SYDNEY BRIDGE

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 145, 15 March 1932, Page 2

SYDNEY BRIDGE

Uost of Construction UNDER £5,000,000 Financial Side Reviewed Mr. Lawrence Ennis, the director of construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, made a statement to the “Sydney Morning Herald” last week that the contract cost of construction of the bridge would not be exceeded by more than £650,000, and of that sum £500,000 was accounted, for by increased wages. The total cost of the bridge and the approach spans on each side—the work for which Dorman, Long, and Co., Ltd., was responsible—was about £4,900,000. Mr. Ennis’s statement Is as follows: —

The Sydney Harbour Bridge will very shortly be handed over by Dorman, Long, and Company, Limited, as contractors, to the Government and people of New South Wales, in accordance with the contract which was entered into in 1924. Now that the bridge is an accomplished fact, however,; and the only work remaining to be done is the “laundering” of the pylons, some information with regard to the cost of construction may be of interest. On January 17 there appeared an extract from the Auditor-General’s report concerning the expenditure bn the bridge up to June 30, 1931. At that time payments received by Dorman, Long, and Company amounted to £3,567,651, In respect of work performed in accordance with the contract. To this was added an amount of £462,101, being reimbursements to Dorman, Long, and Company in consequence of increase in award rates of wages and reductions in working hours. At that date, therefore, the cost of construction of the bridge totalled £4,029,752. When speaking of the bridge I mean, of course, the five approach spans commencing at the. terminal abutment at York Street North, the main arch span crossing the harbour from Dawes Point to Milson’s Point, and the five approach spans terminating at Fitzroy Street, North Sydney; that is to say, the bridge proper, including cost of calculations, design, fabrication, construction, erection, and completion. As contractors we are not, of course, concerned with the cost of resumptions that may have been necessary before the site of the bridge was handed over to us to commence our operations. Similarly, we have no concern with the construction of roads and railways leading to the bridge terminal abutments: this latter work has been carried out by the Government. Figures to Date.

Since the date of the Auditor-Gen-eral’s report a great deal of work has been done, and I am able to give figures practically up to date. At the end of January, 1932, the bridge was completed almost in every detail,- and was placed at the disposal of the Government engineers for purposes of applying test loads. I find that at this date, namely, January 31, the total amount certified for the construction of the bridge was £4,084,907/12/5, and the amount certified for wages in excess of award rates was £504,282/18/5. In addition to this, there was £35,215 17/10 certified in respect of extra cost due to the incidence of the Forty-four Hours Act, and £7840/17/4 for model members constructed and tested in accordance with the contract, making the total certified cost of the bridge at that date £4,632,247/6/-. Of this certified cost, £200,000 is retained by the Government as security deposit. The final payment for the steelwork in the bridge, together with work done since January 31,1932, will account for about £210,000, which is payable on completion of the

contract. After allowing for all other contingencies, the cost of the bridge, as constructed by Dorman, Long, and Company, will be in the neighbourhood of £4,900,000. Our tender was one consisting of sched'ilie rates for all the different classes'of work; that is to say, a price per lb for steel and per cubic yard for excavation work, concrete, ' masonry, and so on. The total amount of our tender, based upon the qquantlties calculated by our consulting engineer, Mr. Ralph Freeman, for the design prepared by him and priced on these schedule rates, was £4,217,721/11/10, Later, a contract for the Hickson Road retaining wall, amounting to £33,701/12/5, was added. It will be understood that slight variations in quantities were inevitable,' but I am pleased to say that these variations have been kept well within the limits allowed by the conditions of tender. Allowing for these variations, and all other adjustments under terms of the contract, it will be seen that the cost of construction of the bridge itself will not be exceeded by more than approximately £650,000, of which upwards of half a million is accounted for by increased wages. Increased Wages General.

While on this question of increased wages I would like to point out that the wages clause is one occurring in the “general conditions” relating to Government contracts, and would have been equally applicable to any other tender which might have been accepted. It is not a clause exclusive to Doi? man, Long, and Company’s tender. In these days when everyone is more or less familiar with questions of currency and exchange, I may be excused for mentioning that all payments for the bridge are made In Australian currency, and as a large proportion of the steel in the bridge and much of the plan used in its construction was necessarily imported from England, it follows that in remitting payment for these materials the company has suffered a heavy loss, due to the fall in exchange rates. I have recently read statements that the “bridge” has cost soniething like nine to ten million pounds. There is, of course, a good deal of expenditure in which the contractors are not concerned, but in order that the public may have a clear understanding of the position, ,1 feel it is only right to point out that we, as contractors, have had no part in this additional expenditure, nor does the additional cost relate to the construction of the bridge proper, except in regard to those items which I have mentioned above. I have heard many references to the work upon which we are now engaged, namely, ’the pointing and washing down of the pylons by those who are concerned at the stated cost of the bridge. This work is, of course, somewhat costly, but I am sure that the beautiful finish of these structures will be better appreciated when I say that this work, like all other work, connected with the construction of the bridge, is part of Dorman, Long, and Company’s contract, and the eost is borne by the company. In comparison with the cost of other bridges of great magnitude-throughout the world, I may say that the cost of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is not by any means excessive; indeed, when considering the facilities it gives, I have no hesitation in asserting that it is a cheap bridge, and I feel sure that the people of tlie State will realise, in years to come, that they have acquired a valuable asset at a minimum cost.