consultants stated that they did not have sufficient reasons to believe that they should initiate action on designing the levels of the watermains. The mainlaying consultants claimed they were not aware of the proposed road widening because they were not so informed when supervision of the contract was handed over to them. (It is noted in this connection that in October 1980, shortly after they took over supervision of the mainlaying contract, that the mainlaying consultants had been supplied with two drawings by the roadworks consultants which showed that there would be a future carriageway adjacent to the existing one.) The Director of Water Supplies did not respond to the mainlaying consultants' letter of July 1982 until January 1985, some 2 years later, when he requested the consultants to supply details as to how the final surface as specified in the contract documents had been determined. He noted that the contract drawings supplied to the mainlaying consultants did not give precise information on the reference datum from where the one metre cover should be taken and as there was an item in the bill of quantities for bulk excavation for the removal of illegal dumping, it was not possible for the consultants, without reference to the Water Supplies Department or the roadworks consultants, to determine the final surface. After a further exchange of correspondence the Director expressed the view in May 1985 in a letter to the mainlaying consultants, that the conflicting and incorrect statements and explanations made by them indicated that there had been no proper and sound basis for determining the levels for pipelaying, as it appeared that their objective was to "dig a trench and bury the pipe" and that other considerations had been completely overlooked and ignored during pipelaying. The matter has not yet been resolved.
209.
The discovery of insufficient cover of the watermains in June 1982 was made during the construction stage of the roadworks contract rather than the design stage. This resulted, in addition to the cost of re-laying the watermains, in substantial claims for delays and disruption of work by the roadworks contractor, which would have been avoided had the insufficient cover been known during the design stage. In April 1981 the roadworks consultants had forwarded drawings to the Director of Water Supplies requesting information regarding the watermains prior to the letting of the roadworks contract, but the vertical profile of the watermains was not specifically requested. The roadworks consultants held the view that checking on the depth of the watermains at the design stage was not necessary as the criterion of one metre cover from the future road level had been firmly established with the Water Supplies