CITY TENDERS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2174, 12 June 1914, Page 7

CITY TENDERS

METHOD OF CALLING THEM

WARM DISCUSSION

A somewhat heated discussion was raised at the mooting of'the'City Council last night ovor a recommendation of the Finance Committeo that tho tender of Messrs. Anderson, Ltd., of. Christchurch, should be ' accepted for tho supply of a 12-ton steam road roller, of Aveling and Porter make, at a sum of £730 14s.

The, engincoi , reported that -ho had passed o\;cr a tender of Messrs. J. J. Niven and Co. for the supply of a Clay- ' ton and Shuttloworth • roller, because, while tho firm of Clayton and Shuttleworth was highly respectable for goneral engineering work, it was unknown to him .regarding steam rollers. He-had applied for information on tho steam rollers from Messrs. Niyen and Co.-, but could get no specifications from them. . The Mayor (Mr. J. P. Luke) spoke strongly against tho action of tho engineer (Mr. W. H. Morton) in passing ! over Messrs. Niven's tender. Ho seemed to have a. bias against unknown makes. The tender ho proposed'meant an increased cost of something like £140. If the council had been honest it would have sot out to securo a particular class of road roller, and not put firms to tho ignominy of having a local authority put it out that it did not consider tho quality was sufficient for tho city. If it was only a question of the sac of tho axlo on tho cheaper midline, lot them cable to England and- ask for the size of the axle. Ho ■was bound to move the adoption of the veport, and would do so. Should Back the Engineer. Councillor Hindmarsh seconded, tho motion. ' Tho Mayor, ho said,' could speak as. ho liked in tho matter, as ho was not interested in the firms. The engineer, however, - would suffer if ho mado a mistake. Ho thought they should back up tho engineer. He was responsible, for tho machine, and gave it as his opinion that it was tho best. Tho Mayor, spoke as jf the engineer was making reflections oh the firm of Clay, ion and Shuttleworth'. It was not a" reflection pn the firm, at all. The Mayor twisted tho Engineer's : feport. They were not children, and he was going to back up the City Engineer. They liad' interfered too much lately. The Enfineor was responsible, and, with - all is experience, told thom xo purchase tho engine at tho increased ccswHo was going to follow the Engineer, and rot "Mr. Mayor Luke."Councillor Godber said.that his own opinion was that the matter should stand over till the specifications of tho cheaper machine arrived. The Engineer's reason for not considering the cheaper machino was that lie had not seen the specifications. Thoy slould Jiot throw "away £140 of. tho citizens , money if tho machjrio would do the work required. Ho ,movied, as ■an amendment, that the matter bo left over till tho specifications arrived from England.

"Councillor Frost seconded the amendment.- - . . ■ ■'• ■;-..-■ • . No Specifications. Councillor Barber said that it was unfortunate that Messrs. Niven and Co. should havo tendered for a machmo on which-they had , no specifications. ;-The Engineer went'to them, anij could get no particulars regarding the Jientor pats of tlio machine, and was it likely that he was -going to -rodommond such a'.macHmo?i"'ffrf| l o lowest tender had, been recommended and the machine tmind-to bo .unsuitable; whaf would'bo tho'=advahtagd-6f-'thb'saving 'on the : tender? It was their duty to be gui<J•ed by the Engineer. He would not consent to tho lower tender being accepted, but would agree to the matter being deferred. Councillor Fitzgerald deprecated tho bantering" across tho table of prices before a-tender was accepted.' For the sako of tho City tho debate should be stepped. What right had they to discuss tho prices tendered by different linns/ Ho was going to support tho amendment. , Councillor Hislop thought that the course- proposed by Councillor Godber was the wisest. He. regretted tho way the Mayor had referred to the engineer'. He (Councillor H.slop) would have considered the engineor had failed in his duty had he not acted in tho manner he did. It was .unfair to suggest, as the Mayor had done,, that there was an iu?wfV n , the lottcr of tne engineer that he had a bias against the unknown , makers. • . Councillor F. Lnclsie:' • "The least thing we could have done was to allow the engineer to give an explanation ■>° ro -. J-hoso members who are not on tho Imanco Committee known nothing about what took place at the committee meeting." Further, Councillor Luckie thought that tho engineer had acted in the best way. They could not accept a tender where there was such lack of information. Councillor A. It. Wright defended the engineer. ■ Cast No Reflection.. In reply tho Mayor said that if he had cast any reflection on the engineer ho would mako it at tho next meeting of tho council. They bould wait and-.sco if the papers showed any reflection in his Tomarks. He-regretted, however, tho imputation of a councillor on tho Mayor's capacity to see a thinf or not see it. ' " Tho amendment was carried. •