It may well be true that no construction project in Bermuda's history has been conducted under closer public scrutiny than the Berkeley project.

But it may also be true that no project has needed closer scrutiny as the litany of problems never seems to end.

Given the controversy that has surrounded the project since it began, it would have been reasonable to expect that the contractor and the Government would have made every effort to ensure that this would be a model capital project.

Certainly, capital projects under the previous Government had had a chequered track record and the example of the Westgate bailout was well documented by the Auditor.

With that experience in the Government files, and given the relative inexperience of Pro-Active Construction when it was granted the project, the stakes for the current Government were very high.

But it would appear that very little has gone right with the project.

Leaving aside the Auditor's still open questions about the performance bond for the project and the objections of technical officers to Pro-Active getting the project, Government is now faced with a project that is seemingly months behind schedule and a contractor who is apparently dependent on weekly payments just to meet its payroll.

That may well be unprecedented for a project of this size and will have done nothing to help the confidence of the contractor's other creditors.

Now, Works Minister Alex Scott is talking about bringing in another management company, not to take over the site, but to assist Pro-Active in "maximising resources".

This raises more questions than it answers. If it is an admission that Pro-Active is in over its head, then Mr. Scott should say so.

No one wants to see Pro-Active fail, but the time has come when the owner of the site - the Government - must say if it has confidence in the contractor to finish the job.

Forcing Pro-Active to put more workers on overtime and bringing in a management consultant seem, on the face of it, to be half-measures that will not solve the real problem.

These moves parallel Mr. Scott's periodic statements on the progress of the project. First he denied the project was behind schedule, then he admitted that it was a couple of weeks behind but he remained confident that the delays could be made up, then he admitted that it was a couple of months behind.

Now who knows how far behind it is and it clearly is in financial difficulties.

When Auditor General Larry Dennis raised questions about the project, he was met with vitriol and demands for his tenure to be curtailed.

Given that background, it is only reasonable to assume that the problems Pro-Active is facing are worse than the public can possibly be aware of.

It is time for Mr. Scott to come clean before the situation gets any worse.