UNIVERSITY ARTS BUILDING.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 120, 23 May 1922, Page 7

UNIVERSITY ARTS BUILDING.

OBJECTION TO TENDER CONDITIONS. WHY VARIATIONS WERE MADE. The conditions attached to the speci-■ fixations in I'unnection with the tendering for the new arts building at the Metropolitan Crounds for the Auckland I'niversity College have given rise to an unusual situation. The Auckland Build-' its" Association objects to them, on the ground that they contain unnecessary' variations from the conditions obtain-' ing throughout Xew Zealand, as mutu-, nlly arranged in 1910 between the Insti-1 tun , of Architects and the Federated' Builders' Association. It is contended i by the builders that the New Zealand' remditions are as good, or better than,; any set of conditions existing practi- '• cally throughout the world, and had been harmoniously operated in respect of all buildings of any size-. A deputation representing the views and concern, of the builders at the change had waited on the University Council, but aa no settlement had been reached the executive of the association yesterday carried tho following iinnnimous resolution: "That builders tendering for the proposed I'niversity buildings nre advised not to tender under the conditions as at present attached, but to make their tenders subject to the general conditions of contract at present existing between j flip Xew Zealand Institute of Architects and the New Zealand Builders' Federa- j t ion, nnd ngreed to by these parties at :i conference in Wellington in February, 1010. : .MERELY REASONABLE PROTECTION. The lion. Geo. Fowlds. chairman of j, the University College Council, made | the following comment when asked for , the council's attitude on the subject:—' "It is true that we had this deputation from the Auckland Builders' Asso- | ciation, and tried to get from them any I -necitic point to which they seriously objected. It 3id not appear, however, that there was any specific difficulty, mit that the deputation simply wanted j their own conditions accepted without modification. They admitted quite I frankly that their conditions were not adopted hy the Government as applicable to Government contracts, and we pointed out that this was practically a Government work. The plans have to be approved by the Government, and before any tender can <he accepted we have to receive Government approval of all the conditions involved. It seems to mc that the mistake the builders make is to treat the council as an owner, which it is not. One of the conditions in the contract is a provision that all alterations, additions, or deductions | must not only be in writing, but must be approved and signed by the contractor, the architect, and a representative of i the College Council. Any other position would be impossible for the mem- I hers of the council to accept. The comparatively slight modifications that have been made in the general builders' conditions were made after full consultation with the council's solicitors, and nre necessary for the reasonable protection of the council, which has only the Government' funds to work upon. In any case it would have been quite impos-1 sibie to have altered the conditions ' after the deputation to the council, be-1 cause the plans and specifications and 1 conditions had already been distributed I all over Niw Zealand and Australia,' the tenders being due on June 2. 1 cannot believe that contractors will refuse to tender on conditions which, when the reasons for them were pointed out, the builders could not seriously maintain were objectionable.' .