RAILWAY BRIDGE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 10016, 1 February 1926, Page 5

RAILWAY BRIDGE

FULL PRICE ALLOWED TO CONTRACTOR.

BOARD WILL COMPLETE THE ' OPEN span: REASONS; FOR THE CONCESSION. raised in th.e.,public mind, and undoubtedly some doubt existed An' the mmds of the members of the Harbor Board as to the Board’s right, or possibly. it- w.as ther principle involved of allowing the contractor for tho construction of the new * railway bridge across the Turnnganui river (Mr. fi. Goodman), to be granted pavment of the whole of Hie contract money when one span had been left uncompleted.. Explanation is not difficult to set forth. When the contract for the bridge was let to Air. Goodman at £10,260, there were no stipulations in the specifications'that one span was to be left- uncompleted and, therefore, the,'contractor had every right to assume that the construction of the structure was straight going. He made his plans accordingly, and work was commenced at the town side, similar to methods adopted in connection with the Gladstone Road bridge. Some time after the construction work was started the Board decided in view of shortage in berthago accommodation on the town side, that, the second span should be left open until such time ns the ‘‘change over” could be accomplished, to enable vessels to use the berthage in the upper reaches of the river. At the time some members were doubtfvil if the contract could ho varied, but the engineer was insistent that he could give any instructions the Board desired, to the contractor who was accordingly ordered to leave the span unfinished. This, of course, was objected to by the contractor, on the grounds that it would cost him a considerable amount more if he had to change his plans, and finish the span later on for' the original contract price, but on being informed that the Board would complete the span and that the Board ..would meet him in regard to reasonable loss, the contractor acquiesced. It will he seen that the variation of the contract meant diverting his staff to Construction operations on the span and that the Board would meet- him in regard to any reasonable loss by reason .of the variation of the contract. That this was only a reasonable course will be appreciated public if not by certain members of the Board, for •change of plans meant that the contractor had to handle all the materials and divert his staff to operations »)u the Kaiti side of the river and proceed from that side. Apart from this it was a wise move of the engineer’s in recommending allowance of the whole of the contract money to the contractor, because it is stated that the Board’s legal position had no such agreement been arrived at, if ventilated in the Court, would probably have resulted in judgment against the Board for breach of contract. Although some members raised objection to the payment of the whole cf the contract money when the work was completed, they finally acquiesced presumably realising that the contractor had been put to a lot of expense over and above the amount of the contract by having to leave the span open, for which decision the Board was entirely to blame. The position was as one member aptly described it:* “We built the bridge twelve months before we wanted it, and now we’ve got to pay lor that decision.” .In effect the Board, at the last meeting admitted that the contractor had been put to a considerable amount of additional expense, amounting to several hundred pounds above the contract price, and agreed to allow lnm to receive the whole ot the contract money, the Board to finish the open span when required. For this purpose the Board will take over all the steel reinforcement ana other materials held by the contractor for the completion of the span. In the 'original contract or £lo,zoU provision was made for contingencies up to £SOO, of which sum- £o9 3s 8d was expended, leaving th.e total value of the work done at £9819 3s 8d It is quite evident, therefore, that- the contractor has been put to considei able additional expense by having to leave the snail open; and under the circumstances, the engineer avas quite iustified in recommending the grantin" of the full contract money to Mr Goodman, from the moral aspect alone r.nd eutirely_ disregarding the Board’s legal position, which had it been dealt with in a - Court of Law would probably have been, to say at least, rather delicate- It is understood that the total cost, to the Board of completing the span will he in the vicinity'of £3OO. ’