BUILDING INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 3, 29 September 1943, Page 6

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Reply To Statements About Contracting System (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH. September 28. Recent statements by election candidates and others concerning the system of building construction contracting were described today by Mr. C. b. Luney, president of the New Zealand Builders and Contractors’ Association, as incorrect and misleading. The association, he said, had authorized him. to make a reply to these statements, which implied that huge profits had been made by builders and which gave the public, an entirely -distorted view of the position. The most recent statement was by Mr. ,T A. Nash, chairman, at a meeting ol the Palmerston North Hospital Board, who said it was time there was. a change from the schedule system of building. At this meeting it was stated that the estimated cost of an ambulance building was £4OOO, but under the scheuule .system it had actually cost £6OOO. lhe truth was that if buildings had not been erected under the master schedule on the unit price basis the cost would have been much greater, saidAlr. Luney. “Had not the master schedule or unit price system 'been"in( operation the major portion of-the defence works programme the cost of operations would have been much greater, he continued. “The schedule presented an orderly system with a reasonable return to tne builder, and notwithstanding all the difhculties that had to be met because of the urgency of the work, these were overcome and the work completed with credit to the Commissioner of Works. “Statements have been made and published that builders have been paid tor their mistakes. Such statements are incorrect,” Mr. Luney said. If a builder is paid under the schedule for the work lie performs he cannot claim payment for alterations to his work, as such are not provided for in the schedule. On the other hand, it is believed that many structures have been built, altered, PuUcd down and removed because of changing war conditions and the requirements ot the services, (but not because of mistakes by builders. Such allegations should not be laid at the door of the builder, wno is paid only for the work he performs. “Before payment could be made to builders for alleged mistakes it would be necessary to have the payment on the cost plus basis, but such a system has not been in operation in connexion with defence construction work since the introduction of the master schedule system. The schedule system is based on the method of payment for results and not on the cost plus basis. Such incorrect statements cast a most undeserved slur on the building industry, which came forward and threw in its full weight with the Government to produce the necessary defence and other essential buildings required in the Dominion/’