The Feilding Star. THURSDAY FEBRUARY 21, 1884 Borough Contracts

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 21, 21 February 1884, Page 2

The Feilding Star. THURSDAY FEBRUARY 21, 1884 Borough Contracts

In an article on Corporation Contracts i which appeared in a recent issue of the Wellington Post, the necessity for reform in existing practices is strongly urged. As the subject is one equally interesting to our own ratepayers, we will make certain extracts which must prove not only interesting, but instructive. The principle evil complained of is the objectionable and indefensible custom of granting to contractors extension of time for the completion of their contracts, the disadvantages of which are innumerable, and there are absolutely no counterbalancing benefits. There is one drawback which is too commonly overlooked by those who vote for an extension of time as a popular sort of thing to do, which is that unless the written consent of the sureties to such extension is previously obtained in such manner as to make the sureties explicitly parties to the arrangement, the sureties may be relieved of all further responsibility by the mere fact of the departure from the terms of the original contract. An extension of time may involve the destruction of the works, or their serious injury, which the contractor might be neither willing nor able to make good, so that the liability would fall on his sureties. In this way it might suit a contractor who found that he had made a complete mistake in his tender, and that the contract would inevitably ruin him, to relieve his sureties by obtaining an extension of time without their written consent. Reference is made to the sureties who are sometimes accepted, whose liability would be merely nominal, and a hope expressed that more care would be exercised on this head too. Sureties should be of undoubted soundness, and safely fixed with the responnibilities they undertake, and not be relieved of it by blundering and illegal concessions to contractors. We say illegal advisedly, because we are convinced the proceeding would not hold water in a court of law, and councillors could be compelled to make good any loss arising from such unwarranted alteration in the terms of a contract, duly made on the part of the ratepayers. The municipal authorities in Wellington might, do well to follow the simple plan adopted by the Borough of Feilding. It was found by contractors that the obligations they were compelled to accept from sureties were heavy and oppressive, and the plan of a money deposit with a retention by the Borough of say 25 per cent of the value of the work done, has been adopted. The time required for the completion of the work is calculated by the Engineer, and if the contractor is unable to finish his work within the specified time — unless he is able to show that he has used due diligence to complete the contract — the work is taken over by the Borough and the deposit, with whatever is due for work done, is forfeited. It is believed that by this procedure, contracts in thih Borough are never taken at a much lower rate than the estimate of the Engineer, and where a contractor has only himself to rely .on, he is apt to be more cautious than when he ha 6 two or more sureties to divide the risks and responsibilities. Another advantage we have here is that all the principal Borough works are roadmaking, and the contractors for those are residents and property-holders, who use their own teams and employ local men for labor, and are consequently able to do the work both cheaply and expeditiously. The only risk is in one or more contractors undertaking more than they can actually perform, but any evils arising from this cause can be guarded against in some degree by the Engineer exercising a sharp supervision over contracts already in hand.