THE millions of dollars needed to pay for the latest costly chapter in the story of the new Berkeley school will come out of public coffers ? yet the taxpayers footing the bill were denied access to the arbitration hearings.

One man who believed those hearings should have been public was Julian Hall, an adviser to Pro-Active and a former Progressive Labour Party MP.

Yesterday, he did not respond to our requests for a comment on the arbitration, but in an interview with this newspaper in September 2004 ? just after Pro-Active's sacking ? Mr. Hall spelled out the gist of the company's claims.

At the time, Mr. Hall warned that Pro-Active's litany of claims, including one for wrongful termination, could leave Government with a bill of more than $15 million.

In the interview, Mr. Hall said the contract was based on a lump sum being paid out by the Government on a monthly basis, according to the stage of completion of the project, with adjustments made for design changes and changes to the bill of quantities.

But he claimed there was a pattern of Government consistently paying out less to Pro-Active than was required to meet its expenses on the school projects.

He added that an extra $13 million that the Government agreed in February 2004 to pay Pro-Active had been to cover work already done, not to finish the project.

"The $13 million was never adequately explained to the public by Government," Mr. Hall said. "It was about extra work and materials done and paid for by Pro-Active up to the end of year 2003.

"Of that $13 million, a portion was to be paid up front and a portion over the ensuing months. Pro-Active did not get the amount they were promised per month.

"And the amount received up front went towards reducing the debt to Union Asset Holdings (a subsidiary of the Bermuda Industrial Union). Union Asset Holdings were not just the surety for the completion bond, they also effectively and frequently made up shortfalls in the company's cash flow."

Mr. Hall added that Government's claim to have helped the company with its cash flow during the project was misleading.

"It was understood by Pro-Active that the company would have much more flexibility within the contract than we did in fact get, as we were not a major company with the cash flow capabilities of larger companies," Mr. Hall said.

"But what happened is that Pro-Active was never over-paid. In fact, the company was substantially under-paid."