HATEPE POWER STATION

Taupo Times, Volume II, Issue 85, 4 September 1953, Page 3

HATEPE POWER STATION

CONTRACTORS' FINAL PAYMENT At its monthly meeting the Taupo Town Board had before it a report by Mr Lloyd Mandeno, consulting engineer, regarding Messrs Tapper Construction Company's claim for extra charges relating to the contract for the headworks, power house and bridges, etc., at the Hatepe Power Station. Mr Mandeno stated that his firm's assessment of the value of the extra work done did not agree with the amount claimed by the contractors. They were, of course, entitled to appreciable extra payments, because their contract provided that they would be protected against rises in cost due to increase in rates payable for labour and for such supplies as cement, etc. . In addition, extra work was involved over and above that specified when it was decided to provide an annex to the power house. When the main chasm was unwatered it was possible to decide on work necessary and extra depth of foundations, all involving extra expense. The difference between the contractors' claim for extras and the engineers' assessment was £4,343. Mr Mandeno did not think the contractors could succeed in arbitration for more than a relatively small portion of this difference. Nevertheless, his firm thought the Board was entitled to take a somewhat lenient view in finalising matters with the contractors, and would be justified in taking into consideration the difficulties experienced by contractors throughout New Zealand. It had to be remembered that Messrs Tapper's tender was appreciably lower than the amount tendered by tjieir competitors. Mr Mandeno had perused the contractors' books and there was no doubt whatever that they had sustained a loss. After referring to" other points* Mr Mandeno's report stated that he thought it would be a reasonable settlement, in view of all considerations, for the Board to pay half the difference between his assessment and the contractors' claims. This, he was satisfied, would still leave them to carry a direct loss of some thousands of pounds. Mr Mandeno concluded by stating that there were good precedents for the course he suggested. Only that day he had been advised that the Health Department had approved paying a contractor the full amount of a loss incurred through a failure to allow in his tender for duty payable on equipment. After discussion of the report, the Board decided to pay half the difference between the engineers' and the contractors estimates, as recommended by Mr Mandeno. Messrs J. D. Swan and C. Vedder asked that their names be recorded as voting against the motion.