TAR-SEALING IN BOROUGH

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 13945, 24 December 1945, Page 2

TAR-SEALING IN BOROUGH

THE QUESTION OF TENDERS H. L. Duncan Ltd. Given Contract Discussion At Special Meeting’ A decision that the price offertd by 11. L. Duncan l.ltl. be accepted aiul that a eon tract containing Die necessary statutory provisions be drawn up ami signed. was reached at a special meeting- of the Tanranga Borough Council on Or nitty afternoon to discuss a legal report mi the onestlou of tenders for street works in the borough. The council, at a meeting called on November 0 had passed a resolution that the tender of M. 11. Smith* Ltd. for certain street works be accepted and that the question of deciding the pruning coat he left over pending the Borough Engineer's report. Prior to a letter from the Town Clerk advising id. IT. Smith Ltd. of the council's resolution, cue of the councillors lodged a notice of motion to rescind the resolution, but the Town Clerk on alleged instructions from the Mayor sent the letter. The councillor lodging the notice of motion was not at the meeting- which passed the resolution. and his reason for the notice of motion was that the tender of M. IT. Smith Lid. was some £llOO odd higher than 11. L. Duncan Ltd's tender.

The council, at a previous meeting', had decided io seek legal advice in connection with iho tender of M. H. Smith Ltd., asking for advice as to whether the tendin', council’s resolution and Town Clerk’s letter constituted a valid contract. A ten-

page report was received from an Auckland solicitor outlining the legal position and stated that the conditions of tender provided that the successful tenderer would sign a formal contract to he drawn up by the Borough Council within one month of acceptance of the tender. No sureties were asked for in the specifications and there seemed to be no provision for a bond as mentioned in the fourth schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, clause 9. The tender of M. H. Smith Ltd. did not comply with the provisions of clause 2 of the fourth schedule to the Act otherwise the tenders appeared to be in order. After the legal opinion had been read, the Mayor (Mr L. R. Wilkinson) said it appeared that the contract documents did not comply with, the Municipal Corporations Act. Any tenderer who tendered must enter into a bond with the council, and in this case neither tenderer had done this. The text of the legal opinion, he said, was that there was no contract in existence.

The council, added the Mayor, was in a position of either honouring the contract of M. H. Smith Ltd., or declaring that both contracts were net in order. “The council,” Id? said, “having met and accepted a tender was morally bound to honour it.” If it were the wish of the council that Smith’s tender not be gone on with, then in his mind as the specifications were perhaps too elaborate and tbe council intended to change its decision, then the only fair thing to do was to call fresh tenders under the supervision of a consulting engineer. “I think,” added the Mayor, “chat, both tenderers were genuine in their applications, but both were tendering on different classes of work.” Tie suggested that fresh tenders be called which were not too elaborate, but sufficient lo do Hie job. On the motion of the Mayor, it was agreed that the comiclF accept the legal opinion, and that the question of tenders be now considered.

Cr. A. J. Gallagher said that he agreed with tire two alternatives mentioned by the Mayor, but there was a third alternative, and that was to give the work to the other tenderer. He moved that the price offered by H. L. Duncan he accepted and that a contract containing the necessary statutory previsions he drawn up and signed, the Mayor and the mover of the motion to sign for the council.

The motion was seconded by Cr. C. F. Washer. The Mayor stated that what concerned him was the question of getting the work started, and there was no use “scrapping” about it. He moved an amendment that the services of a consultant engineer be employed to draw up specifications, and that new tenders be called to close in time for the January meeting of the council.

It was due, he said, to the tenacity and courage of certain councillors that they had the present street position in the borough, and if it had not been for them they would not have the tar-sealing they had to-day. “We are morally bound for Smith to do this job,” he added, but now the council was going to change and give tlie work to the unsuccessful tenderer. The question of keeping the money in the district had been mentioned. but if the change was made a contractor from Auckland would be doing the tar-sealing and Duncan would be doing the stone work. In seconding the amendment, Cr. W. A. Carswell expressed the view that there was only three months left when the tar-sealing work could go on. He wondered if the calling of fresh tenders and the securing of the services of a consultant engineer could he carried out within three months.

The Mayor replied that the question of fresh tenders would be dealt

with at the January meeting

When put to the meeting the amendment was lost. An amendment by Cr. A. Brewer that the borough’s sealing project he postponed until next year failed to

gain a seconder. Cr. Gallagher’s motion, when put to the meeting, was carried, the Mayor recording his vote against it. A motion by Cr. W. S. Holland that the council advise M. H. Smith Ltd. that no contract existed and special arrangements were being made by the council-in connection with the tar-sealing was carried. It was decided, on the motion of the Mayor, that the council advertise for a clerk of works at a salary of 510 a week to supervise the tarsealing work.