COUNTY COUNCIL CONTRACTS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 439, 14 February 1912, Page 6

COUNTY COUNCIL CONTRACTS.

To the Editor. Sir,—ln looking over your paper I saw a local referring to lack of competition with contractors. As an old contractor, 1 would enquire: Is it to be wondered at. There is cause and effect for all things. If you look around it is easy to see the cause; and the effect is lack of competition with contractors. I have been looking back on my past experience for 30 years or more, and I have never experienced such conditions as I have met with here. I have been in this district three or four times to tender for contracts and have gone away with the same feeling. I would challenge any man with experience in any part of this Dominion to say that he has ever met with such restricted and drastic specifications as in this district arid county. There is nothing in them that is British or businesslike. Let me quote a few of the particulars of the specifications, and you will see that it would almost take a millionaire to cake up more than one of the contracts. And such a man is not to be found in this district:—(First). We are to deposit with our tender the sum of £250 or £3OO respectively according to size of contract and price; but it must be remembered that this amount will be returned on the con tract being signed and the bond signed and completed for about 145 per cent, on contract price, assuming the contract price to be £SOOO. Our plant—engine, crusher, etc.—runs to about £IOOO or over, with two bondsmen to sign the bond for the full amount of the contract price, viz., £SOOO. Progress payment paid by the county council equals 75 per cent., the council retaining 25 per cent., or £1250 on a £SOOO contract. You will see that a contractor has to find security to the amount of £7250, also full working expenses for one month before progress payment is received for a £SOOO contract. Sir, did ever any contractor or business man ever hear of such a thing? I challenge any man to name any county or country in the world to tolerate such things. The ratepayers have to suffer for this. Here is the reason for the lack of contractors tendering. Also, the reason (as stated in your paper) that the price of contracts are so much above the engineers' estimate.

If you will look up the Government's contracts you will see the comparison. Their deposit for £SOOO contract would be about from £25 to £SO, bond about £2OO up to £suo. There you will see competition. The cause of lack of competition is the lack of business ability with the county council. I am also informed, rightly or wrongly, that the engineer is paid by commission on contract price. The same would apply to the borough as applied to the county council. I would like to ask: Is it right? Is it just to the ratepayers and the community at large, that an engineer should be employed by any borough on thi conditions thst his remuneration is paid by a percentage on all monies expended? I ask, can you blame the engineer for making the contractors' specifications to produce commission? I would like a raply.— I am, etc.. THOS. M. STEPHENS, Wellington. February sth, 1912.