SCHOOL BUILDERS FAIL

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 298, 8 March 1928, Page 13

SCHOOL BUILDERS FAIL

RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOSS ARCHITECT EXPLAINS Emphatic denial of any responsibility for the loss suffered by certain Auckland merchants as the result of the recent bankruptcy of a firm of builders employed by the Eductaion Board was voiced by the board at its meeting yesterday. The matter was brought up by the receipt of a letter from the official assignee forwarding a resolution passed at a. meeting of creditors in the bankrupty estate of a firm of contractors w r hich had built several schools for the board. The resolution stated: “That this meeting of creditors call the attention of the board to the fact that in this case it has given contracts to a firm which was without financial standing.” The assignee went on to say that some of the creditors evidently gave credit because they knew that contract moneys were t;o come from the board. The opinion was also expressed that where the architect had already priced a contract it should not be let at a figure much below his estimate. It was contended that cred-r itors were not aware of the bankrupt’s position. The consensus of opinion was that the debtors’ prices were much too low in all cases. ARCHITECTS REPLY In reply to the assignee the board’s architect submitted a statement of the principles Involved in the acceptance of tenders by the board. When a tender is apparently low the following procedure is adopted: The contractor is shown the whole list of tenders as well as the architect’s estimate; he is given an opportunity of again reviewing his figures; if it can be shown that he has made a legitimate mistake, he is granted permisiiion to withdraw. If, however, after again traversing the plans and checking his figures the contractor is satisfied, and provided the board has no reason to doubt his ability as a tradesman, his tender is accepted provided that an adequate guarantee on his behalf is forthcoming. After a careful comparison of the other tenders it was ascertained that on the whole sum of £4,514 representing the five tenders of the firm in question, the difference between that sum and the nearest tenderer’s was only £147. In every case the nearest tenderer was a man proved by the board’s experience to be capable of carrying out his undertaking. In consequence the board felt that it had no justification to decline the tenders submitted by this firm, especially as the board was adequately protected by the guarantee of satisfactory bondsmen. The bondsmen, who were now creditors had the opportunity of obtaining the fullest particulars concerning the terms of the contracts, and if they were at the meeting: of creditors, it would appear from the terms of the resolution, which was unanimous, that an effort was made to place upon the board an onus which rightly belonged to the creditors themselves.