MUSEUM CONTRACT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 195, 19 August 1927, Page 10

MUSEUM CONTRACT.

POSITION FULLY EXPLAINED. WHERE THE MONET COMES FROM. COUNCIL NOT COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE.

As there appears to be some misapprehension concerning the money which is to be paid to the Birmingham ' firm who are the successful tenderers for i the showcases at the Auckland Memorial Museum, a "Star" represent*time made inquiries this morning. It was learned that the Auckland War Memorial Committee and the Auckland Museum Council and Institute are two entirely separate and distinct bodies as far as the furnishings for the new structure are concerned. When members of the War Memorial Committee were approached on the subject it was made quite clear that that mody had nothing to do with the letting of the contract for showcases. The money the committee was handling on behalf of the public was for the construction of the building only, which, when completed, would be handed over to the museum authorities. It was also made clear that the £27,000 which would be expended in showcases would come out of the funds of the Council of the Auckland Museum, and it was pointed out that that sum was part of the money received from the sale of the present site in Princes Street. Already the museum authorities have let a contract for floor covering, and the expenditure for that also out of the money received for the original property, which in all amounted to approximately £32,000, but from which certain sums had to be deducted for expenses.

Explaining the reason for the acceptance of the tender of Messrs. Edmonds as against that of Air Parsons, the local contractor, the Museum Council has issued the following statement: "The Museum Council, in deciding upon the acceptance of a tender for the showcases had, as a first responsibility, to have .as full an assurance as possible, that work to be done by a tenderer would be of the high standard required in such cases Most of the firms which tendered, and, .with one exception, all of those whose prices were within the bounds of consideration, submitted perspective drawings of the proposed cases, detailed plans and drawings of bases, frames, door sashes, hinges and locks, and all interior fittings, as well as ■ samples of the metal sections they [undertook to use Two firms, including Messrs. Edmonds, submitted in addition a complete model case to illustrate the details shown in their plans and drawings. They thus gave adequate evidence of their comprehension of all aspects of the proposed work.

"Mr. Parsons' tender was accompanied by one pencil sketch of his proposed frame and lock, and a model of a corner of the frame, which, in comparison with those submitted by the other tenderers, was not regarded by the council's expert advisers as sufficient evidence that he was in a position to carry out the work at the same standard as the British firms. The council does not express any opinion as to whether Mr. Parsons could do the work or not, it merely affirms that he did not place before it sufficient evidence of his ability to do so, and neither his 'confidence in his knowledge and experience being sufficient to perform it to the satisfaction of the committee's expert advisers,* nor his 'impressive statement of his own qualifications,' unsupported by material evidence, were sufficient grounds for the expenditure by the council of £27,000 on what, on the face of it, was an experiment."