MUSEUM SHOWCASES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19719, 19 August 1927, Page 12

MUSEUM SHOWCASES.

LOCAL TENDER REJECTED.

THE COUNCIL'S DEFENCE.

REASONS FOR THE CHOICE.

"EXPERIMENT" NOT JUSTIFIED

Further reasons why the tender of Mr. T. W. Parsons, of Auckland, for showcases for the Auckland War Memorial Museum was rejected in favour of one put in by A. Edmonds and Company, of | Birmingham, were given yesterday by the curator of tho museum, Mr. Gilbert Arehey. The order is for approximately 350 metal-framed cases. Mr. Parsons' tender was at £27,183 Edmonds and Company tendered at £20,964, f.0.b., England, and the cost of landing the cases at Auckland is estimated at about £6OOO. Mr. Archey's statement is as follows: — "The money which the council of the Auckland Museum proposes to expend on showcases for the new building is to be drawn entirely from its own funds, and is not part of that which has been subscribed for the erection of the War Memorial Museum. The latter is controlled by the Auckland Citizens' War Memorial Committee, and not by the Museum Council. This point is mentioned merely to assure the subscribers to the building that their contributions, at any rate, are apart from consideration in tho present matter. One Pencil Sketch. "Tho Museum Council, in deciding upon the acceptance of a tender for the showcases, had, as a first responsibility, to have as full an assurance as possible, that work to be done by a tenderer would be of the high standard required in such cases. Most of the firms which tendered, and, with one exception, all of those whose prices were within the bounds of consideration, submitted perspective drawings of the proposed cases, detailed plans and drawings of bases, frames, doorsashes, hinges and locks and all interior fittings,- as well as samples of the metal sections they undertook to use. Two firms, including Messrs. Edmonds, submitted in addition a complete model case to illustrate the details shown in thenplans and drawings. They thus gave adequate evidence of their comprehension of all aspects of the proposed work. "Mr. Parsons' tender was accompanied by one pencil sketch of his proposed frame and lock, and a model of a corner of the frame, which, in comparison with those submitted by the other tenderers, was not regarded by the council's expert advisers as sufficient evidence that he was in a position to carry out the work at the same standard as the British firms. The council does not express any opinion whether Mr. Parsons could do the work or not; it merely affirms that he did not place before it sufficient evidence of his ability to do so, and neither his 'confidence in his knowledge and experience being sufficient to perform it to the satisfaction of the committee's expert advisers,' nor his 'impressive statement of his own qualifications,' unsupported by material evidence, was sufficient grounds for the expenditure by the council of £27,000 on what, on the face of it, was an experiment. A Specialist Firm. "With regard to the accepted tender, Messrs. Edmonds, in addition to the care-fully-submitted details referred to, were able to give references to their long experience in the specialised work of constructing museum showcases. Examples of their work have stood the test of practical museum experience in the Scottish National Museum, the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, the Bridewell, Norwich and other museums. They are a firm of approved high standing in this special class of work and offered adequate fin ancial references. "Mr Parsons' diverting statement that 'because of his experience he had been able at various times to advise Mr. Archey about the showcases' cannot he allowed to pass unchallenged. The statement seems to be designed to create the impression that the curator had to go to Mr. Parsons for advice and help in drawing up designs and specifications for the showcases. This is entirely inaccurate At no time has the curator asked for or received advice from Mr. Parsons in this matter; the position is rather the reverse. The statement is, however, best answered by the fact that all the detailed specifications and schedules of the cases were prepared, printed and .ssued by the curator several weeks before he first met Mr. Parsons, and they have not been altered or amended in any way since their first issue. "Tho council agrees with the Herald's comments and Mr. Parsons' note on the advantage of the work being performed under the immediate supervision of the mnseum authorities, and would have been pleased if . a local tenderer had submitted adequate evidence of his abilitv to carry out the work to the same standard as the specialist firms referred to: but tho council could not accept the responsibility of spending £27.000 in testing the insufficient evidence placed before them.''