WAR BUILDING CONTRACTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 September 1943, Page 6

WAR BUILDING CONTRACTS

“NO HUGE PROFIT MADE”

CHRISTCHURCH, September 28. , Recent statements by election candidates and others concerning the system of building construction contracting were described to-day by Mr C. S. Luney, president of the New Zealand Builders’ and Contractors , Association, as incorrect and mis- I leading. The association, he said, | had authorised 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 J. A. Nash, chairman, at a meeting of the 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 schedule system had actually cost £6OOO. The truth was that if the buildings had not been erected under the master schedule on a unit price basis the cost would have been much greater. “Had the master schedule or unit price system been in operation during the major portion of the defence works programme the cost of the operations would again have been much greater,” said Mr Luney.' The schedule presented an orderly system with reasonable return to the builder, and notwithstanding all the difficulties 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. i “Statements have been made ana published that builders have been paid for their mistakes. Such statements are incorrect,” went on Mr Luney. “If a builder is paid under the schedule for the work he 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, pulled down, and removed because of changing war conditions and the requirements of the services, but not because of mistakes by the builders. Such allegations should not be laid at the. door of the builder, who is paid only, for the work he performs. Before payment could be made to builders for alleged mistakes it would be necessary to have payment on a cost plus basis, but such a system has not been in operation in connection with defence construction work since the introduction of the master schedule system. The schedule system is based on a method of payment for results and not on a 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.”