PORT DEVELOPMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 August 1922, Page 2

PORT DEVELOPMENT.

THE NEW WHARF. METHODS OF BUILDING. CONTRACT OR DAY LABOR? At a special meeting of the New Plymouth Harbor Board yesterday, the .question of whether the new wharf should be constructed by contract or by day labor was discussed, the final decision being to employ day labor,, at least for the making and driving of the. excrete piles. , . At the last meeting of the board the chairman (Mr. C. E. Bellringer) had moved, according to notice of motion, that the construction of the new wharf should be doneby. contract, the discussion being held over to enable the consulting engineer (Mr. Blair Mason) to be present. The engineer related ninny experiences in such work. He said with reinforced concrete work in wharf building there had been many failures. Day labor was usually preferred, as in day labor the engineers had more complete supervision of the work. He had given concrete wharf construction in New Zealand a great deal of study. • There w;is no doubt that the contract system had its advantages if they could get good contractors. There was no scope for contra.cting firms in New Zealand to gain experience. In other countries constructors laid themselves out especially for this class of work. Contractors, on finding they were making a loss, had a tendency to make up by putting in inferior work. This would not do in concrete work, in which everything depended on massiveness and solidarity. There was always a certain risk in dealing with contractors. There was no doubt that construction by day labor could be pushed on as fast as by contracting, and there was also a strong possibility of saving money too. As far as time was concerned, there we: ■ many delays that might occur with a contractor. The fixing of ..a

penalty on a contractor for failure to complete in a given time was also a difficult matter. Th«>re was something in the question of letting sub-contracts, and this course was often resorted to. He was more concerned about the making of the piles. If these were not solidly constructed and could not stand the strain there was hound to be trouble. He strongly advised that the board make its own -piles, but. there was no reason why subtenders should not be let- for the superstructure. At the same time he was diffident in regard to advising contracting. If they employed good men they would get work as good from day labor as by contract, and they wanted work that would stand for all time. If the wharf were thoroughly constructed It would cost very little fnr maintenance. The hoard was confined to concrete Construction on account Qf the marine growths prevalent at the harbor being different to Wanganui and other harbors in this respect. Tn wharf construction it was essential that there should be no weakness. EXPERIENCE ELSEWHERE. Tn answer to the chairman, the engineer said the Auckland Harbor Board had built their first concrete wharf by contract, but had immediately discontinued the method. In Dunedin the concrete work was all done by day labor, whilst In Wellington the system of subcontract. was adopted. The board had a workshop which was fairly well equipped for making reinforcements in the required shapes. If the work were let to a contractor they might give him the use of this shed and thus reduce the price of the tender. The public feeling was that contract work was cheaper than day labor, but he had been behind the scenes and knew. Contract work was rarely better than that done by day labor.

In answer to Mr. Newton King. Mr. Blair Mason said he did not think there would be much difficulty in training a competent overseer. Concrete was now extensively used, and they should have no difficulty in getting suitable men. He would like to have workmen unused to concrete work and train them him-

self. Mr. Hughes : How many contractors are there in New Zealand with the requisite plant? Mr. Blair Mason: Ido not know of any. Most flnms are engaged upon ordinary building work. Mr. Hughes asked which was the better cement to use, the English manufacture or Colonial made cement.

Mr. Blair Mason replied that it was a matter of test. The quality of the locally made cement to-day was all they desired, and it had to be up to English specifications. The chairman said he moved his motion for the purpose of bringing the whole matter under discussion, and, after hearing the engineer, he was inclined to amend the motion. It was necessary to go on with the work of making the piles at once, and he advised that this should be done* by day labor, aa it was essential that.the piles must be good. In the meantime they should proceed with the work as if they were going to do it themselves. ENGINEER’S VIEW SUPPORTED. Mr. MaxwrV ?aid he had been very favorable to m"’ ‘ riders, but he had somewhat changed ! • “ons after hearing the engineer. He did think it was necessary to draw un detailed specifications and estimates for the purpose of calling tenders if they were not going to make the piles by contract. Thev could deal with the superstructure at a ;later date. Mr. Wilkinson said he liked the contract, system, but he was afraid it was not possible for them to let the whole scheme by contract. The other members expressed their faith in the contract system, but agreed with the engineer That if would not be wise to apply it to the work of making the piles and driving them. The chairman said that in making the move H-e did he knew that the time had come when they had to have a definite policy. He withdrew his motion, and substituted for it: "That the board proceed with the construction of the piles by day labor and procure the necessary plant and machinery therefor, and that consideration of the matter of contracts be left till such time as the board thinks it desirable to go into the matter.” The motion was seconded by Mr. McCluggage, and carried unanimously.