COLOMBO STREET BRIDGE.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19769, 6 November 1929, Page 10

COLOMBO STREET BRIDGE.

COMPETITIVE TENDERS. I ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT j CRITICISED. The anion of the Citv lingineer in putting m competitive tenders or estimates against tenders of outside builders was adversely criticised at Inst night's meetinp of the Canterbury Builder*' Association The realtor was brought up by Mr X. McGillivray. who took exception to the action of the Engineer in putting in a t ompetitive tender for the Colombo street bridge widening job. The chairman (Mr \Y. P. (liue> .What is the use of us tendering for it ? "His tender is an estimate, is it not r'' asked the chairman. "It might be, 1 ' announced a member. "It there is a difference between the Engineer's estimate and a tender, who pays it?" asked the chairman. "We do,"' answered members. "It is not the Engineer's fault. It is the Council's," remarked a member. "Ha? is instructed to do the job," said the chairman. 'ls there any chance of getting a price from him?" asked a member amidst laughter. "If it is anything like his estimate for the last job it will be all right," said another member, to the accompaniment of further laughter. Mr McGillivray said that it did not seem fair to him for the Council to call for tenders if the Engineer was allowed to do so also. Mr W H. Winsor said that if the Council would allow one of the Association's members to be present when the tenders were being aealt with it would be quite in order. The chairman: "We have two of our members on the Council. If they were present it would be all right. Mr Winsor said that a similar position existed in respect of an Education Board job. The Engineer would not 1 e in a position to put in a really valuable fonder if the builders did not do so. The members of the City Council were, with a few exceptions, unskilled men where such work was concerned. He asked what guarantee they would have that the work was to be done at a reasonable figure unless they obtained outside tenders. The only way that they cbuld get the information they wanted was to get it from builders. The chairman stated that it seemed to him unfair that the Engineer should not be subject to the same supervision as builders would be. Mr J. W. Graham said that a reputable contractor nut in a tender for the Lincoln road job. which was 5 per cent, below the City Engineer's estimate, but did not get the work. It could be assumed, he added, that the cost of the work, which was done by the City Engineer's Department, was higher than that tendered by the builder. . Another member said that he had been assured by a City Councillor that it cost £6OO for extras for abutments on the Carlton Bridge job. On the motion of Mr McGillivray, seconded bv Mr J. Lorimer, it was decided to advise the Citv Council that the Association deplored the City Engineer's Department being authorised to tender against builders for the erection of the Colombo street bridge.