paying consultants, was not covered by the $68 million contract awarded to Pro-Active, he said. The TAF was listed in the Budget Statement of 2001 as $71.2 million, though that figure was revised a year later to $88 million ? separate from the $68 million contract awarded to Pro-Active. Mr. Scott also pointed out the impact of construction claims directors (CCDs), of which more than a hundred had piled up.

He defended the HR Lubben Group, saying the group was ?there only in name? at the beginning and that the relationship went no further.

He then added, however, that the group was suited to handle the negotiations between Pro-Active and Government because they ?knew the site, knew Bermuda and knew Pro-Active?. He then said the group was never involved with Pro-Active on the site and was not part of the original bid.

Mr. Scott defended Government?s choice to hire Pro-Active despite another firm putting in a lower bid. He pointed out that other firm later ?went bust? on a project. ?You can conclude ... It can happen to anyone, and it could?ve happened on that (the Berkeley) site.?

Though admitting Pro-Active could be described as ?inexperienced?, he said that was not ?rocket science? as it could be argued a project on this scale had never been completed in Bermuda before. ?We felt comfortable.?

Despite the comfort, however, the Premier admitted Government?s disappointment in the project. ?This project has taken longer than we would have wished ... I turned to the public and reported what I was told ... And when the facts changed, that?s when our explanation changed.

?She (Ms Gordon-Pamplin) says they took advantage of my humble naivete,? he added, as MPs laughed and Ms Gordon-Pamplin said: ?I called it something different?.

However Mr. Scott said it would have been ?premature? to say the project was going to take longer as the contractor then would have taken that extra time ? a self-fulfilling prophecy.

?That is as straightforward as I can be about what was a very complicated process ... Yes, it was disappointing.

?We have learnt from this project.?

Mr. Scott said Government wanted to believe the marketplace would be fair and funds would be available to the young Bermudian firm. ?It didn?t happen.?

Instead Pro-Active got only a $4 million credit for the $68 million project ? ?a handicap?.

But Government was happy the bank community had listened and small firms can now be empowered with a credit line warranted by the contract. ?That?s progress ? yes, it was a lesson learned.?

Saying the construction firm could have done better had they followed ?other methodologies?, Mr. Scott added he was not an expert, and said all the other firms in the bid had major partners who were not local.

He also noted that Police could not find any evidence regarding the allegations of corruption at Berkeley, and said: ?The only thing that has happened is that many reputations have been hurt?.

He then moved to amend Ms Gordon-Pamplin?s motion to the take-note motion of the management and accountability of the project ? a motion passed by a vote of 14-13 on the floor of the House.

Once the motion was passed, however, Shadow Health Minister said he had not been ?mesmerised? but ?astounded? at the ?frightening justifications? put forward by the Premier.

Now it is not even known where the project stands now, what the final cost will be and when it will be finished, he said: ?It is our contention that unless a miracle takes place (the completion date) is not going to be September 30, 2004?.

Mr. Dunkley added that the former Works and Engineering Minister didn?t take the advice of his technical advisors on who to hirer for the contract.

He said Mr. Scott was told Pro-Active would be a risk if hired.

?They would want to clarify it in order to be transparent but also down the road to cover their tracks,? he said.

He called on the Government to give regular updates as they are ?guardians of the tax payers? purse?.

He said: ?This is a $100 million project and there are no regular updated. You wonder why.

?We?re not up here to play politics all day. We want answers.?

Opposition Education Minister Neville Darrell said this was a learning experience for a ?new, young company? and a learning experience for a ?young Government?.

He said: ?The issue of accountability was skirted around because everyone was learning something. That is unacceptable. What about the learning experience for our children??

He quoted school?s motto, which translates to ?keep the end in view?.

He added that the motto was about having clear objectives and accountability.

?These valuable lessons have come at a great cost.?

As a spin doctor, Mr. Scott as former Works and Engineering Minister was able to avoid providing the answers to why the project is over budget and over time, said Opposition Transport Minister .

He gave several examples of types of spin doctoring including scapegoating, name-calling, rationalisation and goading opponents.

He said the PLP?s examples of past projects by the UBP were a way to ?move blame and responsibility away from themselves by attributing it to others?.

He said: ?The technique of blaming the UBP for the problems is obvious scapegoating.?

Opposition Environment Minister said the decision to hirer Pro-Active has never been given. ?They can?t find justification for why they went with Pro-Active. No one has come clean about why they made the decision to go with Pro-Active.?

He said the country needed to run itself more like a business. He added that the Government, if run like a business, would not have been able to present the Berkeley School plan to ?stakeholders and expect them to accept it?.

Mr. Simons also questioned why, 18 months after the project had started, had a tender been put out for a sewage plant. ?The clock ticks and the cost goes up daily,? he said.