Government has not abandoned the chance to recuperate more than $15 million from axed Berkeley School contractor Pro-Active.

Works and Engineering Permanent Secretary Robert Horton last week confirmed that Government was awarded $13,212,438 in an arbitration hearing with the company and $2,408,385.70 in legal costs.

It was the first time an official confirmed the amounts awarded in the proceedings which began in 2004 after Pro-Active Management Systems Ltd. claimed it was wrongfully dismissed from building the new Berkeley school.

Last December court proceedings, which were held in private at Government's request, ruled in favour of Government. Then in January Pro-Active filed an appeal to this decision though there is no word on the stage of that action. Further complicating matters is the Performance Bond, which Pro-Active secured from Union Asset Holdings (UAH), a subsidiary of the Bermuda Industrial Union (BIU).

The bond acted as insurance covering ten percent of the cost of the project should Pro-Active not complete it, if it fell behind or if it went over budget.

It is understood that BIU could be liable for $6.8 million if this bond is called-in and Mr. Horton said Government is still investigating how or if it will be able to collect the money it is owed. He said: "The question as to whether and by what means the award made to Government in the arbitration against Pro-Active will be pursued remains under active consideration."

This additional statement came after Mr. Horton said Government was concerned they would not be able to recover the $15 million from Pro-Active because they feared it was going insolvent.

They may also not be able to call on the bond, because Auditor General Larry Dennis had raised issues with the UAH Bond in a special report submitted to the Speaker of the House in 2002.

In the report he said the Ministry of Works and Engineering paid $700,000 to the company for the bond fee even though there was no evidence that Pro-Active had secured one.

And the report says Cabinet awarded the $68 million contract to Pro-Active before the bond had been secured, even though it was a prerequisite for the job.

Furthermore, the company that issues the bond should have the assets to cover it and Mr. Dennis reported that he was unsure the BIU's assets were available to meet the $6.8 million bond.

A Police investigation into the bond has been completed though more information would not be released until his 2008 Report.

Controversy had surrounded the secondary school's construction since Cabinet awarded the project to the little-known general contractor.

Its bid of $68,164,841 for the contract, was the second lowest submitted.

Work began on the site in September 2001 with a projected finish of September 2003 – and a budget of $70 million.

Pro-Active was sacked as the project contractor in 2004, accused of failing to meet deadlines and cost targets.

Somers Construction was then given the key role. When the school was finally completed in 2006, it was well over budget, with a total cost of approximately $125 million.