-5-
170
I do not know that this would be an economic proceeding, and
the accounts show that beyond the actual cost of thepipe and
the length, there would be very little saving on the contract,
and other expenses would remain the same, and the reduction
for one pipe instead of two is small. In the future, when the
additional pipe was put in, the whole of the overhead charges would
have to be borne again, which wouldmake the cost of the two
pipes laid at different times very heavy, and it is more
economical to lay two pipes in the first instance.
TIME.
On the question of time, the tenderers are
practically the same. It is too late to rely on the ensuing
working season, and they state that they cannot before the
beginning of the next laying season accumulate the plant and
material, but once it is on the ground they can complete within
six months. I think this is important, as no good purpose
would be served in having part of the pipes or plant on the
ground and the possibility of the work being held up owing to
non-delivery of plant and materials. My own view is that it will
be more expeditious to employ the time up to the beginning of
next season in accumulating the plant and getting ready and
no start should be made with the actual laying until everything
is ready on the site. Incidentally also, this would spread the
expenses over two financial years instead of one as itwould
have done if the work could have been constructed before next
April.
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
•
Both Contractors object to certain clauses in
the General Conditions, and those objected to by Messrs.
Armstrong are set out in their letter of the 30th September,
1925 These objections would be a matter for your Solicitors
who are responsible for the clauses questioned, and it will
be necessary before any tender can be accepted to have such
mutually adjusted.