ENGINEERS REPLY TO CRITICISM

Press, Volume C, Issue 29499, 28 April 1961, Page 16

ENGINEERS REPLY TO CRITICISM

“We believe that the Commissioner of Works (Mr F. M. H. Hanson) is quite wrong in his general claim that private enterprise is less efficient than the Public Service, and we take particular exception to his statement that “if our (departmental) work were handed over to private consultants the staff certainly would be doubled and the salary bill would be four times as high as at present,” says a statement from the chairman of the consulting engineers’ division of the New Zealand Institution of Engineers (Mr E. R. Garden). “Mr Hanson claims that this is supported by “a recent analysis.” The amount of work given New Zealand consulting engineers by departments under Mr Hanson’s control is so insignificant that we would challenge the validity of any deduction from an analysis of the record of this.

“We would, indeed, welcome a proper inquiry into this matter and would assist such an, inquiry in any way we could. We are assuming, of course, that Mr Hanson and the Treasury would make the relevant information available cn Public Service engineering design and supervision costs.

“It could well be that such an inquiry would be ip the interests of the public that Mr Hanson serves. The possibilities are shown in the result of a similar inquiry in the United States made as a result of representations by the Chamber of Commerce and the Consulting Engineers’ Council of America. California

“In his statement before a committee of the House of Representatives, the president of the Consulting Engineers’ Council said: “California is often referred to as having the ideal highway department. Substantially all highway engineering in the State of California is done by the Highway Department staff of engineers.

“In the fiscal year, July 1, 1957, to June 30, 1958, they report construction of 213.830,115 dollars. Preliminary engineering costs of 29.168,262 dollars, or 13.68 per cent, against the volume of construction.

“Also reported is construction engineering costs of

21,894,487 dollars, or. 1D.27 per cent, of the volume of construction. It is also to be noted that these do not include any administrative charges for the operation, or elaborate facilities for the housing of the Highways Department and the engineering staffs, nor do these figures include highway planning . and planning survey, amounting respectively to 1,178,000 dollars and 1,161.099 dollars.

The General Accounting Office review of the Federal Aid highway programme in Pennsylvania, said that the average fees paid to consulting engineers for services were somewhat less than 4 per cent, of cost of construction. Is there a proper relationship between the 4 per cent, fees paid to consultants and the reported 13.68 per cent, without overhead or profit for comparable services assessed to the highway construction programme in California when done by State engineers? “We will readily grant that a portion of the approximately 13.68 per cent, for engineering costs in California would still be required for co-ordination, general super-vision-and advance planning to supervise the work of consultants if they were hired in California.

“We cannot believe that the State services should be more than three times the cost of design as provided by consulting engineers. The Federal Government is participating ip underwriting these high engineering fees to the State regardless of the fact that they do not include any. overhead or. ‘profit’.

“In defending the Public Service against what he claimed to be unfair criticism. Mr Hanson said 'that what weakness there might be "lav in the inability to recruit and hold staff of. tfie right calibre’. is , ■ ■ “There, is simjfle evi®»ijce to support Mr Hanson in that statement HiS' department, and the whole country-, indeed, suffers from the fact that professional engineers in New Zealand are not remunerated on a scale proportionate to their contribution to the national economy. Without agreeing to the necessity, or inadvisability, of any extension to the Public Service, we would support Mr Hanson in any efforts he might make to ensure that the engineering staff of the Public Service is adequately paid.” tbe statement says. “There is also much other evidence to support the contention that the use of private enterprise for the design of public works is in. the interest of the taxpayer?’