ACTS OF GOD

Waipa Post, Volume 44, Issue 3178, 14 May 1932, Page 6

ACTS OF GOD

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS. HARSH CONDITIONS. Who, in justice, could ever be held responsible for an act of God ? It is not generally known that this is one of the extraordinary responsibilities fastened on every private contractor who undertakes work for the Public Works Departemnt (says a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce). In answer to the widely-supported contention that the execution of all public works by private contract under tender is the only means whereby a recurrence of past extravagances on public works construction can be prevented the Public Works Department replies that “ many public works cannot economically be carried out by private enterprise.” Without going into the question of what special ability is claimed for a State department that is not possessed by private enterprise, what defence can be saised for private contractors against this charge ? There is no need to look beyond the standard conditions imposed by the Department on all contractors undertaking work for it. Many of] these conditions are harsh and unreasonable, and the effect °f practically closing the field of public works to many private contractors. WANTING IN CONFIDENCE.

First, the Department denies all responsibility for the accuracy of its schedules, plant, and specifications, and the contractor is expressly denied the right to claim oil account of errors discovered after the contract has been entered into. This is nothing less than a violation, of the cardinal principles of British justice, inasmuch as the contractor is made responsible for inaccuracies of th«- engineers of the Public Works Department. Despite the fact that the taxpayers are required to faiiitain a staff of State engineers, thw Government declines to accept responsibility for their work, and displays a serious want of confidence in its &wn servants by sheltering behind a fclausA which removes responsibility to the shoulders of the innocent contractor. The Public Works Department, with all its resources for making accurate reports, nevertheless takes protection against a contractor, who, with limited resources, is required to undertake an expensive investigation With only a remote possibility of being recompensed for it.

A system that absolves every mistake and averts the penalty is by no means the best method of discouraging further mistakes. What is more, the contractor is required to correct any errors in the schedule of the Department before making any tender. This means that in the event of, say, a power-house site proving to have an unstable foundation, the Department is absolved of all responsibility for the implication of the statement, “ solid foundation,” and any further expense or failure to carry out the contract falls upon the contractor on the assumption that he could have checked up on the plans and specifications with all its attendant expense.

But this is not all. The contractor is even required to make provision in his tender for every possible contingency that may arise. In other words, he is held responsible for tempests, earthquakes, and other acts of God,, which no man can foresee or control. Any damage resulting from these visitations he must make good as if the fault were his. own. Of all the unreasonable provisions that were ever adopted, this one must be without parallel. It may be argued that the Government could be relied on to do justice by the contractor according to the circumstances, but this is only an abstract assurance which gives no security whatever to the contractor. A GAMBLER’S CHANCE.

What is the effect of these stringent provisions ? The prudent contractor who has regard for the reputation of his firm will not court bankruptcy by taking extreme risks, so he tenders a price to cover •. every possible contingency. The result is that he loses the contract because his price is greatly in excess of the estimate of the Public Works Department, which is based on the assumption that the plans and specifications are correct. If the contract is let, it goes to the contractor who is imprudent enough to accept the accuracy of the plans and specifications, and who gambles on his chance. Who will say that this is good policy ? If the Public Works Department cndertakes the work after all, the taxpayers are in no betteir: position, because they have to foot the bill for any inaccuracies that become apparent too late. There are many more unfair provisions in the Public Works Department’s conditions of contract that could be mentioned —such as the decision of the engineer-in-chief of the Department being final and binding in the event of an appeal against his own Department but enough has been said to show how they have militated against the economical performance of public works, and probably frightened many private contractors out of the field. No one would readily adopt the opinion that this has been done designedly, but if these stringent conditions have been made with the object of protecting the Department and guarding against the unscrupulous contractor, the zeal ox the departmental officers has gone too far. The only effect has been to make the way easier for the imprudent contractor at the expense of the prudent. It is well known that the Department has been obliged to modify these standard conditions on many occasions to meet the stipulations of responsible contractors who would not otherwise tender. Indeed there seems no reason why such conditions should be maintained at all, as surely the object of contract conditions is merely to provide for tail treatment of both parties to the conThese conditions of contract have a greater significance than a domestic dispute between contractors and the Department; they directly affect the whole taxpaying community, which has had to pay millions for work done in excess of the estimates. The position will be remedied only when the Public Works Department is reduced