drew criticism from two more American contractors who declined their invitations to bid.

But officials from both Johnson Controls World Services and Lockheed Air Terminal Inc. said the inclusion of Serco -- which had purchased the Canadian company hired to write the specifications for the Airport contract -- was not the reason they did not bid.

Mr. Hal Fuller, director of marketing (base closures) for Johnson Controls in Cape Canaveral, Florida, cited Bermuda's refusal to extend the contract deadline by one week.

And Mr. Robert Aaronson, executive vice-president of Lockheed Air Terminal in Burbank, California, also cited a lack of time, aggravated by late changes to the scope of the contract.

Their voices were added to that of Mr. Craig Proulx of JIL Systems Inc. near Washington, DC, who on Monday blasted Government's entire procurement process.

A Government official said on Tuesday that Mr. Proulx has said he will write a letter retracting his comments. Mr. Proulx could not be reached for further comment.

With the US Navy quitting Bermuda next September, Bermuda must take over air operations at the Airport on June 1. Of nine companies invited to bid on the five-year contract expected to be worth $25 million to $50 million, only two submitted proposals by Friday's deadline. One was Serco. The other was Allied Signal Technical Services Inc., of the US, which has teamed up with Bermuda Aviation Services, Barton ATC Inc., and AeroMet Inc.

Mr. Fuller said Serco's acquisition of Thompson Hickling Aviation Inc. of Canada "was a factor'' in Johnson's decision not to bid. "I don't know if it would have been a deciding factor.'' It was "obviously legal'' to invite Serco to bid, he said. However, "we feel that that is not an appropriate action.'' It would have been possible and preferable to delay consummation of any deal between THA and Serco until after the contract was awarded, Mr. Fuller said.

His main concern was that he requested a two-week extension in the deadline to submit proposals when he attended a bidders conference in Bermuda on August 24, but he was granted only a one-week extension, to last Friday, he said.

"We requested two weeks additional time, but it was approved as a one-week extension.

"A (further) one-week extension would have made a difference,'' Mr. Fuller said. He could not say for sure, but felt there was a strong chance Johnson Controls would have submitted a proposal if the company was given one more week.

Base bidding row heats up From Page 1 "We regret very much that we were not able to participate in the process,'' Mr. Fuller said. "We felt the Bermuda operation is a real opportunity.'' Unlike Mr. Proulx of JIL, whose dissatisfaction centred on experts from New Zealand hired to assist with the tendering, Mr. Fuller said he was not unhappy with the Government officials he dealt with.

"There were some vague areas in the RFP (request for proposals),'' he said.

"They could have done a better job in that area.'' Mr. Ken Stubbings, Government's Bases transition manager, said he was surprised by Mr. Fuller's comments about the time extension. "The very clear consensus from the point of view of his competitors was that one week was satisfactory,'' Mr. Stubbings said Tuesday. "I don't recollect a clear request from his point of view that he wanted two weeks.'' If he had stated that clearly, and the others had agreed, "we would have gone along with it,'' Mr. Stubbings said.

At Lockheed Air Terminal, Mr. Aaronson said Serco's participation in the bidding was not a factor in his company's decision not to bid. However, "we're somewhat disturbed by it,'' he said. "It makes us a little uncomfortable.'' Mr. Aaronson said two changes made in the scope of the contract "fairly late in the time period'' was the main reason Lockheed did not bid.

"It wasn't possible to get an extension of time, and it just put us in a situation where we couldn't determine what our costs were going to be,'' he said.

Under the circumstance, he said he was not surprised only two companies or partnerships submitted proposals.

One change related to provision of air traffic control by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States and was "never 100 percent clarified,'' Mr. Aaronson said. The other involved "a significant change in the scope of the firefighting services,'' and whether the Bermuda Fire Service would provide manpower, he said.

Mr. Aaronson's recollection was that a one-week extension in the deadline for proposals appeared sufficient at the time of the bidders' conference, but that the changes in the scope of the contract came later.

His company remained interested in another contract to manage and maintain the Airport and former Base grounds, he said.

Meanwhile, officials in Bermuda from the Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. Tuesday rebutted comments made by Mr. Proulx, who was sharply critical of them in a story that appeared in The Royal Gazette .

New Zealand technical expert Mr. Jack Shore, speaking for himself and procurement expert Mr. Toby Farmer, said the request for proposals made it clear Government was asking specifically for provision of air operations -- taking in air traffic control, weather and flight information, ground electronic equipment maintenance, and crash, fire and rescue services.

Mr. Proulx's talk about commercialising the Airport demonstrates that he "clearly does not understand the situation,'' Mr. Shore said.

Mr. Proulx also claimed the New Zealanders were ignorant about FAA requirements, but Mr. Shore said both he and Mr. Farmer were part of the team negotiating with the FAA. There were also three FAA representatives at the bidders' conference to answer questions, he said.

Mr. Shore said he believed all questions asked at the bidders' conference were answered in writing and sent to all bidders. However, answers to questions from JIL would have been sent to its partner BAA, and it was possible BAA did not pass the answers on to JIL, he said.

"From our point of view, it was interesting that BAA seemed to dissociate itself from the comments Mr. Proulx was making,'' Mr. Shore said. "I have no idea why the negative comments were made.''