QUANTITY SURVEYING.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 302, 15 September 1908, Page 4

QUANTITY SURVEYING.

Sir, —With reference to your' article on Quantity Surveying, which appeared in this morning's edition of tiio Dominion, I trust that, in fairness to a profession which is a comparatively new one in New Zealand, you will allow mo. to express my views on what is, to everyone connected with tho building trade, a most important question. The general tenor of your article would lead the general public to believe that the consensus of opinion on the subject is distinctly against tho introduction of a system of quantity surveying. Such is by no means tho case. Thero are many influential architects and builders, not only in Wellington, but throughout thoDominion, who would-gladly welcome tho introduction of the system. The fact that it obtains in practically every other part of tho . civilised world is in itself a powerful argument in its favour. Tho statement that it is not tho. general practice of builders to mako a charge for taking out their own quantities is not con- ,, sistent with fact.' Does anyone believe that a business man is prepared to spend three weeks or a month of his time in taking, out quantities - for a job, without looking for somcTTemunerationl' 1 think not. Tho labour ontailed is undoubtedly charged for and included in the amount of tho tender, even , though the charge may be an indirect one. A casual reader of your article would be led to believe that the only advantage connected with quantity surveying is that gained by tlio builder, namely, that no would* bo in a position to mako up his tender at a greatly reduced cost to himself. Though tho builder would undoubtedly be saved a largo amount of unnecessary labour, that is, in my opinion, one of the least of tho advantages 1 claim that a proper systom of quantity surveying is a valuablo safeguard to the building proprietor, an individual whom your articlo entirely overlooks, if tho system of preparing bills of quantities woro adopted the proprietor could rest assured that, if work stipulated for in the specification were not executed, the cost of such work would bo deducted from the tender at tho rates on which the tender was based. The same remark, of course, applies to payment for any additional work. Surely this would be a bettor system than tho present one, where thero is no basis whatever to work upon. On the 0110 hand, tho proprietor would bo insured against excessive charges for extras, and 011 the other hand, the builder would bo suro of equitablo treatment. Tho fact that quantity surveyors havo different methods is of courso admitted, but' that fact cannot bo used as an argumont against the system. If, a contractor was ill doubt' about. any point in tho bill of quantities, a question could at once bo put to tho surveyor, and tho doubt 011 the point removed or provided for. Tho majority of quantity surveyors, however, make their methods clear enough to prevent many such points arising A further argument in favour of tho system is that the contractor is guaranteed against substantial loss by omissions, or such like. Kvcryono acquainted with tho present methods of making up tendprs knows that a contractor has always tho fear of making a substantial omission, and that ho usually covers himself either by exorbitantly loading

lis quantities, or by adding an approximate iniount to./his ; tendei\ for Contingencies, 'utting it plainly, tho man who makes tlio jiggest mistake usually gets tho job. If cxierts were employed to tako tlio juantitics, tho chance of such omissions Tould bo reduced to a .minimum. ■ - ■, I trust my letter will have tho effect of Minimising tho unfavourable impression ilcely to bo gained by a casual reader of rour articlc. 1 am, etc., QUANTITY SURVEYOR. September 11.