68
sumably due to the changes in the roof plan, which entailed the heightening of the interior walls. The remaining $59,555 covers the cost of alterations and additions made in working out the plans, the principal itens being $14,567 for encasing the iron columns and girders. in concrete. $11.000 for the substitution of iron for timber purlins in the roof, $6.075 for sanitary fittings, and $5,638 for the provision of letter boxes for boxholders. The balance is distributed over numerous small requirements not originally provided for. In view of these facts the Committee finds that the excess of actual over anticipated expenditure has teen chiefly caused by numerous alterations of, and additions to, the original plans, the necessity for which in many cases should have been foreseen. Foresight in anticipating requirements would have reduced the discrepancy between actual and estimated expenditure but, except as regards the clock tower, it has not been demonstrated that there has been excessive expenditure on the work done.
5. As regards the clock tower the Committee finds that avoidable expenditure was incurred. The tower was first of all built up to the level of the third storey in granite, and carried up in brick to the level of the top parapet. Not until then did the Public Works De- partiment go into the question of the adequacy of a tower built partly of brick, to stand the weight of the proposed superstructure above the level of the roof. The question being then gone into, without reference to the Architects, it was decided to pull down that portion of the walls built of brick and to substitute granite. The expense of building up these brick walls, and of pulling them down again, might clearly have been avoided by an earlier study of this most important question.
6. Summarising the main facts appearing in evidence furnished by the witnesses examined, viz., Mr. Chatham, Director of Public Works, Mr. Fisher. Executive Engineer, and Mr. Ram of Messrs. Denison, Ram and Gibbs, the Consulting Architects, the Committee finds that:---
(1.) Increase of cost was due (inter alia) to conditions of the labour market,. additions and alterations to plans and specifications which were approved by. Government including various alterations on account of the clock tower, and to quantities being in excess of the original calculations. The total cost was not on the whole excessive having in view the style of construction. This leaves out of consideration loss of interest, of rent of old Post Office building. &c., entailed by the delay and any further clain which may yet be established by the Contractor arising out of the same cause.
(2.) The delay could have been avoided. The chief causes were as follows:-
(7.) Detention by the Director of Public Works of the roof plans for a period of
over two years, after which they were rejected.
(b.) Differences of opinion between the Architects and the Executive Engineer as to what drawings were required and also as to certain constructional requirements.
(c.) The strained relations that existed between the Architects and Mr. Fisher, the Executive Engineer in charge of the work for most of the time.
7. There were employed on the work (a) a firm of Consulting Architects who state that they were hardly ever consulted about changes in the plans and who also complain about the attitude of certain of the Public Works Department employees: (6) The Director of Public Works whose time was more than occupied on other matters and who therefore was unable to supervise the work with promptitude and (c) the Executive Engineer who complains of defectiveness in the plans furnished by the Architects on the one hand and of indifference on the part of the Director of Public Works on the other, he himself having no real executive power, while his criticisms were ignored and he was furnished with insufficient assistance in carrying out the work.
8. (a) Mr. Fisher stated that he had to do a large amount of work in the way of drawings, &c., which formed no part of his proper duty; (b) Mr. Fisher received instruc- tions from the Director of Public Works which were liable to misconstruction, and as to the carrying out of which, the Director of Public Works never subsequently made any enquiry; (e) The position thus created was not conducive either to the efficient, or expeditious, carrying out of the work. If it had been entrusted either to an efficient Executive Engineer, or to the Architects who designed the building, no delay need have occurred,