113
claimed for this unusual arrangement are a saving of about £500 in salary; and the securing of the services of Mr Gibbs, a member of the firm, who is stated to be a very suitable person.
5. The pecuniary saving may we think be left out of consideration, for a very small want of care or errors of judgment on the part of the engineers will more than absorb the sum saved, which is only 13 per cent on the estimated cost of the work. Moreover a degree of supervision must we should imagine be exercised over the firm which would not be necessary in the case of an Engineer in the service of the Government, and the cost of this supervision must be set against the saving, referred to.
6. The proposal that the firm should be remunerated by a percentage on their outlay seems to us unsound, and we fully agree with Mr Chadwick that this system of payment should not be adopted. In ordinary contract work, a fair fixed price having been agreed upon, all matters of organisation and economy in construction fall upon the contractor, his profits depending upon his success in this respect; while his principals rely upon supervision to ensure that the work shall be properly done, and in practice such supervision can to a large extent be made effective. Under the proposed percentage system the contractors have not the same motive for scamping, but they have no interest in keeping down the cost of the work, and the Government supervision must be mainly directed to this end, which we hardly think will be found practicable. Any attempts by the Director of Public Works to interfere with the number, wages or organisation of staff or workmen will be met by the argument that the contractors cannot be responsible for
-2-
the