sign-in
Home
/
Wheat (1) - Part 2
/
Image 170
Wheat (1) - Part 2
Image 170
image 71 of 100
If you need a symbol, fraction or a wider dash please highlight, copy (Ctrl C) and paste (Ctrl V): £ — ¼ ½ ¾ ⅓ ⅔ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ⊚ 🡹 /|\
3614. Yes?—They did get it on that basis. 3615. I notice the £9,000 has been put in since. The first agreement was turned down; that was the one signed by Mr. Johnson?—Yes. 3616. Then they came over here afterwards and fixed up another agreement which the Premier did not sign because he went out of office?—That is so. 3617. It says here—and you were present at this meeting— Messrs. Pearse, Stevens, Lord and Sutton, with myself as chairman. Mr B. F. Cox (representative of Messrs. Metcalf & Co.) was also present and explained that the agreement as submitted by the Minister for signature did not clearly convey what was agreed on the 10th April, 1916, which indicated that all the terminal elevators might be regarded as one type, as he and Mr. Durham had considered that each of the elevators at a terminal port was to be regarded as a distinct unit. The agreement, as submitted, would be unsatisfactory and totally unprofitable to their company. He asked that an alteration in the draft agreement be made so as to provide for each of the terminal elevators to be a distinct unit, and that the scale for alterations be increased as follows:—For alterations not exceeding 25 per cent. of the total cost of the elevator—three per cent. of the total cost of the altered portion only. For alterations exceeding 25 per cent. but not exceeding 50 per cent. of the total cost of the elevator, the additional cost to be one per cent. of the total cost of the elevator. For alterations exceeding 50 per cent. of the total cost of the elevator, commission to be three per cent. of the total cost of the elevator. Also in the event of Parliament approving of the agreement but not proceeding with the works for two years, that the agreement be void only as far as supervision and construction are concerned. After considerable discussion it was decided to recommend that an agreement be entered into, agreeing that three terminal elevators would be treated as distinct units, even though two or more might be somewhat similar types. If the plans for a fourth elevator were required, and one of the three already constructed was suitable for the fourth, no additional payment ( other than that provided for in the clause relating to alterations ) would be paid. A proposal to increase the rate for alterations was not agreed to, nor was the request to have the cancellation of the agreement limited to construction and supervision only, but the time for the commencement of the work was increased from two to three years. A draft copy embodying these alterations agreed upon has been prepared by the Solicitor General, and is hereby submitted with a recommendation for your signature. They agreed to carry out their work on a three per cent. basis?—Is not a lump sum mentioned there? 3618. No?—Does it not say when the orders for different elevators were to be given? 3619. That is the final meeting you had . It was submitted to Cabinet and approved of. I am confident it never was, but that is by the way. That was the arrangement to carry out the work on the three per cent. basis?—And two per cent. supervision. 3620. Your report came in after that —the report I was referring to?—The Fremantle zone, yes.It was to show how the thing would act. 3621. You prepared a schedule of the Fremantle zone and also on the whole State?—For the total cost, five million bushels and 15 million bushels. 3622. So that if the elevators cost here on the five million bushels £264,000 as stated by you, we should only have for supervision £6,634 under the agreement arranged?—I should like to refresh my memory on what I based my figures, whether on the Victorian figures. 3623. On a cost of £264,000. This is the report you gave Mr. Mitchell?—That is right. 3624. But under the new agreement you would have to pay £9,000 and in addition, two per cent. for supervision?—The £9,000 came in this way : they have to design the emergency silos. The emergency and bulk handling silos are different, and to pay for the extra designs the £9,000 came in. It means seven different distinct types instead of four under the original. 3625. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: What do you mean by distinct types, different sizes for different places?—There were three terminals and one country elevator under the original and under the other—I cannot exactly remember, but they were charging for emergency silos. 3626. Were not all the silos to be part of the bulk handling scheme ultimately?—Was not that the idea all through?—Yes but they would not budge. 3627. Although you call them emergency, they would be portion of the scheme ultimately?—you could not design those unless you considered the whole scheme. 3628. The emergency silos are really parts of the whole when the machinery is added. There is no difference in the construction of the bins for those than the others?—There would be handling houses; a lot of them would only be handling houses. 3629. By the CHAIRMAN: Under the new conditions they had to provide for four country elevators and one terminal?—That is under the new scheme, but what about the emergency; does it not mention the emergency? 3630. The report of the conference reads— The outcome of the conference was that Messrs. Metcalf & Co. require £9,000 as remuneration for the preparation by them of plans for a terminal elevator, having a capacity of one million to one and a half million bushels at Fremantle; and the plans of four type country elevators, having capacities respectively of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, and 100,000 bushels. The estimated cost of these buildings is £267,000 at present rates of material. As, however, it is not immediately proposed to introduce the bulk handling system, but only to construct reinforced concrete storage bins to temporarily tide over the difficulty ib preserving the wheat until shipping is available, it was pointed out by Mr. Carter that double work would be required on these plans. In order that the temporary storage bins should eventually form part of the permanent bulk handling scheme, it would be necessary to design the permanent works first, and then provide for the temporary bins afterwards incoorperated in the permanent work, and also temporary machinery for these bins. This will probably increase the estimated cost up to about £ 300,000. The usual professional fee for the preparation of plans and specifications, estimates, calling for tenders, etc., is three per cent. on the contract price. That is how the £ 9,000 required by Messrs. Metcalf & Co. is arrived at. They are not supplying estimates?—They will give detailed estimates where required. Mr. Carter showed me what they did for New South Wales and the estimates were very full there. 3631. New South Wales paid them extra for them?—Yes, where they asked for special estimates. There is £1,000 in dispute, but I do not think they are going to be paid. 3632. They would not sign the agreement?—They thought probably detailed estimates of everything that came along would be asked for, and of course those could not be supplied. Generally speaking, however, they gave detailed estimates. 3633. So far as the agreement is concerned they will be paid now £9,000 whether the whole of the work for these country elevators is carries out or not?—The plans are to be prepared. 3634. Have any of these plans been prepared up to the present time?—No. Instructions have not been given to them. 3635. What do they mean by having a clause put into the agreement making provision for the payment of work in case Parliament should turn down the agreement?—They felt that if they went on with the work, or if they designed it, they would not be paid for it. I would not give them any instructions at all. They concluded that when i was sent over there that the Government intended to pass the agreement, so as to have everything ready the Government asked me to arrange for the calling of tenders for the steel. Their object, of course, was to save time. We (Metcalf and myself) had to settle the question of unit size bins. We found that the 50,000-bushel bin would not be suitable for Western Australian requirements, and after a trial the 40,000-bushel bin was
Save edits
prev
|
next
|
all images
|
history