Tunnel Contract Dispute.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7881, 25 July 1905, Page 2

Tunnel Contract Dispute.

Regarding the dispute,to connection with the water scheme tunnel I tract the borough engineer (Mr h. H. Gibbon) reported to the Council on? Monday evening that in accordance with his instructions he had paid a visit to Wellington and met Messrs McWilliams and Andrews by appoint ment at Mr Mestayer's office. After a great deal of discussion Mi Mestaycr and he proceeded to discuss each item separately, hoping by mutual concessions to arrive at an amicable arrangement, but Mr McWilliams proved utterly impracticable, and declared he would not take any less than was shown on his statement. This brought matters to a deadlock at once. Mr Mestayer's recommendations had since come to hand.

The report of Mr Mestayer, the consulting engineer, was in similar terms. Mr Gibiboir and he had felt it was quite impossible to accept the responsibility of conceding the whole of the demands of Mr McWilliams, who informed them very plainly that he had taken legal advice on the matter, and that he meant to be paid in full for all he claimed, Outside the delay for which the contractors were liable, the disputed items only amounted to £93 2s 3d. "The contract time," remarked Mr Mestayer, "expired on March 20, l'JOl. I consider the contractors arc entitled to an extension of time of two months on account of the extra hard work which has had to be done. This would make May, 20, 1904, as the date of expiration of the contract. If an amicable arrangement could have been arrived at 1 would have recommended an additional three months' extension of time on account, of Mr McWilliams' illness and the extra difficulties Which were met with beyond what had been anticipated, but in view ot Mr McWilliams' .expressed intention of taking the matter into Court It appears to mc that my present statement should he'based solely upon what 1 consider to be the legal rights of the Council and the contractors under the specifications." The fine of £5 per day on the contractors was calculated at £1540, for 308 working days. The contractors were entitled to have their progress payments up to May 29 last, calculated without reference to the Council's claim for damages, which would rank against the 25 per cent, retention money. The summary prepared by Mr Mestayer was as tol-> lows :—Contract amount £5595 3s, extras £1921 13s 3d, credits £27 13s 10(1, gross total £7544 10s Id ; deductions as per statement (credits, etc.) £6460 ffss, balance due to contractor £IOB3 15s Id. When the maintenance period had expired the balance due to the contractors would be :—By 25 per cent, retention, £1879 4s ; retained to cover maintenance, £125; total, £2OOI, less Council's claim for delay, £1540; balance then due io contractors, £464. On the motion of the Mayor it was agreed to make the progress payment referred to by Mr Mestayer.