THE TRAM TENDERS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 77, 14 March 1912, Page 3

THE TRAM TENDERS.

MR. BLACK’S REPORT THEREON. ESTIMATES EXCEEDED ALL HOUND. The following is the text of the report of Mr. F. Black, consulting electrical engineer to the Napiei Borough Council, on the tenders received for the various works in eon nection with the borough electrical tramways and lighting scheme. The report was submitted to the council last night at a special meeting, a report whereof appears in another part of this paper :- Herewith I submit, report upon the tenders received for Contracts Nos. ■2. 3 and 4. Eight firms have made sixteen tender's, which comprise time fm Contract No. 2. eight for Contract No. 3. and five for Contract No. 4. The names of firms and tender amounts are as follows: CONTRACT NO. 2. Permanent Way. Road and Sewer Alterations, Overhead Work ant! Supply Mains. £ s. <l.

, Messrs. Greenshields and Co. offer' a reduction of 1 per cent, oa the total of their three tenders if all are accepted, and provided that the value of the work to be executed does not come below £'51,000. Should the work in the contracts be so reduced as to amount to £44,000 they offer a reduction of .’ per cent., but for work reduced in value below £44,000 no reduction is offered. In connection with Contract No. 3. the British General Electric Co.. Ltd., informally offer to construct a power station not in accordance with the Council’s specification as regards motive power, by using crude oil engines, for the sum of £13,666. As this offer is not in order, in that it goes substantially outside the specification, I recommend that it be not considered. Before dealing with the tenders individually. I wish to make one oi two comments. The specifications issued for all three contracts were schedule ones, all work, materials and items to be ordered or not at the option of the engineer, being listed and the quantities of each given. Tenderers were required to price every item and the total was to be the tender amount. This method ’s the fairest one to tenderers, who are all placed on a level footing, but 't involves the placing in the schedules of many items for which prices are desired, though it is nor intended that all should be ordeicci when the contracts are being carried out. The result is that a choice is obtained in regard to non-essen-tial items, all being definitely ployed, but the total tender amounts are fictitiously increased because of thus containing items, some cf which are alternatives and all of which will not be required. The power of striking out items is reserved to the engineer, but it can only be used in a reasonable way, and after a con tract is once signed the items struck out must neither substantially reduce the total amount nor throwplant that would be useless fcr other purposes on the hands of the contractor. I have very carefully reviewed the schedules of all three contracts and am able to recommend the deletion of a number of items, the absence cf which will materially reduce the total amount of the tenders and in no way ham per the working cf the undertaking when completed cr prevent the development of its business. In the case of Contracts Nos. 2 and I the reductions are of such a nature ttu».t ] they can be effected after the contract documents are signed, without being held to be nnreasona’bl#’,. As regards Contract No, 3 it will pnlf: be light to ask the tenderer whose tender is recommended for acceptance to agree to the proposed deletion of items and to make the acceptance condition thereon.

The tenders fcr all contracts reflect the higher pric££ that now ruli —as compared with twelve months ago —for iiJl classes of and plant. This is dim to the greater cost of labour, ujumtainties re garding freight charges, and Hip tin settlement of labour h-oth in Englnr.il ami New Zealand. It is within the mark to say that these tenders are from IP to 15 per cent, higher tha:: they would have been a year ago, and every indication clearly points to a permanently higher t'jsl in the future. An unusual but significant feature cf several of the tenders is that the amounU ImM good for seven davs only, and thereafter will be subject to change. Any change at the present fi;u p ran pniy be an upward one.

COXTIi.U T NO. 2. The lowest tender, that of Messrs. Greenshields and Co. is subject to acceptance within seven days, and thereafter to market fluctuations. The time quoted for completion is twelve months from the signing of the contract. All the materials offered are. of British manufacture. An omission of part of the item relating to diversion of underground pipes has been made in the road and sewer schedule, but the amc-unt involved is at the most less than £4OO, the next lowest tender is in no way prejudiced.

As to the general conditions of contract, the tenderer stipulates for centain modifications. These relate to terminating the contractor’s risk in respect to floods, gales, fires and third parties upon the taking over of the works from the contractor’s control. Also, that the contractor shall be paid for any alterations due to Government regulations, if he has complied with engineer’s instruc tions, and that work not ordered when contract is entered into, shall, if ordered subsequently be subject to market rates.

Owing to the high prices which are charged in this (and in the other two) tenders, for Thermit welding of rail joints, I propose to strike out the items relating to this process and to increase the items relating to fished rail joints. The Thermit joint is a good one, but is not worth the price tendered, while the fished joint is quite satisfactory. The saving effected by this will be between £1390 and £l4OO. A few other items quite non-essential, can also be struck out, making a total reduction of £1530. If this be done the total amount cf this tenderer will become £30,268. The tenders submited by Messrs. Riley and Co. and Messrs Niven and Co. are not sufficiently close to the lowest to be favourably affected by the proposed omission of itepis, nor to require detailed comment. Both of these tenderers rely upon subcontracts for the execution of a substantial part of the work and in neither case is the time quoted for cqmpletion any better than that of the lowest tenderer. I have carefully examined both these tenders, but consider it not necessary to report further upon them in view of the considerably higher amounts quoted ns compared with the lowest tender.

I consider that Messrs. Greenshields and Co. are a firm capable of saticfaetorily carrying out the work, and I recommend the acceptance of their tender, subject to the striking out of items to the amount of not less than £1530, making the net total amount not more than £30,268, and that the proposed modifications of'the general conditions be agreed to, subject to the clauses affected re-drawn by the council’s solicitors. CONTRACT NO. 3. The lowest tenderer for this contract proposes to supply 4 cylinder. 4 crank horizontal engines and g-is making plant, both of the. Premier Gas Engine Co.’s manufacture. The success of the council’s undertaking depends primarily upon these parts of the plant, and too much care cannot be exercised in determining the merits cf the types offered. I regret, therefore, that the information supplied with the tender and bearing upon both the engines and gasmaking plant is very scanty. Three points are mentioned in tenderer’s accompanying letter as being ones upon which the engines would not comply with the specification, but no positive information is given upon many other matters which an engineer requires to know in order that he may form a judgment of the suitability of the plant offered fcr the work it will have to do.

In the conditions of tendering, issued with the specification, it was stated that the council would take into account the relative expenditures required for buildings, by the types of engines offered. The type of engine offered in this tender requires a large amount of room, and on the tenderer’s drawing of general arrangement the engine-house measures 96 feet by 54 feet. In the next lowest tender (that of Turnbull and Jones, Limited) the engine-house dimensions to suit the plant offered are 65/ feet by 38 feet. Making al Lnyance for the greater height required i.q the latter case, the cost cf buildings, if erectid in ferroconcrete, would be ut least £2OOO greater for the larger engine-house. The value of the larger amount oi ground occupied is another factor that would enter into comparison, but enough has been said to show that from the council’s point cf view the British General Electric Co.’s tender is not the lowest, since it will involve an ultimate expenditure amounting to £'ooo more than the ultimate expenditure involved inthe case of the next tenderer.

The gas -.nakjng plant offered Vthe I j itish General Eiectrjc Uc. is m my opinion, go far as I wn prige from ihe general a.rrangenmnr filar, submitted, inadequate for d-aline. with the class of coal specified to no used. This coal contains ft goon proportion of tar, which must be extracted and not allowed to pass to rtiv .engines. No coke scrubber to assist in <hj§ work is provided in the plant offered, and reliance is placed on washing fans and sawdust scrubber, The gas plant offered by the next and several other tenderers inciuems a poke sci'ubbpr, yith washing fans and sawdust- scrubber, and experience with New Zealand cpals has hitherto shown the former item to be necessary.

The electrical plant offered in this tender is quite satisfactory, am! c,t_lls for no special comment. The time *eqnircd for completion is nine months.

Messrs. Turnbull and Jones’ tender offers g Wilson type of gas-making plant., and gas engines of vertical, twin tendpm- ? prank design, made by the British Westinghouse Co., of Manchester. The Wilson gas plant is undoubtedly one of the most successful on the market, and it is the onv put forward by four of the six tendering, t i,insider it will prove economical and sati«»’aktt,Ty under the working conditions of the council’s undertaking. The engines and dynamos offered by Messrs. Turn-

bull and Jones are of slightly greater power than required by the specifications, viz., 150 kilowatts instead cf 140, and this feature adds somewhat to the value of their offer. The gas engines of the Westinghouse Company have a high reputation, and after carefully examining the builder’s specifications and plans which accompany the tender, I am of opinion that these engines are well designed, fully provided with not only the necessaries but the refinements which make continuous running possible, and owing to their arrangement of cylinders are better adapted tc widely fluctuating loads (such as that of a tramway system) than any type having one cylinder per crank. Their advantages in regard to small ground space occupied 1 have already mentioned. The effect of this is to require just about half the cost on account of buildings and land that the horizontal design of engines entails. The disadvantages are large headrcom needed and a greater consumption of gas than in the, case c r one —or two —cylinder engines. These matters, however, are outweighed by the several advantages. The electrical machinery included in this tender is also made by the British Westinghouse Co., and with the exception of a few details complies with the specification. The storage battery proposed to be sup plied is made by the Tudor Accumulator Co., of London, and is in accordance with the specification. The remaining items in the tender are all quite satisfactory. The time required for completion is Hi months. With regard to the general conditions of contract this firm ask that if their tender be accepted the conn oil appoint an engineer in England to inspect and approve the plant before it is shipped from the makers’ wo ks. They object to bearing any risks relating to floods, etc., liabilities arising out of the execution of the contract, and claims for accidI ents —all in respect of the mainten- | ance period—and ask that their liability terminate upon the taking over of works by the council. They also object to the damages that may become payable by them in event of non-completion to time, stating that they themselves are entirely in the hands of the English manufacturers, who will not accept a penalty of more than 1 per cent, per week on the value of plant. Th’y further ask that stores .and fuel for testing the plant should be supplied by the council, and if this be agreed to an item of £5O can be struck out of the tender.

Messrs. Trunbull and Jones’ alternative tender differs only from the one just considered by the substitution of three-wire dynamos for ordinary dynamos plus a ballancer. While the three-wire type of machines will effect a saving of £95 I consider that on the whole the ordinary dynamos are preferable, keeping in view the expansion of the station that must come in the future. At the same time it must be admitted that either type of machine could be adopted and a good service obtained.

Messrs. Greenshields and Co. s tender is for a Wilson gas-making plant, Premier gas engines (exactly as offered by the British General Electric Co. in the first tender considered), electrical machinery made by the Electric Construction Co., of Wolverhampton, and storage battery made by the Chloride Electric Storage Co., of Manchester. The remarks I have made on the Premier engines and on the scanty information supplied in regard to them, in the case of the first tender, apply without alteration m this case. When the cost of engme house is taken into consideration Messis. Greenshields and Co’s tender is virtually £2OOO higher than Messrs. Turnbull and Jones’. The balance ot the plant offered does not appear to me to call for comment- Th? time required for completion is 12 months, and this tender holds good for seven days from March 7th.

Messrs. Niven and Co.’s tender offers a Wilson gas-making plant, engines by the National Gas Engine Co., of Ashton-under-Lyne, elecu-i--cal machinery by the Lancashire Dynamo Gas Engine Co., and sLoiag > b-nttm-v bv the Chloride Elecmi I Sto M <- > fbi <iif ii io ise required 1« larger than in the case of ai v o het ten l< inc isuiing on Jie plan submitted 110 Let by 60 feet. This fact, coupled wn.n the lighci 1 nd( uno mt tl tn in lit toiegmng (is s m k< the tot ff c >st much above that of the tenders just concluded.

With regard to the tenders ol Messrs. Riley and Co. and Mis Andersons, Limited, I have examin ed these, but in view of the iintki amounts I do not consider it neerssary to refer to their details in lhi = report. In drawing up the specificationn fci this contract many items of a nonessential character were inserted in the schedule with the intention of providing a considerable choice ff the total cost would permit-

Many of these items may be termed luxuries, and it will easily be possible to dispense with them anil yet not interfere with the operation of the plant or render it inefficient. I have drawn up a list of the items that can be struck out of the schedule and so reduce the total cost. This list includes the storage battery and its accessories, automatic poal scale and coal conveyor feeding it. two gas meters (leaving one in use on the main gas pipe), some extra fittings about the switchboard, and a number of spares in eases where the quantities specified were on the large side. The storage batteries and its accessories will account for just about £l9OO. It is not a necessary part of the plant, at any rate, during the first year or two of operation, and it can be added at any time in the future when the growth of business is sufficiently large to render k desirable. The other items —taking the prices of same as quoted in the most favourable tender, Turnbull and Jones' — will amount to £l9OO also. As the size of engine-house will not be affected by the reductions proposed, Turnbull and Jones' tender will still be the most favourable one. If this firm are asked to agree

to the exclusion of the items mentioned, and consent to do so, the tender amount will become £12,662 (subject to a small variation either way on adjustment). The striking out of the same items from each of the other tenders will not influence the relative position of the tenderers. Messrs. Turnbull and Jones’ tender is the best, both on account of the excellent plant offered and the lower ultimate cost involved when it conies to be housed. The firm is well established anil capable of carrying out the contract in- a satisfactory manner. I therefore recommend that they be asked whether they will agree to the exclusion from the schedule of the items that I propose to strike out, amounting in value to £3BOO, slightly more or less, and that should they agree the council consent to the modifications asked for in the General Conditions, the amount of damages payable for non-completion in time to be reduced from £lOO to £6O per week, and that, subject to the foregoing, their tender be accepted.

CONTRACT No 4. The tenders for this contract I will deal with in a further report.

FRED BLACK, M.lnst.Z.L. March 13th, 1912.

F. S. Greenshields and Co. (Wellington) .... Arthur D. Rilev and Co. 31,793 15 16 (Wellington) •Jas. J. Niven and Co., 37,357 0 (! Ltd. (Napier) 37,942 0 C CONTRACT NO 3. Power Station. Car Shed and Repaii Shop Equipments. £ s. d. British General Electric Co.. Ltd. (Sydney and Wellington) 15,443 11 Trunbull and Jones, Ltd. (Wellington) 13.432 14 ( do. (alternative) . 16.367 0 ( F. S. Greenshields and Co. (Wellington) Jas. J. Niven and Co., 16,616 3 Ltd. (Napier) Arthur D. Riley and Co. 18.277 0 ( Ltd. (Wellington) .... Anderson s, Ltd. (Christ18.304 0 ( church) 18,850 0 c do. (alternative) . 21.236 0 c CONTRACT N2 . 4. £ s. d Brush Electrical Engineering Co., Ltd. (Loughborough), per Ernest J. Tenn (AuckX 43C9 8 c F. S’. Greenshields and Co. (Wellington) Trunbull and Jones, 5793 12 c Ltd. (Wellington) .... Jas. J. Niven and Co.. 6184 17 ( Ltd. (Napier) A. and T. Burt, Limited C-29L 0 6 (Dunedin) 6789 0