RISING ESTIMATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 January 1921, Page 5

RISING ESTIMATES.

THE HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME# x BURDEN OF HIGH PRICES' EXPLANATION BY ENGINEERS. Tn compliance with a request from the New Plymouth Borough Council, the consulting engineers on the hydroelectric works (Messrs. Blair Mason, Lee and Owen) have submitted a report on the estimates for the work. It will be remembered that at a meeting of the council some weeks ago dissatisfaction was expressed with the great difference between the original estimates submitted and the revised figures. A letter received from the engineers at last night’s meeting read: “In November, 1918, an investigatibn was made of the sources of power supply, and a report submitted to your council embodying various proposals for the extension, of the existing system, together with approximate estimates of the cost. “The report, as you are aware, was of a preliminary nature only, as no survey or other data was available other; than that obtained during an inspection of the locality, which was only sufficient to prove that certain proposals were feasible and to allow a rough approximation of the cost of the works to be arrived at. For $n investigation of this nature assumptions have to be made as to what the surveys will reveal, such as the lengths of tunnels and races, heights and position of contours. The report drew attention to the absence of exact surveys, and in a letter dated June 25, 1919, the matter as again referred to is as follows: Tn the absence of flnifihed plans showing accurately the situation and design of the works, only an approximate estimate can be made as final surveys may necessitate alterations in tjie woyks as outlined in my preliminary report.’ “In compliance with your request to submit completed estimates, surveys were made in 1919 for the purpose of obtaining the necessary data. As you will doubtless remember, these were greatly hindered by weather conditions and were not complete till the latter part of the same year. From this information sketch and part detail plans were submitted to you in January, 1920, based on known data and rates as in operation at that time, which for labor and materials were consequently in advance of those in 1918. “It is not necessary to go into ..the tails of the schemes of 1918 and 1920 other than to remind you that those of 1920 were as instructed, designed for a capacity of 150 to *2OO cu. secs., as against 50 cu. secs, in 1918, and that a Tunnel 4000 feet long had to be substituted in place of the race carrying 50*cu. secs From this it will be seen that the preliminary estimates of 1918 are not for the same work as those for which the catenate was submitted in 19'20, shown in the general manager’s report oi December, 1'920. fl s £56,993. The difference between the two amounts does not therefore only reprei-eiit the sum by which it was considered necessary to increase the estimates on account of the increased cost of labor and ma " rials

“As instructed by you, revised estimates were made out. in t./ e. , 1920. after the completion of all the drawings (except those of the dam) from wh eli we were able to prepare detailed estimates. In submitting these, v.hi.a amounted to £83.515. we drew your at tention to the unstable condition oi lhe markets for labor and material'-’, making it quite impossible to s.: ic ‘.hat f e conditions would be by the lime xv. J s wei’e in Lard. creased the January 1926 cstHnatr oy approximately 50 P cr cent. '1 his increase does not, in our opinion, represent the value of the work, as is already being proved on the works now in Ir.in-l bv the council, but wp considered u advisable to make provision for a sub- / stantial advance. ■ “The fact, that the eonncil did i'”t receive any lenders ivr tile No. 3 contract is ample evidence of the state of tiw market, and the very uncertain conditions of work. Under ordinary circumstances a. contract of this magnitude would have attracted the bust contractors in the. Dominion. That the rates adopted a basis of the estimates submitted both in January. 1920, and November, 1918, were generally accepted nt the time is borne out by the fact that although there was no competition in tendering for the No. 1 tunnel in 1919, there being only one tenderer, the accepted price was £12.1102, while our estimate was £10.174. Again in 1918 your electrical engineer, in reporting on power supply extensions, estimated the tunnel at .£2.37 per foot, as compared in our 1918 rate of £3. “By way of comparison it mav be noted that the present contract price for the tunnel under construction is £3 8s per foot. We allowed in January, 1020, £4.do per foot, and in our revised estimates of October, 1920, £5.9 per, foot. During the war little or no constructional work, involving importation of materials from overseas was undertaken, consequently there was no data, available as regards prices. M 1913 pipe lines erected complete cost £23.u per ton. In 1920 we were quoted £BO per ton, and a few months later tenders ranged fiom £lOO to £165 per ton. W» may also mention that according to the latest available figures in August, 1920, the Government estimate for the North Island hydro-electric schemes alone has been increased by considerably over £3,000,000 above that contained in the report of 1918, an increase of apflrdxb mately 50 per cenT betw'een the twq dates. “From the above instances, ami many Others that :ue of daily occurrence in other than engineering works, it will readily be seen that the successive rises in the estimates for the cost of the hydro-electric undertaking for New Plymouth are by no means unique and are fully warrante'd.” The council received the report.