Pro-Active Management Systems hope to move forward with arbitration by the end of this month, but warn Government ? should this not happen ? the matter will be heard by a tribunal come October.

Government terminated the $81 million-contract in August 2004 claiming that Pro-Active was not going to complete the work to the new Berkeley Institute by the September 30, 2004 deadline.

This decision sparked a dispute between Government and the Bermuda Industrial Union, whose Union Assets Holdings provided a completion bond for the project and set the stage for complicated arbitration hearings to resolve Pro-Active?s claims of wrongful termination.

Pro-Active?s legal advisor, Julian Hall, said yesterday that Government finally agreed to terms as to how to proceed forward and on what date the complaint should be filed.

He said Pro-Active met with the Union on Thursday to discuss the ?substance? of the claim against Government before formally serving the claim on the Government?s attorneys.

Mr. Berry Brower, a construction management consultant who had been advising Pro-Active for several months before agreement was reached in February, was also present at this meeting.

?We certainly developed a clear idea of the nature of the claim, but also the size. And the primary claim is for wrongful termination as well as other claims for work done up to the date of termination,? he said.

He said in September last year, shortly after Pro-Active?s contract was terminated, they voiced concern that an assessment needed to be done of the work that was done up to that date, as well as the quality of the work.

Halsall Associates, a Canadian firm completed the assessment for Government.

Mr. Hall said Pro-Active wanted to make sure the assessment was fair and balanced and ordered their own independent assessment be done by de Opplossing, Inc., an Atlanta-based firm.

He said a copy of this report, which consisted of several volumes covering every ?nook and cranny? of the project, was handed to Government.

However, Mr. Hall said, Pro-Active was still waiting on Government to make public their ?independent assessment? also completed last year.

?They are refusing to make that report public and we find that very disturbing,? he said. ?We had every reason to expect that it would be made public since taxpayers money paid for it.?

He said the report was instrumental in deciding how much work was completed by Pro-Active at the time their contract was terminated.

He said Pro-Active?s competence and reputation was in question and while they were not willing to enter a ?spitting contest? with Government on the issue, they hoped the Premier would make the report public so that they could deal with it and move ahead with arbitration.

Because of this, Mr. Hall could not disclose how much money Pro-Active was seeking from Government.

He was adamant that the new Berkeley Institute would have been completed if Government had not terminated Pro-Active?s contract.

?There?s no question of that,? he said.

He said they have always maintained that it would have been far less expensive to the taxpayer to allow Pro-Active to complete the project as they were almost 85 percent complete as of August 24 last year.

?We?ve always maintained this and the Government could have resolved the issue and simply given Pro-Active an extension of time to complete the project,? he said.

He added even if that meant working out later in arbitration who was responsible for securing extension dates.

Meanwhile Mr. Hall said Pro-Active had conceded to Government?s request that hearings be held in private.

?We would be very careful not to wave a red flag in front of the bull?s nose by saying too much of what?s really going on,? he said.