A Higher Tender Preferred

NZ Truth, Issue 979, 30 August 1924, Page 6

A Higher Tender Preferred

Auckland's Municipal Ways

How Can the Cheaper Chassis (m London) Become the Dearer m Auckland ?

Will Mayor Gunson State the Reason why at least £2000 Extra Money is Being Spent?

Why did the Auckland City Council accept the tender of ten A.E.C. chassis at £1345 each, when ten Leyland chassis were tendered at (maximum) £1101 each? Are not these chassis equivalent to those listed m London at A.E.C. £800 and Leyland £900? And if a chassis that is sold £100 below the Leyland m London is bought m Auckland at £200 above the Leyland, is this m the public interest?

In order to establish a motor 'bus service to supplement the electrical tramways — and incidentally to counter the competition of private motor 'bus sendees — the Auckland City Council recently called for tenders for the supply of ten. chassis, each suitable to carry 32 passengers. It was recently published that the council has accepted a tender at £1345 per chassis; and from this fact it is computed that the total cost of the ten motor 'buses, complete, will be £19,500. i That- announcement,' on the face of it, discloses nothing unusual; but the further published announcement that the Auckland City Council did not accept the lowest tender is interesting, and invites inquiry.' Another factor suggesting inquiry was a statement published m Auckland to 'the effect that one of the tendering firms had written to the Auckland City Council on ;the subject^ and had been "practically told to mind their own business." "Truth" has been at pains to discover that firm— a firm to which, 'by the way, "Truth" is m no way beholden— and has with some difficulty, secured a little light on the subject,, enough; at any rate to warrant a further prob'lng of the whole circumstances/ . '■■',■■''■■'". £200 Per Chassis. •The firm that wrote the letter to the Auckland City Council is Leyland Motors, Ltd. Whatever, may : have been ' the merits or demerits of the other rejected tenders, "Truth" is, driven to the conclusion that the Leyland tender, at any. rate, was cheaper -than the, accepted tender by at least £200 per chassis. Perhaps, if some of the other tenders r were investigated, they would be found to represent a saving (to the Auckland ' ratepayers)' . even greater than the saving of ' ,£2OO represented by Leylarid's tender. But £200 is good enough to go on- with. When applied/ to ten chassis, it means a total figure, of £2000 m a £19;500 job — an item substantial 'enough to cause Auckland ratepayers to think very Hard indeed. . . ' The v accepted tender is that of the A-E.G; Company, at £1345 per chassis. Both the A.E.C. and Leyland Motors, Ltd., are British manufacturers; and, it seems, the other firms that were m the running are also British. So there is no" question of British v. foreign to cloud the issue. The question is whether the best tender, was accepted; and, if not,. why not? First of all, it should be explained that the A.E.C. article is, m England, cheaper than the Leyland article. This will be proved' by a comparison of the prices published m London. The.chassis that would be required for a job such as that for which the Auckland City Council called tenders would be listed at 80 cwt. (4 tons) load capacity. A reference to the .published English list (see "Motor Transport," May 12) will show that. the A.E.C. chassis price under that heaJ is £800. There is no secrecy about that fact. It is public property. Cheaper m London by £100.' And the Leyland chassis price is equally public property. Leyland Motors', Ltd., publishes prices . of four types of 80 cwt. (4 tons) truck. Even if one takes the lowest of the four prices, , £ 900, it is seen at once that the Leyland at its cheapest is dearer than\the corresponding A.E;C. article — dearer by no less than £100 per chassis. So if it had happened that the , Auckland City Council had accepted ten A.E.C.'s m preference to ten Leylands because the A.E.C.'s are cheaper by £100 'per chassis (or £1000 in 'all), then there would have been no apparent reason- for surprise.! People would have said: "Quite so, A.E.C. IS tho CHEAPER chassis." ' J Perhaps some rejected tenderer would have tried to show that his higher-

priced chassis was better value at the price; but probably no one would have taken much notice, of him. At any rate, . "Truth" would not have been inclined to do so. • But when it comes to light that the A.E.C. Company, .... which m London lists its chassis cheaper than the Leylani!, has given the Auckland City Council a tender that is much dearer than the Leyland, and has also succeeded m inducing the council to accept such tender at an apparent extra expense of at least £2000, then the public is up against a horse of another color | altogether. ; What qualities m the New Zealand climate have given the A.E.C chassis this added value, since it quitted the land of its birth? Can it be that an article that is cheaper m London than the Leyland, becomes m Auckland dearer than the Leyland, and secures the acceptance of the Auckland Gity Council t6 the exclusion of lowerpriced British competitors? ' The reader may here remark: "You have quoted English figures/ but what are the Auckland tender figures that Show this difference of £200 per chassis?" The answer is that the figure of the accepted tender (A.E.C.) has been published,; without denial, as £1345. And, of the alternative tenders submitted by Leyland Motors. Ltd., to the Auckland City Council, the HIGHEST was £ 1101. The difference is £244, \ So "Truth" ia putting it mildly ,when it states the difference at £200 per chassis, or £2000 m all.

.Straight Questions for Sir James,

Any unbiassed person will see that the above, establishes a strong prirna facie ease. It is a case that calls for a reply from Mayor Sir James Gunson and the Auckland City Council. The public interest demands an answer. \ The' public interest requires an explanation of why the higher tender was accepted; whether the article which fhe Auckland citizens are buying at £200 per unit DEARER;; than the Leyland is equivalent to the article {hat is listed m London at £.100 CHEAPER than the Leyland; and, if the A.E.C. £800 chassis (London) is different to the A.E.C. £1345 chassis (Auckland), what are these differences, and do they warrant an increase of over 60 per cent? These are V questions that any selfrespecting public body would be. glad to answer m its own interest. ' :f In case the Auckland City Council's answer takes the line of suggesting that the A.E.C. type has had a greatflr testing m .working conditions, it may be said here that the A.E.C. is greatly used lon London's level 'paved- streets, but the Leyland (a Lancashire product) is used very largely m the severe conditions of the North"; of- England. An argument based on working experience would have to be overwhelming to justify an extra expenditure of thousands of pounds.