WHICH SYSTEM?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1481, 2 July 1912, Page 2

WHICH SYSTEM?

•' CONTRACT METHODS ALL WRONG" A NEW SUGGESTION. The conlroveisy'ns In whether the day lal'our or the contract system is the better for the carrying out of big works is continuing lo interest ninny concerned in the building trade, eliielly, one gathers, from (he fact that tho Minister for Public Works recently lent a serious ear to the request that (ho new Parliamentary Buildings should bs built by day labour. As ouo who has u very completo knowledge of both systems and is at present carrying out the erection of Messrs. Fuller and Sons' new His Majesty's Theatre in Coiirle.nay Plaeo by day labour, Mr. H. E. White speaks with a certain authority.

"I do,not believe it is advisable for any Government or municipal work to be done by day labour," said Mr. White. "My experience, and it is considerable, is that the loudest talker is the worst worker, and us tho talkers look for Government work as a rule, 1 would keep it as freo as possible from Government or municipal control—th-.it means lice from politics of nil kinds. Day labour is all right under certain conditions. J. am building this theatre by day labour, two other theatres 1 have designed—in Blenheim and Timaru —are, dlso being built by day labour. But hero I am about the job most of the time myself, and havo a good stn ft' of foremen. In the caso of tho other two theatres mentioned, I havo sent absolutely relkiblo men to take charge of the work whilst (he proprietors themselves are always on thn works. Day labour under proper supervision works out, all right, but it is seldom that a Government or municipality can carry out large works under that system without all sorts of influences cropping up. In that respect 1 agree entirely with what Mr. Tunibull said in Tiir: Dominion.

"Tho point 1 would like to raise," continued Mr. "White, "is that our present contract system is all wrong. At least that is my belief. Tho svstem followed is that an orcliitect prepares plans for a building to cost .010,000 or .£20,000; the contractor has tho plans for a night and a day (seldom longer), and in that time lias to work out 111 a cjuantities, along with the cost of mate] ial, labour, etc., and add to that his own profit and architect's fee, and put in his tender. Under such conditions it is easy, to make a mistake one way or the other—they are almost unavoidable. This makes tho contract system more or less of a gamble. Moreover, just now, when you camiot rely on a stable rate of pay for any class of workmen, or in the cost of materials, a strike at Homo might easily seriously embarrass a contractor, as witness what is going on at present. Owing to abuses, too, which have taken place under the contract system in America, they are now making onn man responsible for the work. That man is not the contractor, but the structural engineer or architect. IJe or a responsible representative is always on the job to see that every detail set out in the specifications is given effect to. "Tho scheme I would suggest is one that would to a very great extent do away with that element of gambling with which,the'contract system is at present invested. Estimates (not tenders) should bo called for, but instead of the contractor having to find the money and take tho risk of making or losing over (he work, let tho lowest estimate be accepted as a lender, and tho man be giveii so much per cent, for canning out the. work. If the building costs less than the estimate, give him a bonus—so much per ceni. on every .£IOO saved; if it costs moro reduce the percentage paid him in proportion to the amount the building costs over and above his estimate. I think the system, which is largely in vogue in America, is a good one, and one that would work well in this countrv.

"tho system, which after all is only a variation of tho contract system, gives greater wciirity to the contractor, and makes for economy without loss of efficiency. Now tho contractor is throwing up a penny all the time—hcuds he wins:, tails he does not."