City Council Tenders.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19770, 7 November 1929, Page 10

City Council Tenders.

Members of the Canterbury Builders* Association, at their meeting on Tuesday evening, raised certain points about the calling of tenders for constmction work for the municipality; and these are of considerable importance, not only to the builders, who appear to have a real erievanec, but to the ratepayers- For the ratepayers, of course, are ultimately responsible when the City Engineer acts as an independent tenderer, by direction of the City Council. A peculiar position is created when the Council, though calling for tenders for any piece of construction work, reserves the right of carrying out the work through iN own Worths Department, according to the estimate of cost furnished by the Engineer; and it is quite easy to understand the misgivings of the builders who axe themselves tenderers. They feel, and are entitled to feel, that a system is not entirely fair which makes all the competitive prices available to one tenderer, i.e., the City Council, before a decision is reached. On another ground, aL-o, the system adopted by the City Council appears to present a very sertous weakness, and this from the ratepayers' point of view. When the Council aeeepta a tender put in by the City Engineer, or, in other words, when the Council proceeds to do the work itself on- his estimate of cost, it immediately loses all the rights it would otherwise possess as against an inde-

pendent tenderer; and should the job cost more than the estimate, or should there be any delay in completion, the responsibility then rests on the C"un- <•;]. and ratepayer-' money is drawn upon t«> '-"iver the additional expense incurred ;or the-. 1 or ether reasons. While an independent tenderer ran be held to hi- contract, the Council has no recotux' against the City Engineer, acting as a successful tenderer under direction of the Council. The policy .-f the Labour Party in mutiieipal affairs has consistently favoured the day labour system instead of contracts, r.nd in the existing circumstances it is not to f>e expet' d that much encour-a_-'ir.-nt will l>e extended to genuine o:;!oide contractor- to tender for niunirvpal work.-; though the contract system ha- w-orked efficiently and economically when employed by other local authorities. The ("hn-tchureh Drainage Board, for example, has carried out tiie extensive work- of its sewerage extension scheme ail by contract, and without making its engineer a competitive tenderer. The consequence is that the Board's professional and permanent fetal! has been kept within reasonable limite, to the ratepayers' material benefit.