CO885-(7-8) — Page 553

134

9. I note that you are instructed to observe that "If no drawing whatever had been supplied, the indent for the joists in question was both clear and complete, it stated all the dimensions and the firm from which they were to be procured." And you add "The absence of dimensions from the drawing was, therefore, perfectly justi- fied." With reference to this I would observe that when rolled joists are required to fit in with structural cast-iron, they almost invariably require drilling,mitring, and other preparation, and that consequently had a drawing not been supplied it would not in face of the note on the indent that the joists were for side verandah entablatures, have been justifiable to proceed with the work. I would also venture to state that your opinion that the absence of dimensions from the drawing was justified would not be shared by anyone of experience in such matters. When ironwork has to be fitted on to a building it does not require technical knowledge to see that exact dimensions are essential, for in case of discrepancy either the ironwork or the building must be altered. In leaving the principal dimensions to be measured from a small scale trac- ing-a process never regarded as accurate the Colony ran serious risk of incurring expense in such alterations, and hence we note with particular satisfaction the con- cluding paragraph of the Colonial Engineer's letter of the 10th May, in which he states that notwithstanding the mengreness of the information given, everything has been correctly sent, a result which we consider creditable to the Inspector.

10. Coming to your second head of complaint, which you express as follows: "It appears that your Inspector, Mr. Wakefield, neglected the direction in the indent that the joists should be obtained from Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company, and erroneously consulted another firm, Messrs. Macfarlane, from whom they were not required." I think we have already forwarded you all available information upon this point. The whole order for joists was first given to Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company, part of it was cancelled in the circumstances already explained; some small joists were also as a matter of convenience cancelled, as explained in Mr. Wakefield's letter of the 28th March, of which you have a copy, and suitable joists were supplied by Messrs. Macfarlane instead. The remainder of the order, comprising by far the larger part of it was, as you will see by reference to the invoice forwarded to you with our letter, B/114/196, of the 7th January, 1898, obtained from Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company. The joists were, however, sent by that firm to Messrs. Macfarlane in order that they might be mitred and perforated by the the latter firm to ensure that they should be perfectly fitted into the work, and hence were shipped by Messrs. Macfarlane.

+

11. At the same time I would point out that it is contrary to the spirit of para- graph 275 of the Colonial Regulations to instruct us to employ any particular firm, discretion in this respect being vested in us by the Secretary of State. Hence had we, in the exercise of such discretion, obtained joists of suitable quality and price from any other firm, the Colony would not have had just ground for complaint.

12. In conclusion we must refer to the Colonial Engineer's Minute of the 1st June, which deals with the cost of the indent. In this we read "The lots are made from stock patterns supplied at quoted rates, and Messrs. Macfarlane and Company should have been called upon to execute the indent at their published rates. This simple procedure does not, however, appear to have been followed by the Crown Agents. Messrs. Macfarlane and Company were invited to tender for supply of ironwork. notwithstanding the fact that the prices were all quoted in a priced catalogue published by that firm." On this passage I would observe in the first place that we have ng standing contract with Messrs. Macfarlane, and hence no power to call upon them to do work at any particular rates. The suggestion of the Colonial Engineer is practi- cally that we should give the order first and let the firm name their price afterwards when rendering their bills, a procedure which would not be conducive to economy and need not be discussed.

13. We do not follow paragraph 7 of the Minute. No wrought-iron articles costing £16 11s. appear in Messrs. Macfarlane's invoice.

14. The Minute would give the impression that a list of parts being given with the requisite catalogue references, all that is necessary is to forward the order to Messrs. Macfarlane, who can then supply them from stock patterns at catalogue prices. In writing thus he has evidently forgotten that not only must constructional ironwork be accurately fitted together, but provision must be made for the connection of the various parts to one another and to the building. Without this the Colony would receive columns to which the superstructure could not be secured; cast-iron girders in lengths unsuitable to their supports; brackets without means of attach-

135

74

ment; gutters which could not support the cresting, and generally a collection of pieces which would require extensive work to be done upon them before they could be used. Thus the Colony would incur much expense in labour and waste in cutting, besides the risk of damage in drilling and fixing the necessary attachments, many of which, after all, would be more or less cobbles. Such a mode of procedure is out of the question. To show that the matter is not so simple as might be supposed from the Minute under consideration, I enclose extracts from letters from Messrs. Macfar- 25 August, Jane setting out in some detail what is covered by their extra charges, information 1898. which could, we think, have been obtained on the spot by a careful comparison of the 8. Septem- work received with the drawings in Messrs. Macfarlane's catalogue. It is common 15 October, knowledge among engineers that catalogue prices only cover plain castings, with no 1898. fitting or provision for fixing, and that large additions have always to be made to them (Not en- to arrive at the total cost of structures.

else1).

15. As regards our own action in the matter, we have already informed you that owing to the scant information given in the requisition, and the necessity of working the design out in detail, : so much time was occupied in preliminaries that the time left available for manufacture was much shortened, your letter of the 21st July, 1897, having particularly requested that the work might be completed during the year. Messrs. Macfarlane's work is usually expensive, and their prices in this case may at first sight appear high. but neither our Inspector nor we considered them unreason- able, having regard to the work to be performed. The only alternative was to resort to competition, but our hands were tied by the urgency of the work and by the fact that the indent gives us no latitude as to patterns, those of Messrs. Macfarlane's cata- logue being specified throughout, so that we were not in a good position to invite competition even had time permitted.

16. There are several firms whose cast-iron work is considered as good as Messrs. Macfarlane's, while their prices are often less. If the Government wishes to take advantage of this and to obtain materials at the lowest possible prices, they should place us in a position to have competition. For this purpose they should forward with the indent a sketch giving all necessary dimensions, and indicating generally the design required, but not specifying any particular maker or catalogue, and they should leave us latitude as fo exact patterns and details, so that competing firms may be able to use their stock patterns, and thus execute the work at a minimum cost. It is also essential that sufficient time be allowed in order that we may be free to take whatever action appears best in the interests of the Colony.

ber, 1898.

}

PUBLE RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

I have, &c.,

M. A. CAMERON.

co

COLONIAL SECRETARY, Straits Settlements, to CROWN AGENTS.

(Crown Agents. 9081/98.)

GENTLEMEN,

Colonial Secretary's Office, Singapore, June 2, 1899.

WITH reference to your letter, No. 542, of 23rd November last, paragraphs 6

and 7, the Colonial Engineer has offered the following explanation :—

"

The joists were ordered for the roof of the verandah to support the entablatures

of the verandah roof, and in default of supply of those ordered from the Crown Agents, these were purchased locally and used for that purpose. See annexed elevation and section of verandah roof, showing position of joists as fixed.

"There is nothing irreconcilable in the two statements in my letters of 18th February and 10th May. The verandah roof was referred to and the verandah roof was meant. There was no justification for eonfusing the joists indented for to support Macfarlane's balcony, for the sea front of the building, with the joists to support the roof and entablatures of the side verandahs."

I have, &c.,

E. BRUDRICK, Colonial Secretary, Straits Settlements.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NÓT TO