MANUKAU ROAD TENDERSNEWMARKET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14924, 23 February 1912, Page 4

MANUKAU ROAD TENDERSNEWMARKET.

Sir, —The statement made bv Mr. D. Teed» i|, , Mayor of Newmarket, published u> ; y°¥ k issue of Moday, January 29, was sent,. to . j mo in* Victoria, and this is the first oppor- ; -' \ tunity I have had to reply to it. Mr. IW* ; ; ignores the chief point of my letter, and W explanations are ambiguous and misleading <> . Ho states that my company s tender coma v not. bo accepted because it did not conipiy ' , with the specification. I beg to state that! i • complied in every way with the speciw*'. : ' tion, except, tho following two points, vrOK no firm could possibly comply wmi:---W v ' That the Council should not hold the tenderer responsible for damage to the ospliaito caused by loose rails or faulty construction- (?) That the clause which states that ® D P[.jit) wear would bo allowed for the w •,S , street during the period of 10 years tool® ; not bo complied with, as it was too arastw . ;in character. Under no circumstances couW am* firm be expected to comply with eiwW;. of those conditions, and ] still maintain to* - these conditions were imposed in ordfilM,. prevent anvbodv tendering against the lluio-;- . fait 'blocks." The Lithofalt Company origin-. , j ally tendered for a 10 years' mßintan ß similar to ourselves, and our tender was W ;*„• lowest. Under (bee conditions I would lis ■ to know why the Newmarket Council sees tiat a later date to accept a guarantee to only five years from the Lithofalt Compaq vr I and how the Council expects to maintain » roadway of which they have no knowledf* j or experience. for -the next. 10 years, at, a j lower rate than the Lithofalt Compaq offered to do it under contract. The action jof the Council certainly indicates that ' I refusing both tenders their object was to ffe , ! rid of the Xonohire] Comnauv's tender-ne-. j cause tliev had made up their minds before* j band to accept lithofalt regardless of con? * ; quenees and appearances. The Council a ; now in a position that they have ordere i tiles' 1 patent lithofalt blocks from 0 " 1 *!'. ■ j what price is not made public. and tn.. ' '"tend to complete tho contract with day ! labour, at what cost remains to be seen- H I T'-ev state that tliev have a guarantee 10 K : five vears. and it would be interesting ' ; know what is the exact nature of the cruaran- ; tee. and why such a sruavantee did 10 coy. ~,■ ! the original period of 10 vears. under WhlC j condition we all tendered. I still conten 1 that the aetion of the Newmarket Council 1 ■ retard to this mat tor is such as to merit t# - stronerett. disapproval of all contractors W arc in t'».» habit of tendering under fair an ■ , y reasonable conditions. ;-V: , A. B. WootF, - General Manager for Australasia. TW. Neuchate] Asphalte Company, Ltd.