CHILDREN may still be starting school at the new Berkeley Institute next September as planned, Works & Engineering Minister Alex Scott said yesterday.

And he accused Auditor General Larry Dennis of overlooking that scenario in his special report on the construction of the school because he did not "select circumstances that did not fit his speculation".

Mr. Scott conceded that while the entire project would not be completed by the original target date of September, 2003, efforts were being focused on completing sufficient blocks of the new secondary school so it could open its doors to students next fall.

"I am increasing our energy in this project so we can achieve at least the introduction of the students by that deadline," said Mr. Scott.

"We will be looking to complete those areas that have to be included if students are to be able to start and that may mean we have to increase our resources and manpower in those areas.

"I am optimistic that it may be achieved and that probably is the basis of my disappointment with the Auditor General's report, because he does not select circumstances that do not fit his speculation.

"By that I mean that he speculates that it will be a year late, when we are trying to get children there on time. That view is not included in the report.

"He questions the fact that I make these observations, but he proceeds to leave out that view in his report."

In the report that was presented to the House of Assembly last Friday, Mr. Dennis recommended that the Education Ministry be warned as soon as possible that the new secondary school would not be ready for much of the 2003-2004 school year.

In fact, Mr. Dennis said the January 2004 completion target of general contractor Pro-Active Management Systems was optimistic and further delays were likely.

The report said technical staff at the Ministry of Works & Engineering had recommended that BermudaTech be given the project as Pro-Active presented a "high risk" for Government to take.

Technical staff said there were three advantages of choosing Pro-Active, but seven disadvantages, including its lack of experience and lack of track record.

Mr. Dennis said: "As a result of these concerns, the Ministry's pre-qualification report rated the Pro-Active bid as a high risk. Accordingly, Pro-Active was not one of the three contractors the Ministry recommended should be asked to tender."

But the audit also stated how a report written by technical staff had also recognised that allowing Pro-Active, which is a Bermudian company, to bid would be politically desirable.

Pro-Active was allowed to bid and was then awarded the project by the Cabinet.

BermudaTech's bid came in $5 million less and Mr. Dennis said he was unable to determine the basis for the decision to award the contract to Pro-Active.

"I acknowledge that price is not the only consideration and that the lowest bid may not always provide the best net value," he said.

"In this case, however, the Ministry determined that the lowest bidder provided the best financial and technical value to Bermuda.

"Nevertheless, I recognise that there may be other factors to consider before approving major undertakings of this nature. In the broader picture, social, socio-economic and similar political considerations may have influenced the final decision, considerations that the Ministry would understandably not have included in its analysis."

The report also mentioned cash flow problems at Pro-Active.