Pro-Active may yet apply for an injunction preventing work to restart on the new secondary school project, unless it is satisfied that an assessment to be done on the site is truly independent, a company spokesman said yesterday.

And the company revealed that it had issued two seven day work stoppage notices to try to force Government to take its concerns about the project seriously.

"There were occasions when we threatened to withdraw, but remember withdrawing labour could amount to wrongful termination," the company's legal advisor, Julian Hall, said.

Government's announcement that it was in talks with a Canadian concern to assess how to move forward on the project has the sacked contractor concerned because it had no say in the choice of the assessor.

Mr. Hall said it would be disturbing if the assessor had business links with Somers Construction ? the company chosen to manage the completion of the school ? and a competitor to Pro-Active for the original contract.

He explained that the report of the arbitrator will be used in future arbitration proceedings and it was important for the assessor to be independent.

"This assessment will be used to guide the arbitrator in determination of how much work is left to be done... But in any event the validity or relevance of any so called independent assessment will be highly questionable if Pro-Active did not have an equal say in choosing it."

Asked if Pro-Active will delay the restart of the project, he said that all efforts were being made not to take legal action at this stage.

The company's efforts were focused on the workers and its equipment.

"But there are some issues which cannot just be left alone which we may have to take court action on. We don't want to. Our problem is this Government appears to be getting the most stupid legal advice. We don't know who from... but the fact is any reasonable person must question the quality of legal advice."

He continued: "An injunction is perfectly possible. We would like to avoid it. Pro-Active does not wish to contribute in any way shape or form to any further delay in the completion of the Berkeley project."

And Mr. Hall said that he could not understand why Government did not understand the importance of an independent assessment.

The comments came during Pro-Active's first Press conference on its dispute with Government over the termination of the company's contract to build the new senior secondary school.

Mr. Hall said it should be the last ? unless Government continued to attack Pro-Active.

"We would countenance no more attacks on our competence. We would countenance no more attacks on our integrity ? I'm speaking primarily to the officers and directors of the company," he warned.

With Mr. Hall were company principles Arthur Ebbin and Cavon Steede.

They repeated arguments that civil servants had sabotaged the project from the start and that the most significant delays were the fault of Government, not Pro-Active.

And Mr. Hall dismissed Government claims that the quality of the work had deteriorated in the last few months.

"The work done by Pro-Active is of the highest quality... These are workers, superintendents who have combined many, many decades of contributing to the success of very large and successful companies in Bermuda," he said.

"They are very proud of the quality of the work. When the Cunningham Lindsey report came out praising the quality of the work done by Pro-Active what was the government's knee jerk response? To kick Pro-Active while it is down, to insult the quality of our work, they haven't spent all of the previous two years praising the quality of our work they would say that."

He denied that Pro-Active had represented to Government that HR Lubben was going to be the company's foreign partner on the project.

"The impression was never given to them and certainly they received no suggestion from HR Lubben that that was the case."

And Mr. Hall stressed that Government did not give it the support it deserved for the project.

"Pro-Active never pretended at any stage that it was endowed with the kinds of capital resources that would enable it, like many of its larger competitors in the construction industry to withstand the normal vicissitudes of business endeavour particularly with respect to cash flow. There had to be along with the awarding of the contract a serious commitment given by the Bermuda Government to support this company. And to support it in every way imaginable within the confines of a lawfully entered agreement."

Government had decided to build the school based on plans and drawings submitted under the United Bermuda Party Government.

Many of the plans were "seriously, seriously flawed," Mr Hall said.

"It is not for us to say whether or not the Government should have decided long ago to take legal action against those who were professionally advising the previous UBP administration. Suffice it for us to say that in the very earliest stages of the contract it became very clear that the plans and drawings and most importantly the bill of quantities with respect to this were manifestly inadequate and wrong. There were serious changes made along the way which inevitably resulted in significant delays and added expense ? none of which were the responsibility of Pro-Active."

He repeated earlier arguments that significant delays were not the fault of Pro-Active but as a result of flawed plans and drawings.

And Mr. Hall said that Pro-Active had decided to forego its profits on the project when it agreed to accept $13 million instead of $21 million it had claimed as a result of work and design order changes.

Government had been given faulty advice in terminating the contract which would only add to the delays and cost of the project.

"Because of that decision, we will be pursuing further claims in arbitration. And that's just the way it's going to have to be."

Mr. Hall explained that the issue of the completion bond was a non starter because the contract was terminated before the agreed completion date.

And he said the Bermuda Industrial Union should be given credit for acting as a banker for the project when Pro-Active was continually "short-changed" by Government.

The company had tried to be as cordial as possible with Government after the contract was terminated and did not want to litigate its claims in the media.

"But hanging Pro-Active out to dry, we have to say that the Progressive Labour Party Government has attacked the very heart and soul of the labour movement - more particularly has assaulted the very principle of black economic empowerment which we thought underlay the decision to award the contract to a company like Pro-Active."

"We know a lot about the history of this project. We know the degree to which the project has been stymied by various civil servants. The question has to be asked who governs Bermuda? Because it became increasingly clear to Pro-Active that the Government of Bermuda does not govern Bermuda. I put it no higher than that ? I don't care what the Premier has to say in response to it. Or what the Minister has to say. If they feel it is their duty to protect people who are trying to destroy their own Government that's their problem. We owe it to our selves, to our country to make plain that we have been as a company fed to the wolves by the Progressive Labour Party Government ? a Government that we support and have supported, that many of us have been committed to supporting until death. And we hope that this Government gets its act in order. I want to say to the Premier right now that there is no honour in kicking people when they are down. No further attacks on Pro?Active management by this Government will be countenanced ? despite our loyalty and love for the labour movement. Truth must finally come out.

He said the truth will eventually come out through arbitration and in a full pubic inquiry.

"Ultimately then we will see who governs Bermuda. Good will come out of this ? but only with truth, only with honest and correct answers. Not with spin not with public relations gimmickry. Good will come out of this when truth is finally laid bare."

He estimated, when asked, that the amounts claimed by Pro-Active may be in the range of $10 - $15 million, and could be higher if Government continues to hold equipment owned by Pro?Active at the Berkeley site.

Mr. Hall said it was important to know an independently assessed measure of works done so far.

He said there was a "big difference" between Pro?Active's cost to complete the project and a new company's completion cost.

He agreed that the taxpayer should know the value of work done to date, but said that the two parties should choose the assessor together since they were heading for arbitration.

He said he would be interested to see Government's contract with Somers Construction considering that Somers had no idea what they were doing and that Government had not asked Pro?Active to assist in the transition.

"They certainly should not expect us to do it for free having just unceremoniously booted us out of the contract."

The termination came after the contractor had been asked to come to a meeting to "clarify a few issues", but was handed a letter of termination.

He accused Government of a "don't care attitude" when it came to the workers who had been affected by the termination.

Something has happened to the heart and soul of the labour movement given the leadership of this current government. Either it's been kidnapped or it's been stolen but it must be brought back."