Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1894. THE TENDER SYSTEM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6986, 26 May 1894, Page 2

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1894. THE TENDER SYSTEM.

The system generally adopted by public bodies and others m accepting tenders is coming m for a good deal of discussion jusb now, both at Home and m the colonies, It has hitherto been the almost universal practise to accopt ihe. lowest tender, irrespective of all other considerations. The tender may be ever so much under the estimate, and it may be perfectly plain that some one will lose over the work. The sureties names are looked at, and if they are considered good enough the tender is accepted. We have no need to go outside our own district to find out the pernicious effects which too often result from this system. Nearly all the trouble and litigation into which our local bodies have been drawn has arisen from this cause. A great deal of hardship and loss has also been entailed on workmen, sureties, and tradespeople generally from the same cause. It rarely happens that any advantage is gained even by the local body or individual letting the work : the work gets badly done, delays occur, and concessions have to be made. Nobody is satisfied and there is a loss all round. The question, no doubt, has its difficulties. On what principle, it may be asked, are the members of a local body to decide, if nob that of getting .the work done as cheaply as possible. The very object, it may be said, of calling for tenders is to find out who will do the work cheapest. And if they deparb from I thisrule they lay themselvesopento charges of favoritism and of giving work to friends of their own. Any member of a local body taking a stand and endeavoring to take a contraeb away from the lowest tenderer, is pretty certain to hear about it, and will very probably have to stand some uncomplimentary remarks ever it, although he may be quite certain that the lowest tenderer will not be able to carry out his contract. Again, as to those who safer loss through Iho breakdown of ft

contractor, members of looal bodies may very well argue, that they are put there to look after the interests of the ratepayers _nd that other parties must look after themselves. If people choose to sign bonds and become sureties, or if storekeepers give credit, they do so entirely on their own responsibility and must take the consequences. All this is quite true, and there is no disputing it. As a theory, acceptance of the lowesb tender may appear quite correct. And yet as a matter of fact it cannob be denied that ib works very badly m practice. This, after all, is the real I test, and shows that bhere is something wrong with the theory. The weak point will be found to lie m not recognising the I underlying principle thab a public body has no moral right to accept tenders when it is quite evident that the work is being done far below its value, and that someone must suffer loss m the carrying out of the contract. The London County Council has led the way m the recognition of this principle, and has established the rule that no contraeb shall be let ab a price which will not allow of a fair living wage being paid by the contractor to his employees. The example set by the London County Council is being largely followed by municipal corporations and other public bodies throughout the country. In Australia and New Zealand also there is a strong feeling growing up thab a change of some kind is badly wanted. The conditions of the labor market ab Home are different to what they are here, and there, m the keen competition m tendering, the laborers employed m carrying out the contract would most likely suffer. Hence m carrying out the principle thab it is morally wrong to accept tenders and get work done which must of necessity involve a loss on some one, it is tne labor employed they seek to protect by insisting thab the prices shall allow of fair wages being paid to the employees. Here the working men are not the only, or perhaps even the chief sufferers, under the present system. They are protected to a certain extent hy Act of Parliament, and can make their wages a first charge on the contract. The question ef a fair living wage scarcely enters into the calculation here as yet, as men are rarely employed by contractors under current rateß. The chief sufferers here are the contractors themselves, their sureties, and the local storekeepers and tradesmen. Working men do often lose part of their wages, wt know, but they are not worse off that] the parties referred to, and have special advantages m being able to protect themselves. Ib may be all very well to argue thai people have only themselves to blame ii they lose money over contractors whe tender recklessly or ignorantly. But this does not get rid of the difficulties or hard ships. Take the contractors themselves, What chance has a man of experience anc 1 ability to carry out a contract on his owr resources, but who m tendering puts m £ price that will provide against all contin gencies and pay him for his own labor, oi it may be the use of his own plant, againsl a man who may be a very good man t( work, but who is quite incapable of mak ing up an estimate for even the simples job, and tenders practically at random, oi the more dangerous man who tenderi quite recklessly, determined to get thi job somehow, and make a rise out of it no matter who suffers 1 These men, botl the ignorant and the reckless, managi somehow to get bondsmen who become sureties for the carrying out of the con tract. In most cases bhis is done out o pure good nature and desire to give man a start. The responsibilities incurrei m becoming surety are seldom clear! understood. Very rarely does the suret; go into it as a business transaction, an 1 charge for the rißk. Public bodies whe considering these doubtful tenders, an accepting them because the sureties ai good enough to fall back upon, do noi we think, act quite fairly. They shil the responsibility from themselves to tt ' pohlio. They are, or_ought to be, m of the work to be done than the suretiei And, once a tender is accepted, stor< keepers and tradesmen naturally conclude b that there is something tangible on whic 1 to give credit, and working men on whic I to go to work. The result of the accep 1 ance of these very low tenders is ofte j most disastrous of all to the tendert j himself, especially if he be a hard workin honest man, who is quite incompetent < 3 make op an estimate, but thinks his ow t r hard slogging labor will pull him througl In his own interest ib would be very mue better that his tender'should be rejectee Nor is ib the case that the interests of th ratepayers are always best studied b acceptance of the lowest tender. In spit of engineers' and overseers' certificate the quality of the work done is nc always the same. And it is certainly nc to the interest of ratepayers to hay workmen, sureties, and tradespeopl subjected to loss through contractor taking work below its value. The publi : body which recognises and. acts upon th principle of paying fair value for wor will best serve the public interest. I, ' making a change, the members of ou local bodies would have to calculate upoi \ a certain amounb of opposition am t grumbling, especially from contractor . themselves. Bub the evils arising out o the presenb system are patent to every , one, and no class would be more benefitet , by a change than the contractors them , selves. The principle we have beei advocating applies equally to contracts le ! by private individuals, but it is with thi dealings of publio bodies only that thi public can concern themselves. Ii making a change ib may be difficult to laj down a hard and fast rule, or decide a! between tenders if the price is not to be the deciding factor. We do nob say thai ib should nob be taken into consideration, bub thab other things should be taken inte consideration with ib. Where an engineei is employed, and especially where the engineer is a man ef known reliability and experience, his estimate of cost should be accepted, and any tenders much under il should be looked upon with suspicion, and thoroughly enquired into, before being accepted ; the responsibility should nob be thrown on the sureties without further consideration. Where these have to take over a work loss and trouble all round is most likely to ensue. Where an engineer is not employed, the local body should m every case have a reliable estimate of the value of the work before them when considering tenders. Members of these bodies are generally conversant with the value of work themselves ; if not, and where the work is of any magnitude, an experb should be employed to furnish an estimate. In this connection we were glad to observe the re-appointmenb by the County Council of Captain Winter as thenengineer. With the amount and importance of the work to be done by the Council, the employment of an engineer on their permanenb staff has been found to be a matter of absolute necessity, and the Council could nob have gob a more capable man. In no way, perhaps, will his services be found of more value than m furnishing bhe Council with reliable estimates of work and keeping ib righb m the acceptance of tenders on the lines we have been advocating.