The only surprise about the cancellation of Pro-Active Management Systems' contract for the new Berkeley construction project is that it took so long.

That does not mean that the legions of people who predicted disaster when the project was given to Pro-Active will be happy to see their warnings fulfilled.

But this is what happens when Cabinet Ministers override the advice of their own technical officers. In this case, Pro-Active was not equipped to carry out a project of this size. As a result, it started slowly and then fell further and further behind.

Various reasons have been given for this, notably the difficulty that the company had securing the line of credit it needed as it mobilised for the job.

But lines of credit are never guaranteed and it is hardly surprising that financial institutions, which are naturally conservative, would be reluctant to make large sums of money available given Pro-Active's small size and lack of a track record on projects of this magnitude.

It is a circular argument whether Pro-Active would still be the contractor at the site if it had secured the credit it needed sooner. The betting here is that the banks are happy that they did not make the money available given what has happened since.

Before Pro-Active lost the contract, the total cost of the project had soared to $101 million, up $13 million from the original estimate, due to the damages that Pro-Active had already secured from Government. Pro-Active's original share of the project was $70 million.

This is now the most expensive single capital project in Bermuda's history and it may also be the most delayed; it is now a year late and it is nowhere near finished.

Only two things are now certain: the price tag will go up and the school will be at least two years late. Even if Pro-Active does not get a penny more from Government, putting a new contractor in place must add to the cost and will cause delays, even if the contractor is Somers Construction, which already has a consulting role.

Mobilising its own workers, equipment and sub-contractors will cost money and time ? and there is no doubt that all kinds of "new" problems will be discovered for which Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, will have to pay.

Someone must be held accountable for this fiasco. That person is Premier Alex Scott.

Mr. Scott was the Works Minister at the time the contract was awarded. While a Cabinet is supposedly joined at the hip by collective responsibility, it defies logic that anyone other than Mr. Scott as Works Minister would have recommended Pro-Active after his own technical officers had opposed the company's appointment.

And as Premier, Mr. Scott has made it clear that he is "the man". There is not enough space here to recount Mr. Scott's continual claims that the project would be finished on time and on budget and that those who criticised both Pro-Active and Mr. Scott himself would be proven wrong.

Now it must be clear that it was Mr. Scott who was wrong. Through his own statements, he has been exposed as an incompetent at best and as a liar at worst.

It would be too much to expect Mr. Scott to resign for the bungling of this project, although that would be the honourable thing to do.

The very least that Mr. Scott should do ? is retract his earlier statements and admit that hiring Pro-Active was a mistake for which he was responsible. That is the only "spin" that can be put on this miserable episode.