Vol. 213 No. 3
asked the Minister for Finance (1) whether the work of converting Templemore Military Barracks into a Garda Training Headquarters has been completed; (2) what was the original estimate of cost; (3) what will be the actual cost of the completed work; (4) what is the amount of architects' and quantity surveyors' fees; and (5) why it was thought desirable to do this work by open-end contract rather than through the Contracts Division of the Office of Public Works.
36.
asked the Minister for Finance the estimated fee to be charged by the architects and quantity surveyors for the reconstruction of Templemore Military Barracks; and what was the original estimate.
37.
asked the Minister for Finance what was the original estimated cost of converting Templemore Military Barracks into a Garda training centre; what is the likely total cost; whether a fixed price clause was included in the reconstruction contract; if not why; and whether complete final plans and specifications were completed and available before work was commenced.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 35, 36 and 37 together.
By the second half of 1960, it had become clear that because of the impending resignation on age grounds of many members of the Garda Síochána, the provision of extended and improved training facilities was a matter of great urgency. While it would have been possible to carry out a scheme of reconstruction at the Depot in the Phoenix Park, this would be a major undertaking, and would have involved the provision of a temporary alternative training centre, which obviously would have been a difficult and costly matter. In these circumstances, and in view of the desirability of decentralisation, it was decided to transfer the training centre to Templemore. As the pressure of existing commitments on the professional staff of the Office of Public Works made it impossible for them to handle the project in the time required, it was not possible to follow the normal practice of having the work planned and contracted for by that Office. In the circumstances, a firm of private architects, together with a quantity surveyor and heating and lighting consultants were appointed by the Department of Justice to prepare the necessary plans and specifications, etc., and to supervise the execution of the work.
It was considered that the work could most expeditiously be carried out by means of a contract providing for a schedule of rates, with bills of approximate quantities. This, I am advised, is a type of contract commonly used for, and particularly suited to, a project of the kind involved here, and its adoption ensured the commencement of the scheme with a minimum of delay. Specifications and adequate plans were available at the time tenders were sought, but, in accordance with the invariable practice in all major building contracts, supplementary detailed drawings were prepared for the information and guidance of the contractor as the work progressed.
Based on the lowest acceptable tender received, it was estimated that the total cost of the work, as initially contracted for, would amount to about £385,000, exclusive of architectural, etc., fees, which were estimated at approximately £41,000, made up as follows:—
|
Architects' fees |
£24,500 |
|
Quantity Surveyors' fees |
11,000 |
|
Heating and Lighting Consultants' fees |
5,500 |
|
£41,000 |
The fees were calculated at the minimum rates laid down by the relevant professional associations.
The present estimated cost of the works which have, in the main, been completed amounts to £576,500, exclusive of professional fees.
Of the estimated increase of, approximately, £191,000 over the figure of £385,000 referred to earlier, about £150,000 is due to additional works which had not originally been included in the contract but which, from the initiation of the project, had been in contemplation, and which were, in the final analysis, considered by the Department of Justice to be essential to the provision of a fully-efficient and up-to-date training centre. These works, which were carried out at the rates provided for in the contract, included the provision of a swimming pool, open and covered handball-alleys, basketball courts, rifle-range, bedding-store, driving school, etc. The balance of £41,000 is accountable to increases in wages and the prices of materials, which occurred subsequent to the placing of the contract, and to variations in the extent of the work actually executed—for example, on the structure's being opened up, it was found that ceiling joists on the top floors were defective and had to be replaced, spine walls to stairs had to be rebuilt, and brick arches at landings had to be replaced in concrete. A price variation clause is, of course, a standard provision in building contracts.
As the amount of the professional fees payable in respect of a contract is calculated by reference to the final cost of the work, the initial figure of £41,000 has to be increased. It is now estimated that the appropriate figure will be in the region of £60,000, made up as follows:
|
Architects' fees |
£35,000 |
|
Quantity Surveyors' fees |
15,000 |
|
Heating and Lighting Consultants' fees |
10,000 |
|
£60,000 |
The exact amount cannot, however, be given until the final account for the project has been settled.
While the total expenditure involved may seem high, I am satisfied that, taking into account the amount of work which had to be carried out, it was in no way excessive or unreasonable, and when regard is had to the benefits accruing from the decentralisation of such an important branch of the State service as the Garda Training Depot, it cannot be disputed that the cost of the scheme is justified in the extreme.
I might, perhaps, add that it has been estimated that, at a minimum, the present-day cost of providing new accommodation and facilities similar to those which are now available in Templemore would be of the order of £800,000, exclusive of professional fees and the cost of a suitable site.
It is essential that first-class facilities should be provided, but could the Parliamentary Secretary say why such a substantial amount, £150,000, of supplementary costs were found necessary after work had commenced on the building? Surely it means that a very important part of the building had been omitted in the original planning? Why did it become evident only at a very late stage that this very expensive and probably necessary addition was required? Whose fault was it?
There appears to be a certain amount of confusion on this matter. There certainly was confusion when the matter was before the Committee on Public Accounts. I should like to explain in regard to the reconstruction and the renovation of the existing building that the original tender was £202,000. Increases in wages and materials came to £12,500. The only variation or "extra", in building parlance, in the £202,000 was £3,850. This is in regard to the old work. The new building provided for in the original contract came to £82,000. Wage and materials increases took £5,500 extra. The only variation in that contract was the reasonable amount of £2,028. In the mechanical services subcontract, the original estimate was £100,738. Wage increases involved an extra of £5,000. The variation entailed an extra £5,007—a little over five per cent. During the progress of the contract there were additional new works which were not planned originally but were envisaged. These works, as I have already read out, included an indoor swimming pool, an indoor and outdoor ball alley, basket ball courts, rifle range, a driving school, a bedding-store, underground petrol tanks and washing bay, garage equipment and hoists. That was not in the original contract. It was a completely new contract.
Why was it not in the first set-up?
Cannot the Deputy listen to me? I will explain the position.
He doth protest too much.
I am trying to establish the fact that the increases in this contract were quite normal, not at all exorbitant and, in the main, less than five per cent. It is pretty good in a substantial contract that the increases for extras amount to only about five per cent. The contract for these new works—swimming pool, ball alleys and what I have read out—was for £104,000. Wage increases imposed a statutory obligation on us to pay an extra £12,522, including materials. That was unavoidable also. In regard to the mechanical services contract, additions consequent on the indoor swimming pool and the other things I have read out cost £24,000; the requirements of the fire officer; maintenance of boiler plant and so on came to £14,000; the increase under the price variation clause amounted to £2,450. I trust I have shown that there was confusion in the Committee of Public Accounts and that these variations were quite reasonable.
In view of the fact that the original estimate for this work came to £426,000, including £41,000 of fees, and the final cost up to now is £636,000, including an increase in the fees of 50 per cent, raising the figure to £60,000, does the Parliamentary Secretary think it desirable in future enterprises of this kind to by-pass the Contracts Department of the Board of Works or does he not believe that it would be a better administration of public money if the proper machinery of the Board of Works——
It would not be there yet.
Take that up with your colleague. Does he not think it would be a better administration of public money if the proper machinery of the Board of Works for the protection of the public purse should be employed and if as the Minister for Agriculture now, who was Minister for Justice when this matter was put in hands, says that if the matter had been left in the Parliamentary Secretary's hands it would still be there in the planning stage, would the Parliamentary Secretary take up with the Minister for Agriculture the view he has expressed of the competence of the Parliamentary Secretary?
The Deputy is definitely misleading the House.
When Deputy Dillon reads these figures he will understand that in respect of the original contract of £385,000 the approximate final cost was £419,000. Of that sum only £10,000 was an extra on variation in the contract—£10,885 on a contract of £385,000. Of this amount there was an increased cost represented by an increase in wages and materials of £23,000 which the contractor was statutorily obliged to pay.
I may further add that my Office, which was in close contact with the developments on this contract, were cognisant of instances which took place in the past and which were commented on by the Committee of Public Accounts as far as the affairs of my Office were concerned. We were deeply conscious of the fact that in 1951, for instance, when the Coalition Government decided to acquire Shelton Abbey for use as a Forestry School a contract was placed at that time for £2,899. The work was finally completed at a cost of £110,000. We were also aware that in November, 1949, a tiny breach occurred in embankments protecting the tidal waters of a tributary of the River Shannon in Clare and it was estimated that the repair of the breach would cost £445. By the time the Government of the day made up their minds the final cost was £101,048. Of course, we were also aware of the necessity to watch these matters carefully because we recalled that in 1948 there was a dredging plant that consisted of a bucket dredger, a pontoon dredger and four barges purchased from a local authority for £6,000 and an expenditure of £4,300 was incurred on towage, dry-docking and watching. The plant was to be overhauled and auxiliary equipment was to be purchased to make the plant an effective working unit. The original estimated cost of rendering the plant fit for service, including the purchase of auxiliary plant, was £33,000. The final estimate amounted to £126,000. Two of the barges sank on the way to Dublin.
With all these interesting statistics before him, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would find the explanation as to why his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, would not entrust to the Board of Works this work for fear it would never get done?
I did not want to interrupt their school building programme. That is why.
There are a variety of alibis, one more malodorous than another, but the net fact remains: does the Minister for Finance think it desirable hereafter that a contract which begins at a figure of £426,000 and is still going at £636,000 involving an increase from £41,000 to £60,000——
There are two separate contracts.
——in the professional fees is a desirable way of carrying out public building in this country?
It would be desirable that Deputies would listen to the figures.
It is a scandal. The Minister for Finance knows it is a scandal.
Why does the Deputy want to confuse the Dáil?
There are 70 other Questions on the Paper.
Arising out of the long reply of the Parliamentary Secretary and the figures he has quoted for other contracts, may I ask does it mean that the Government have taken the standard that was operated on these contracts for any further contracts and that because they allege that the Inter-Party Government incurred certain expenditure the Minister for Finance is entitled to go to the limit? The only reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should quote these figures is to show that this Minister was slightly better than or at least as good as, the other one.
Not slightly but a whole lot.
The reason I quoted the figures was to show how assiduous and attentive to the matter the Office was on this occasion. In fact, I have established beyond yea or nay that the increases in these very substantial contracts were in the main less than five per cent—an excellent achievement and quite remarkable, as any building contractor will agree.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary regard it as nugatory?
Do your homework.
There are 70 other questions. Question No. 38.
