THE WATERWORKS CONTRACT.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XXXX, Issue 5703, 13 September 1911, Page 5

THE WATERWORKS CONTRACT.

PENALTY AND WHARFAGES

At the meeting of the Borough Council oh Monday evening a letter was read from Mr A Hatrick, managing director of the Spiral and LockBar Steel Pipe Co., Ltd , Wanganui, who wrote re deduction from waterworks contract, price of £380 for alleged over contract time penalty and £28 16a 3d for.wharfages on pipes and material. He asked the Council to reconsider both these deductions and submitted reasons. Ke the wharfage item Mr Hatrick said:—"The day prior to the closing of tenders the writer and Mr Bignell were both in Tauranga. We were advised by your engineer not to provide for wharfage in our tender, as your Council had decided.wharfage would not be charged. This was confirmed in conversation with your ex-Mayor, Mr Bull. It is quite correct that prior.to visiting Tauranga we wrote and obtained the wharfage rates and would havo included the same in onr tender but for the information given us as stated.' In reference to the deduction of alleged 19 weeks in excess of contract time, at £20 per week, Mr Hatrick submitted the following circumstances: "From the date of signing of contract by your Council and ourselves on Dec 2, to time of completion was just under 34 weeks. Your Council called for tenders:—(l) For supply of water pipes and fittings ; (2) for pipe-laying, intake works, bridge crossings, etc. Time allowance stated in the general conditions of contract attached to the specification for No. 1, as above, was 22 weeks, and for No. 2, 12 weeks. We interviewed your engineer and intimated our intention of tendering for both contracts, and enquired if the combined time specified would be allowed. He replied decidedly in the affirmative. We received no notification whatever of the acceptance of our tender beyond what we saw in the newspapers. On the contrary, your solicitor wrote us that no contract could be entered into until certain formalities for ' way-leave, etc.,' had been completed. Your engineer had also to amend his schedule and plans owing to the elimination of the service reservoir, etc. No contract was therefore entered into with us until Dec. 2. At any time up to that date any resolution passed by your Council could have been rescinded. In sending us the conditions to sign your solicitor clearly took the conditions of contract for No. 1 Contract—the supply and delivery of pipes only—and added to same with his pen the words of No. 2 contract—pipe laying, intake works, brid_e crossings, etc., but omitted (and we also omitted to notice the omission) to alter or add to the, time for completion— 22 weeks—the 12 weeks for the separate contract No. 2. Had two separate contractors been entrusted with the work No. 2 would have had; to wait/until No. 1 imported the pipes and material, for which he was allowed 22 weeks, and it would not be possible to obtain deliveries from Home earner. We had to import some 23.000 ft of 3-inch pipes and all the fittings and this took the full 22 weeks. How, therefore, could we lay and joint them up in the trenches earlier ? v Your solicitor, id addition to omittirg to add the specification time for the two cod - tracts together, viz., the 22 and 12 weeks, predated the contract to Oct 10, altering the printed words in the conditions on which we tendered "from the date of acceptance of tenders " by erasing these words with his pen and writing over them .' 10th daj r of October.' In signing and initialling the ._ 4 pages of specifications and alterations we did not notice this alteration , and should have been informed of it. The effect of this was to allow us only 15 weeks ; to .import the pipes and fittings and complete the whole work—a human impossibility. All over the lo weeks your Council has penalised us- £20 per week, which, we think, when they have reviewed the circumstances, they will see the unfairness of doing so. From the date of signing the contract, which was the data of and only acceptance of our tender, we were under the time specified in the conditions calling for tenders. In addition, very great unforeseen difficulties were met with in the gully. The intake dam wall foundations were not obtainable at the depth specified by the and we had much loss of time by winter weather (wet- day) conditions." The letter concluded:: "We tru3t to receive honourable treatment at your Council's hands, such as we have invariably received at the hands of other municipal bodies, and we have carried out gome 40 waterworks contracts and have in no single instance been penalised one penny piece." Cr. Muuro said with regard to the signing of the contract Mr Bignell and a sub committee of the Council were present. An alteration was made and Mr Bignell expressed himself as satisfied with the alteration, and later the document was sent away and the alterations initialled. He moved— That the letter be received.

Cr. Castaing seconded.

Or. Maemillan said it was understood that wharfage was to be charged. The motion was put and carried.