§ Mr. CROFTasked—(1) whether a preferential opportunity was given to the C. O. Burns Company for tendering for 100,000 home safes; whether the C. O. Burns Company went into bankruptcy; and whether, contrary to Clause 11 (b), Mr. C. O. Burns has secured the contract under the name of the Fiscus Company; (2) whether, since the bankruptcy of C. O. Burns Company, who had secured the contract for home safes, fresh tenders were 609 asked for or whether the contract was given to Fiscus, Limited, without fresh tenders being invited?
§ Mr. NEWMANasked what was the number of home safes for which tenders were originally called; the number of firms that tendered; the date on which the contract was awarded; whether such contract was subsequently amended; and whether, before such alteration was made, the firms originally tendering were afforded the opportunity of tendering afresh on the amended terms?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELTenders were invited by advertisement in a number of newspapers for the supply of home safes in quantities of not less than 5,000 at a time, and the quotation of alternative prices was invited for supplies in excess of 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, and 100,000. Twenty-five firms tendered. The pattern safes were submitted to me, and I was of the opinion, which was shared by all the officers of my Department who were consulted, that that offered by the C. O. Burns Company was one of the very few which were fully suited for the purpose in view. Their lender was considerably lower at every stage than that of any other firm for a satisfactory safe. It was accepted on 15th October. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion in the questions that any preferential opportunity was given to this firm. In negotiations respecting the details of the contract it was ascertained that if an initial order for 100,000 safes were given the company would make a further slight reduction in the prices they had quoted for that number, and I, of course, accepted that offer. It was agreed at the time that the contract should be executed in the United Kingdom by a British company to be formed by Mr. Burns. The fact that the C. O. Burns Company, of New York, have since gone into liquidation does not affect the execution of the contract by the British company so formed, and I am advised that the provision of Clause 11 (b) in the tender form to which the hon. Member refers does not in any way preclude the course which has been adopted. I see no reason to reopen the matter.
§ Mr. CROFTMay I ask whether it is not an absolute fact that the C. O. Burns Company were asked to tender for the safes, and whether, having regard to the fact that the firm went into bankruptcy the contract was continued contrary to the Clause?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe C. O. Burns Company was one of the firms that sent in a tender in reply to the advertisement. They were not specially asked for a tender. The tender of the C. O. Burns Company was accepted on the understanding that it was to be executed by a British Company in this country. There is, therefore, no ground for objection to the Post Office having consented to the tender being executed by such company formed by Mr. C. O. Burns. Although the C. O. Burns Company which originally tendered has since that date gone into liquidation the clause to which the hon. Member refers does not in any way preclude this arrangement.
§ Mr. NEWMANIs it not the fact that the new company was not registered at Somerset House until a considerable time after the C. O. Burns Company had gone into bankruptcy, and will the right hon. Gentleman consult the "Financial News" as to the date?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI really have no reason for thinking that the British Company, which is formed to carry out the tender, is not fully in a position to carry out its contract.