WATERWORKS CONTRACT INVESTIGATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5243, 12 January 1878, Page 3

WATERWORKS CONTRACT INVESTIGATION.

The committee met yesterday afternoon at 3 o’clock. There were present —Councillors Hunter (chairman), Diver, Logan, and Fisher. The CHAIRMAN stated that he had presented to the City Council the interim report of the committee, which recommended that the powers conferred upon Mr. Marchant under the Waterworks Act, 1871, he revoked. The report was adopted by the Council, and steps had already been taken to carry out the recommendation. He had further to state that he had received from the City Solicitor a copy of Mr. Marchaut’s appointment as Waterworks Engineer, Mr. Marchant having refused to supply the committee with the same. Mr. Blackett, Assistant Engineer-in-Ohief, in answer to Councillor Diver, stated that he had nothing whatever to do with the payments to the contractor. ' He made certain alterations iu the plans before the contractor finally signed. He never gave orders for anything in the shape of an extra. He made no alterations after the contract was signed. He thought the work generally had been carried out in a satisfactory manner. No dispute had been referred to him as arbiter. By Councillor Eisher : Any alterations he suggested were made before the contract was signed. He certified to alterations which were found necessary when the ground was opened up, and which alterations involved the use of a larger amount of materials. In several cases he insisted that the concrete wall should be carried down deeper, but that might not mean deeper than was specified in the contract. In that matter the Corporation was entirely in tire hands of the engineer. He made no alterations after tho contract was signed, except those which were found necessary from the nature of the rock. Ho had not sufficient information to give a reply as to the expense of the alterations. All the alterations that he was aware of were necessary to render the work substantial. The alterations ho assented to were not what might be called minor alterations, and could not fairly be included in tho clause which stated that the contractor should not charge for any minor alterations in the specifications which were necessary to the work. There were certain omissions he believed iu the work, which should be deducted. Mr. Blackett stated that Mr. Marchant had waited upon him on tho previous day with a complete schedule of extras ; but be could not go into it without plans and sections of the works as executed. Ho should have iv schedule of omissions as well as additions. Councillor Macdonald stated the chief item in the claim already paid, of £2970 for extras, was one of £lOll charged for increasing the thickness of the culvert pipe from 18iu. to 3ft., and asked Mr. Blackett it that was a valid charge? Mr. Blackett stated that he could answer that question, as he had a clear recollection that tho increase in tho culvert pipe was one of the alterations before the contract was signed. At tho time the alteration was decided on it was considered as a set-off against certain omissions in the work. It cntld not be regarded as an "extra.- Mr. Blackett then examined the drawings of the waterworks on tho table, and found that it was provided that tho culvert should be 3ft. Councillor Macdonald said, after tbe important statement which had just been made, the committee had better not proceed further with tho investigation till Mr. Blackett had fully inquired into the claims for extras and other matters. In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Blackett said that he did not expect that there would he a large amount of extras on the contract. Ho never had any difficulty with the contractor. Any work that was objected to was immediately taken out and thrown on one side. The schedule of prices for extras was prepared at hi# suggestion. He

saw no reason why the works should not have been sufficiently advanced by the middle of November to supply the city with water. There might have been reasons for the delay, but he was not aware of any. By Councillor Fisher : He did not consider that passing the clay through the pugmill was essential to the stability of the work. If the clay was well worked with shovels, it would be sufficient without putting it through the mill. The witness stated that he wished to impress upon the Council that the question of extras was simply one of measurement, and on which he would be unable to give an opinion till he got the measurements from Mr. Marchant. In Government contracts a schedule of omissions and additions was furnished monthly, so that everything was clear. If Mr. Marchant had done this the Council would have known how matters stood. It was decided not to examine Mr. Blackett further till he had had an opportunity of conferring with Mr. Marchant and going into the whole matter both as regarded the main contract and extras. Mr. W. Williams, an engineer in the employ of the Messrs. Brogden, stated that he sent in a tender on behalf of Mr. Henderson for the Waterworks contract. He did not meet Mr. Marchant on the ground. Mr. Marchant distinctly told him that he could not use the materials on the spot. *1 hat made a large difference in his tender. He would not have considered it an extra if he had been compelled to take stuff from the bottom of the dam instead of from the sides, because that was provided for in the specifications. By Councillor Macdonald : The tender he sent in was for £25,900. He had no opportunity of going over the ground with Mr. Marchant. At the very outside, on this contract the extras should not exceed ten per cent, on the amount of the tender. Having to cart the clay and concrete from a distance, not punning the clay, and being compelled to take the stuff for the embankment from_ the bed of the reservoir instead of from the sides, would make a difference of £6OOO in the amount of his tender. The committee adjourned shortly before 5 o’clock.