THE BUILDERS'GRIEVANCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2197, 18 January 1886, Page 2

THE BUILDERS'GRIEVANCE.

MR FANNIN IN REPLY.

To the Editor.

Sir.—Allow me space to reply to the advertisement and letter emanating from the elastic firm of Wrigley and Rose. I shall simply state the facts of the case mentioned by Mr Thomas Wrigley, and let the public judge for themselves. On the 23rd December last, tenders were received by me for the erection of a dwelling for Mr R. R. Meredith. As Mr Meredith did not come into town on that day or the following, I opened the tenders, informed Mr Wrigley that Wrigley and Rose were the lowest, that I would send Mr Meredith a list of the tenders, and let him know the result. I did not say or give him to understand that his tender would be accopted; on the contrary, in one of the interviews I had with him i told him tho tenders were above what MiMeredith intended to expend, and that I did not know'whether,'Mr Meredith would make a reduction, or alter the plans and call'for fresh'tenders. Mr, Meredith's reply, received 31st Decern-'

ber, instructed ino not to' accept any tender, and to obtain pricos for the i™ rk ,PpyWy. The same day liuformed Mr Wrigley that no tender H&ild be accepted, but I omitted to «i'm his deposit cheque. (The: otherHleposit cheques were returned the day'after tenders wore received), Before going' outside the tenderers for a price for the work, I thought it best to ascertain'what reductions Messrs Wriglef and Rose would make if certain expensive items were struck out or altered, and I proposedsending the list that night (31st) to Mr Meredith; but the time lost m correcting a palpable error, which! pointed out, jin the amount of one item, and which correction resulted in the amount of reduction being douMed, caused me to lose the mail. If I had wished to prevent them getting the work I nAht have refrained from pointing ;; out .fflp y error. On the 2nd January, I' returned the deposit cheque of Messrs Wrigley and Rose by post, stating that 1 did so because no tender had been accepted, and the time for whiclithe cheque was good had expired. Then, remembering my instructions, and the fact that the difference between the tenders of Wrigley and Rose and Williama and Barker was but ten shilllings, and considering that Mr Meredith might wish to see what reductions Williams and Barker would make on the same items, I obtained prices from -them also on the 2nd January, without acflujiintiiig them of the amount of WrL& and Rose's reductions. The liighSTtender was £54 above that of Williams and Barker. 'Before sending the list of reductions to Mi- Meredith, I told Mr Wrigley that; Mr Meredith had instructed me to obtain pricos privately, and asked him, and subsequently Mr Rose, if the reductions they had given in were the most they could make, and they both replied they werh that they had tendered low. On twjflfe items Williams and Barker reduced fteir tender by £46 more thaii Wrigley and Rose. Mr Meredith, on seeing the lists, decided to deal with Messrs Williams and Barker, but no definite arrangement' has yet been made. Had the reductions of Wrigley and Rose come within—not ten shillings—but even a few pounds of Williams and Barker's, probably Mr Meredith would have dealt with tlioin.' I informed Mr' Wrigley accordingly the first time I saw him after reeiving Mr Meredith's decision. The grievances of Messrs Wrigloy and Rose are that if they had known the name or names of those they were tendering against, they would have made greater reductioiis-thatono speaks for itselfand, that I should havo ignored their interpretation of a trade usagdki'd consulted the interests of rather than theirs, In private architectural tending it is not usual to call for fresh tenders, unless material alterations are made in the plans. In this case nono had been decided upon. ' The average number of tenders received by me over/ the past two years is four. As to tho reasons certain contractors do not tender for work advertised by me, it concerns me not at all, so long' as two orjthree thoroughly competent men do so." 1-pass by Mr Wrigley's concluding insinuation with the contempt it deserves. lam, &0., Geo. Fannin.

(advt.) THE BUILDERS'GRIEVANCE.

REPLY TO MR FANNIN,

To the Editor,

_ SIR.-It is the wish, of the builders interested in fair play re mi brought out by Mr Geo, Fannin, thJs reply f 0 his denial of certain facts appearing in my first letter, and as Mr Fannin says "let tho public judge for themselves." First and foremost the tender of Wrigley and Rose is acknowledged as being the lowest. On Mr Fannin receiving intruetions from Mr Meredith to privately arrange for certain reductions, ho furnishes tho items to Wrigley and Hose, and receives their ptice openly. He'then suddenly takes upon himself that Mr Meredith might wish to see what reduction Williams and Barker would make on the same items'." He then says he did not inform Williams and Barker what reductions Wrigley and Rose had made; but suffico it to say that Williams and Barker knew they had to compete with Wrigley and Rose, which is giving one contractor tho advantage ovor another or in other words, throwing the work into their hands, and probably (No, I won't because the bigger the truth, the bigger the libel.) On the day tenders closed, I went to Mr Fannju's office to' see who was tho successful tenderer, and found Mr Barker and Mr Fannin in esrnest conversation. On my entorjntf, Mr Barker rose to leave, and I asked him if they had got the work, and, although knowing tlieir tondei- was ncAio lowest his reply was " I don't knowTet." This alone is enough to damn the wholo affair in the eyes of a right thinking public. Mr Fannin, in finishing his letter, has the courage (or what in the colony is generally termed " front") to say as to tk reasons certain contractors do not tender for work advertised by me, it concern me not at all, as long as two or three competent men do so." Alas I poor proprietor. Butfeisto bo hoped that parties about to bulhvill look at it in a very different light, and have their plans drawn by an architect who has the confidence of" all" the contractors and sub-contractors in the placo, to ensure fair, honest, and above board, competition. This is not the first time Mr Fannin has overstepped competent men to placo work in the hands of the Barae firm, but, as 1 have to pay for this space, it is enough for the present. 1 am, Ac., Thos. Wriqiey, Contractor.

[Advt.] ma BUILDERS' GRI^ANCE. MR. FANNIN'S SECOND REPLY.

To the Editor.

Sir,-Mr Thomas Wrigley is ovidently throwing mud in tho hope that some of it will stick to me, but it wjll fall back o> himself, All rie;ht-miiided me* will know what to think of an indiviaVll who j grounds a base insinuation on thecfamm.stance of meeting a rival contractor in my office. Mr Barker came on tho same errand as Mr Wrigley himself, ,and to consult me about other work in hand. As to Mr Meredith's, 1 told him who the lowest tenderers were, but not the amount of, or difference in tenders, and W9 had no further conversation on the Hubjecfc. As for any off-hand reply made by Mr Barker to Mr Wrjiley, he can explain it for himsolf. Once for all, I will say that I was quite prepared to work with Messrs Wrigley and Rose or any other contractor who should happen to be the successful tenderer, andkao far from endeavoring to prevent Jtißs Wrigley and Rose from obtaining the contract in question, I went out of my way. to give them an opportunity of getting it, for Mr Meredith's instructions to me were to privately obtain prices for the work as a whole from other contractors— riot, to privately.arrange for wrjain,'redactions, 1 as Mr Wrigley'pdts; $ fought itbutfanf.ftgw.e the lowest* tenderer another. cha,nce,' an.d madWta list of djt%& prj whichreduotiousxjquld bemado.-If jsbV