PURCHASE OF CHASSIS

Evening Star, Issue 21054, 17 March 1932, Page 15

PURCHASE OF CHASSIS

TRAMWAY COMMITTEE CRITICISED "WRONG AND UNBUSINESSLIKE" METHODS QUESTION OF TENDERING INVOLVED “ The whole principle is absolutely wrong and unbusinesslike,” said the mayor (Mr R. S. Black) at last night’s meeting of the City Council, when the Tramway Committee’s method of purchasing a bus. chassis came in for critical discussion on account of. the fact that all firms had not been given an opportunity of tendering. The discussion was stimulated by the following clause from the Tramway Committee’s report;—“The quotation of the Leyland Motors Ltd. for the supply and delivery of one KP3 “ Cub ” chassis at £6GO net has been accepted. The quotation was the lower of two received for a vehicle of a type suitable for carrying the spare bus body which the department has in stock. The acceptance is to be subject to the department obtaining a license for the carriage of twenty-five passengers cm the chassis. The cost of the chassis, together with the reconditioning and seating of the body is estimated at £775, which will be a charge on the bus renewal fund.” A letter was received from Messrs Cossens and Black Ltd emphatically protesting against the action of the Tramways Committee in not asking the firm for an offer. It was stated that this was the second occasion on which the writers had been overlooked. In moving the adoption of the report the chairman of the committee (Cr J. Wilson) stated that, in the'first place, the department had favoured a chassis of American manufacture, but it would have cost £IBO more than the Leyland. The committee had also had in mind the fact that, if possible, a British chassis should be purchased. Moreover, a chassis had to be purchased which would suit the body m Cr” Mitchell said that while accepting the statement of the chairman he thought that there was a principle involved. When a call was made all firms able to apply should be invited to .tender. Complaints had come from firms to the effect that they had had no opportunity of tendering. He thought that the calling of tenders should bo done either by means of a notice board or by sending a communication to all firms who were able to apply. He was sure that this paiticular firm was only drawing attention to a principle. Cr Clark moved that the clause be referred back to the committee. He did not think that any of them would surest for one moment that the town clerk and the officers of the council had acted in anything else than good faith but they had evidence that other firms’ had been able to give a quote. It seemed to him a very serious thing to say that the council did not :give firms which were able to quote an opportunity to tender. They had had complaints in the past from film which were able to supply articles, but were not asked to quote. Ho believed that their system was at fault, ana he thought that the Finance Committee should report on the best method available. Their officers, might not know of certain firms which were able to supply the required article, Cr Begg: Is the Finance Committee in a position to know ? Cr Clark: No, but it should know of the best system. Like Caesar’s wife, the City Council should bo above susPl The Mayor (Mr 11. S. Black) : You are only quoting from hearsay now. (Laughter.) Cr Tapley seconded the amendment. Cr Begg: I would like the assurance of the chairman that the tender has not already been accepted. Cr Wilson: It has been accepted. Cr Begg; I have an idea that the work was hurried on so that the bus would be ready for the Easter traffic. The Chairman of the committee said that this was so. Cr Marlow said he did not think it was much good sending the clause back, but lie did agree with the principle as outlined by previous speakers. In this case only certain chassis were suitable, but if tenders had been called they could easily have rejected those that were not suitable. Cr Shaddock: In view of a future policy, could not the amendment merge into the motion? We can’t do anything as far as this particular chassis is concerned. In view of the circumstances, I think Cr Clark should withdraw his amendment.

This Cr Clark agreed to do. The Mayor (Mr R. S. Black) said that, in the first place, ho thought that no committee should 'accept any tender before the matter had come before the council, and he did not think any officer of the department should put a committee into such a position that it had to rush matters. The whole principle was absolutely wrong and unbusinesslike. By looking up a calendar they could ascertain when Faster came for fifty years ahead, and there was no excuse. If any committee wished to accept a tender or quote that involved a large sum of money the matter should come before the council for ratification. Cr Wilson said that the reason why the quote in this case was accepted was because of the speed at which the bus could be got ready, and also because there was not another suitable chassis on the market at the price. The department had searched for one. The committee could easily have called for tenders, but it was thought that it was no use putting firms to the trouble of tendering when there was only one particular make that was suitable for acceptance. Other committees had done the same thing, the Electric Power and Lighting Committee having done something similar time and time again. In future tenders would be called and people would be put to the trouble that was involved. The report was adopted. Later in the evening the chairman of tlie Finance Committee (Cr Shacklock) said that the committee intended to make a recommendation fixing, its policy as regards tenders on the lines followed in the discussion.