Harbor Board Tenders

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 53, 13 October 1887, Page 3

Harbor Board Tenders

INTERESTING DISCUSSION. Thi , Engineer’* report at the last meeting of the Board contained the following reference to the contracting for supplies i— I find that taking the probable quantities th* Varioua article* we are likely to requt'e, th* total prices of the four tender* for »i>ppi m are— Wingate, Burna, and Co ... £660 Parnell and CO 746 . Str Boylafi 784 Common, Shelton, and Co. ... 789 ; tn reply to Major Porter the Engineer taid he thought the higher price* were about those usually given, and that of Wingate, Burns and Co , a little lower, making in the whole a probable saving of £lOO. Major Porter said that from the bipression of opinion he had beard he thought it was undesirable for the Board to bind itself in this way although (hey could make much saving by doing " so. His reason was that the ratepayers interested—the different person* who deal in the good* tendered for —wished to participate in the trade. He believed it had b een the practice of the Engiheer; tvheh he wanted particular Article*, to go round to the different places and purchase the articles at the lowest ratesj thus giving a fair proportion of the expenditure to the various ratepayers, and if that geneSy wprkea satisfactorily, as he bead it had done, and that there were ho accusations of favoritism against the Engineer, he considered it would be fairer and better to go on as they lad previously done. It gave every tradesman a chance to sell his goods, and he felt it his duty to oppose the acceptance of iiny tender. He did not think the principle in this case was a good one. He did not wish to press ■ the matter when so many of the members were away, and would move that the tenders be left over till next meeting for further consideration. Mr Matthewson seconded. He never Was in favor of tendering for so many different articles—this was an exception to the general rule; and there could be no harm in letting the tenders stand over for another fortnight. He would like to see Major Porter go a little further and give notice to rescind the previous resolution. Mr Townley was surprised at the motion and surprised at the seconder —how be could second a resolution of that kind when he had time after time urged that they should call for tenders for the whole work, was more than he could understand. This matter had been before the Board for Some titne and hid been agreed to by the Board. This principle of contracting had been practised by the Borough Council from the very first, and here Was proof that they could save a hundred pound* by the tendering. They could not expect the Engineer to go pound the town, trying where he could best get the things, and then if they did not mind they would not get value for their money. Whatyr r firm got the contract would take care to have articles in stock. The question did, not admit of argument, and if it did it had gone too far already. Some of the tenderers (and also the Engineer) had gone to considerable expense and trouble over the matter, and then for the Board to say quietlv that it would not accept any—he aid not know what the ratepayers would think of them. All the member* were present when the action wa* carried, and he was surprised at the Chairman allowing the motion. It was explained that the motion only meant delay. Mr Townley, continuing, said that whoever got the tender would keep in stock the necessary supplies, and therefore could do the thing much cheaper. He would move as an amendment that the lowest tender be accepted. There was nothing to be gained by delay. They had agreed to call for tenders, and if a public body made such a decision it would be thought they intended to carry it out. It was absurd to sav the Engineer should go round. Here was the Engineer now in possession of the prices, from a catalogue he had made up and for which he was responsible. If they intended what they had done, let them be firm in their duties and carry out the report of the Engineer. There was no need for hurry, but this matter, had been standing over for some time, and it was clear that if the principle had been carried out sooner there would have been a great saving. He believed it was illegal going under the old system—if they wanted £5OO worth of'goods it was their duty to have tenders and not to consider this or that interest in the place. He did not want to hurry the Board into any action they would regret, but he saw no reason for putting the Engineer and tradespeople to all the trouble, and then not accept any tender. Mr Dickson said he was just going to move that Wingate, Burns & Co.’s tender be accepted. He believed in the principle of tendering, and thought that if it had been recognised sooner hundreds of pounds would have been saved. He was very glad to hear Mr Townley give Major Porter such a “ rating,” and he only hoped the Board would yet come round to his original advocacy of tendering, and making the breakwater by contract. He had pledged himself to the ratepayer* to «upport the principle, and he intended to do it. He believed it would be well to get tenders for diving to see which would be the best bottom to build the breakwater on. He would second the amendment.

Mr Gannon (who had entered during the discussion) thought it would be as well to hold over an important matter like this until the country member* were present. He really did not know how to vote on the question. Mr Townley : Not on a saving of a hundred pounds ?

Mr Gannon said the difference seemed very little, and it should be remembered that only two-thirds of the member* were present. The Chairman did not like to remain silent in a case of this kind. It was a pity the question was touched on at all. At the desire of the whole Board tender* had been called, and after much trouble they had the result before them. It seemed to him there was no option than to accept the tender, unless they squandered the

ratepayers' money. He regretted the local tradesmen could not all get a share of the game, but the Board now had no choice in the matter, and the position w’ould be no clearer a fortnight hence than now. The deposit cheques had ohly been made good for a fortnight and if there were further delay the tenders would practically be nullified. Mr Gannon contended they were dealing with unknown quantities, and could not say there would be a saving of a hundred pounds. Major Porter was also unable to see how £lOO cotild be saved—one place would be able to sell certain things cheaper than another. It was not right for the Board to bind itself to one firm for the supply of so many different items, and deprive the ratepayers of the privilege of general competition. They were all open to error, and he said the Board had made a mistake in calling for the tenders. He had not seen his mistake then, but after the representations made to him as Mayor, he came there with the intention of opposing the acceptance of any tender. The law did not compel them to give a tender for £7OO worth of different supplies. Mr Gannon thought it was out of the question to bind themselves that way for twelve months. The duty on ironmongery might be lessened in the meantime. [Mr Townley ; It might be the other way, and that would be all right.] Yes, and if it were taken off that would be all wrong. Let the Engineer furnish a detailed statement of the probable requirement* for three months, and accept a tender on that basis. He had never heard of a course like that proposed during his experience on local bodies. Mr Townley cited the Borough Council as an example, and characterised Mr Gannon’s arguments as unbusinesslike and absurd. The amendment was then put—For I Townley, Dickson, and the Chairman. 4 gainst: Porter, Matthewson, and Gannon. The Chairman gave his casting vote in favor of the amendment.