A risk assessment report on the new senior secondary school project should not be used in the debate between Government and sacked contractor Pro-Active Management Systems, says Argus Insurance Limited, which commissioned the report.

Argus? president and CEO Gerald Simons said that his company had insured Pro-Active since the project began and that the report by London-based Cunningham Lindsey helped them decide to renew their cover.

?We requested the study to be carried out to assist us in forming a view on a request from Pro-Active to extend the cover beyond the expiration date. And so we commissioned Cunningham Lindsey who had a qualified surveyor visit the site,? he said. ?They were shown about the site by the contractor, our client. It has to be said that at no time did we seek the views of the principals, that is to say the Ministry of Works and Engineering and the Government. So the report contains the views of the contractor and the observation of the surveyor. And as such it cannot be taken to represent the collective view of the contractor and Works and Engineering.?

The summary of the report says that Argus had asked Cunningham Lindsey to conduct a site inspection to establish the ?current status of the works on site, potential completion dates and also to give a general overview of the manner and quality of construction in evidence?.

The report concluded that the project was ?well run and well managed?, was adhering to industry safety and security standards and that works completed appeared to be of a high standard. It also said that mistakes made by a Government-appointed Canadian architectural firm were a major factor in delaying the construction.

Government has downplayed the report saying it was one sided, that it was not aware of the inspection and that the consultant?s site visit was ?not exhaustive?. The Works Ministry added that it had concerns about the quality of the work being done which could have been pointed out to the consultant had the Ministry been asked to participate.

Mr. Simons said that the assessment was simply to help Argus make an underwriting decision and agreed it was one sided but ?deliberately so, but it was appropriate for our purposes?. ?Quite frankly it is not entirely appropriate for that report to be used in any debate between the contractor and the principal in relation to their contract,? he said. ?The conclusion we?ve drawn is that it was worth our while to continue to ensure that risk. We were satisfied that we could assume the risk under the policy that we issued.?

He said the insurance provided was known as a Contractors All Risk policy and the major risk being covered was hurricane risk. ?If the building is half complete and a hurricane strikes how will it stand up to a hurricane ? that?s one of the risks underwriters are most concerned about.?