Works and Engineering Minister Ashfield DeVent on Friday denied that Government had purchased any of the construction equipment being used for the Berkeley Senior Secondary School project.

The Minister was responded to a series of written questions posed by Shadow Environment Minister Cole Simons.

When Mr. Simons asked what equipment Government paid for in regards to the construction site, and why Mr. DeVent replied that the work rates Government pays to the contractor includes payment for use of equipment.

Mr. DeVent said Government does not own any of the equipment being used on the site, and added: ?The payment for ?equipment costs? included in the claim settlement with Pro-Active reflects the additional costs to the contractor for keeping the equipment on site for the extended duration of the contract.

Mr. Simons requested itemised costs of the Bayview project in connection with the Berkeley construction project, including the cost of any renovations and land purchase, but Mr. DeVent replied this was a matter presently before the House of Assembly.

Mr. DeVent was also asked, by his shadow counterpart Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, to itemise costs associated with an additional $8 million Government had agreed to pay contractor Pro-Active as part of a negotiated settlement.

He revealed that the claim was in fact settled at $13 million, saying that $5 million was agreed for ?general requirements based on an extension of 365 days?.

?The balance of the agreed settlement sum ($7,883,000) covered the additional overtime premium; loss of labour productivity; loss of efficiency; extended overhead costs; equipment; insurance; financing; subcontractor claim; overhead and profit. These items were negotiated and a lump sum put forward to cover the value.?

Ms Gordon-Pamplin had asked for a breakdown of the $7.8 million and what it was specifically spent on.

During Friday?s Motion to Adjourn, Ms Gordon-Pamplin accused Government of ?irresponsibility? when the $7.8 million expenditure was not explained to her satisfaction. She said the Minister replied to her query by stating that the expenditure was the result of factors such as insurance and additional overtime without giving an exact breakdown of the figures, adding that his response was ?unacceptable?.

Ms Gordon-Pamplin had also asked why Proactive did not meet the original contract deadline of September 4, 2003. Mr. DeVent said there were ?unforeseen changes to the design and additional work which was required due to site conditions.?

?Although these items on their own did not necessarily account for all of the delay claimed by Pro-Active they were contributing factors. The overall extension of time afforded to ProActive was part of the overall settlement of the claim and based on the Ministry of Works and Engineering and Housing consultant?s assessment of what would be a ?reasonable? construction period for a project of this type and size.?

In response to another of Ms Gordon-Pamplin?s questions, he said that the purchase of the Berkeley property was completed in the summer of 1998.