FAULTY JOBS

Southland Times, Issue 22489, 25 January 1935, Page 6

FAULTY JOBS

SCHOOL CONTRACTOR STRUCTURAL WORK ON BUILDINGS BOARD’S COMMENT (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, January 24. Two reports presented to. the Wellington Education Board this morning by the draughtsman-supervisor (Mr G. Drummond) showed that the construction work carried out at two schools under the board’s supervision had been done in a very faulty manner the foundations being incomplete and the reinforcing materials omitted. The reports, which were received in committee, provoked indignant comment regarding the contractor, and the board agreed that the matter should be published, but tire names of the contractor and the schools should be suppressed in the meantime. The board decided to refer the. reports of the supervisor to the architect with a request that he should make a statement on the matter. The supervisor was instructed to prepare a report on the work required to put the building into proper order. The draughtsman-supervisor reported having visited the school building where the contractor was working on the foundations. A close examination of the work showed that the whole of it was unsatisfactory. One foundation wall was filled, two within nine inches of the ground-line with loose filling on which water was being poured. On top of this a start had been made to deposit mixed concrete reinforcing. The rods required by the specifications had not been put in. Another - wall that had been filled in was examined. It was found that it had been filled in with rubble in a similar way. The porch was then examined. The foundations were found to be eight inches, instead of two feet, deep. As no rods were protruding from the completed wall, the contractor was asked if they had been put in. He said they had been. The concrete was then cut away. Only one rod was found. This was hooked back at the end and was easily removed. Proved to be Dummies. “This, I believe,” Mr Drummond reported, “to be only a short length of rod. There are two rods protruding from the end of the porch foundation, which should have three rods, and an endeavour was made to move these, with the result that they proved to be only dummies. The contractor had stated that the work was left to the men on one half-day, as he was absent from the job, but the trench was being filled in while he was present.

“Tire contractor said the piles contained the two rods specified, but when two piles were broken through, no rods were visible. Upon digging down beside the pile, it was found that it extended only six inches into the ground, and the bolts used for securing the piles were eight inches long, instead of eleven inches, there being only three inches of bolt in the concrete. The contractor admitted that the drain-laying, work had been done by a carpenter, instead of by a licensed drain-layer.” Another Building. Reporting on the work done by the same contractor when building additions to another school, the supervisor stated that the plaster on the base was poor, the ventilators being out of plumb. The plaster in the chimney shaft was from j to i of an inch thick, instead of. J of an inch, and the finished plaster work was full of trowel marks and other defects. Tire window operators, which did not comply with the specifications, had been removed from the windows. Galvanized cabin hooks had been fixed for staying back . the entrance doors, instead of colonial gate catches and eye-bolts. Split timbers, bad shakes in two lengths of timber and badly-cut timbers were noticed. An examination of the chimney from the roof showed that it was 7jin. short, and was a quarter of an inch out of plumb in four feet at the top. Tire chimney liners and the chimney-pot were not linable and the flue liners stopped short near the top of the chimney, the short remaining height being lined with galvanized iron, which had been battened back in an endeavour to adjust the chimney-pot to a central position. An examination of the foundations showed that the south wall had a total over-all depth of 2ft. 2in., instead of sft. lOin. The contractor had said that two rods instead of three had been put in. The foundations were tied with stirrups five feet apart instead of 2ft. 6in. apart. He admitted that certain parts of the work were not reinforced according to specification. Some pipes had no rods; others had only one rdd. The rods specified had not been put in the floor of the latrine. The contractor was instructed to open up certain parts, and after this had been done, another inspection was made. The north wall foundations were found to be 12in. in the ground instead of 4ft. The base of the chimney was 2ft. 7in., instead of sft., and the specifications for the foundations of the latrines were sJin. and 6in. in the ground instead of 16in. Plea of Guilty. The chairman said the contractor could do nothing but plead guilty. He had made the excuse that he was off the job for half a day, but to say that it was not possible for him to know what was going on on such a small job, was ridiculous. The chairman added that action had been taken to see that the work was properly done. The board agreed that the action taken to ensure that the faulty work was being corrected should be endorsed.

Mr W. H. Jackson: And the contractor black-listed. The chairman: Yes.

Discussing the second school, Mr H. J. Nicholls said he was astounded to hear such a report. There seemed to be nothing right in the job. If they could look under the foundations of other schools, there was no telling what they would find. Mr Jackson said the report showed that the board had been subjected to daylight robbery.