CO129-509-15 Water supply- development scheme 30-1-1928 - 17-1-1929 — Page 172

-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.