SCAMPED WORK

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 103, 25 January 1935, Page 12

SCAMPED WORK

Additions to Wellington Schools DISCLOSURES TO BOARD Revelations Described as a Scandal Disclosures of scamped work by a contractor engaged on making additions to two schools under 'the jurisdiction of the Wellington Education Board were described as a scandal by members of tho board during its monthly meeting yesterday. Revelations that the foundations to carry walls of classrooms had been sunk to only a small part of the specified depth, that reinforcing rods had been omitted from concrete piles, and that shoddy work generally was being put into the buildings, were made by the draughtsmansupervisor to the board, Mr. G. Drummond. Mr. Drummond reported in respect of two schools, tenders for which had been let to the one contractor. . The reports were considered in committee, outspoken comment on Mr. Drummond’s discoveries being made by members. It was at first desired by the board that the disclosures and the discussion upon them should not be made public at this stage. When the press representatives made . application to the chairman, Mr. W. V. Dyer, that the- board sanction publication in the public interest of what had gone on in committee, this was agreed to, with the proviso that the contractor’s name be withheld and that the schools should not be identified. “Entirely Unsatisfactory.” Taking school No. 1, Mr. Drummond reported that inspection of the work in progress was made by him and it was found entirely unsatisfactory. The north wall foundation wall which had been excavated to the full depth required by the drawings was found to be filled to within Oins. of the ground line with loose filling. Water- was being poured into the trenches and part of the filling was a slurry. On top df this a start had been made to deposit the newly mixed concrete. The specification called for three g-inch. rods to be placed in the foundation, tied at intervals with -}-inch stirrups. These had not been placed in the boxing and thus were being omitted from the foundations. Inspection of the south wall revealed that it had been treated in the same way as the north wall. A test of the porch wall foundations disclosed that these were 8 inches in the ground instead of the required 2 feet. "As no rods were found in the north trench and the end of the south foundation wall was boxed tight with no rods visible the contractor was asked how many rods were in the foundation,” Mr. Drummond proceeded.. “He assured me that the three rods were there, but that he had ommitted to leave the end protruding for future additions. The boxing was taken down and the concrete cut away to find the rods. Only one rod was found, and this was hooked back at the end and easily moved. This I believe to be only a short length of rod. There are two rods protruding from the end of the porch foundations (which should have had three rods) and an endeavour was made to move these, with: the result that they proved to be only dummies.” Statement Not Believed. Continuing, Mr. Drummond said the contractor stated that the work had been left to the men, as he was absent from the job. But as the north trench was being filled with earth under the contractor’s own eyes he did not believe the statement to be true. As one man admitted filling the trench with earth he instructed the contractor to dismiss the man immediately under the conditions of contract. Asked if the piles contained the two rods specified, the contractor said they did. “I asked him to take off the boxing on one pile and break away the concrete until the rods were exposed. This was done and no rods were visible. Another pile was dealt with similarly, and again there were no rods. Tested for depth, a pile was found to go only Gins. into the ground. Bolts for securing the piles were found to be only Bins. long in place of the j required Ilins.” A drainpipe at the end of the building was to be shifted to the north wall as an extra on the contract. Questioned as to the name of the drainlayer, the contractor admitted that the work had been carried out by a carpenter and with the necessary authority of the City Council, but without inspection by the city drainage engineer. Shallow Foundations. In respect of the second school, Mr. Drummond relforted that in the south foundation wall an excavation ordered by him revealed that the foundation was only 2ft. 2ins. deep instead of the required oft. lOin. In view of this finding the contractor was asked how many longitudinal rods were in the foundations. He replied • that there were two rods in place of three, and that these were tied with stirrups oft. apart instead of 2ft. Cins. In reply to questions regarding the piles, the contractor admitted that some had no'rods and others only one, but he could not determine the number of piles with and without rods. There were no rods in the floor of the latrines, which should have had i-inch rods at 18-inch centres in two directions. A later visit was paid by Mr. Drummond to the job, and his inspection of places opened up at his order disclosed that the north wall foundation was one foot in the ground instead of the required four feet, and the base of the chimney was 2ft. Tins, from the top of the foundation to the bottom of the footing instead of five feet. The foundation of the girls’ latrines was sJins. in the ground instead of i ICins., and the foundation of the boys’ latrines was Gins, deep instead of IGius. Mr. Drummond also noted that the chimney was 7lin. short in length, anil was Jin. out of plumb in 4ft., and the ventilators were 3-Bin. to 3-in. out of plumb. In the new classroom it was found that the chimney shaft carried an under coat of plaster between l-Bin. to iin. thick instead of the specified 5-Bin. Split timbers were seen in parts of the building, shakes had appeared elsewhere, and timber in certain places had been badly cut. Executive Takes Action. Following the draughtsman-super-visor’s investigations, the chairman and Mr. C. H. Nicholls and Col. T. W. McDonald visited school No. 1 and met tho contractor, who had cleaned the earth and concrete out of the foundations and excavated the pile holes deeper. He was given verbal instructions

to get on with the contract in accordance with specifications under supervision, and to remedy what had been done wrongly.

The executive committee resolved that the other school lie examined and that tbe board pay tbe contractor for the expense involved in making good what had been done amiss, if the work was found to be in accordance with the specifications. If the work was not iu accordance with requirements the contractor was to pay the costs involved in making good the work uncovered or otherwise opened up for examination. CONTRACTOR’S GUILT Danger to School Pupils ‘The contractor could not do other than jilead guilty,” said the chairman, Mr. W. V. Dyer, in opening tlie discussion on the reports. Mr. C. 11. Nicholls said he felt very worried over the disclosures, and they made him concerned about a lot of other work done on behalf of the board elsewhere. “This lias developed into a positive scandal,” he said “The material which we had specified should go into the ground was to protect the lives of our children. It seems that when concrete i.s being mixed it will have to be under the board’s supervision.” In commending Mi. Drummond for his thproiigh report Mr Nicholls pointed out that when tlie .draughtsmansupervisor was turning tlie work down he was making himself and the board liable for such action, if it were proved to be wrong. Mr. Dyer: It is doubtful if we can chase this man off the job. lint the case is bad enough to warrant it. Mr. IV. E. Gascoigne:’Tlie revelations are astounding. When we let contracts in future we must lie very particular about the character and stability of tbe contractor 'The action of Hie executive commitfee in dealing with the trouble was endorsed.

Mr. W. 11. Jackson: Yes. ami place the contractor on the black list. Mr. Dyer: I think flint can very well be added. In reply to a member the draughts-man-supervisor (who has only recently been given tho oversight of tlie board’s building activities) said he had undertaken the investigation on liis own initiative.

A warm discussion took place on the question of who had been responsible for lack of supervision making conditions disclosed in Mr Drummond’s reports possililc. It was decided to hold over a full inquiry pending comment on the reports by the board’s architect to be submitted not later than February 14.