The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-02-11

II will be that there are twenty one speci6.
cations, or items, IN relation to the marble work,
for which proposals were invited, one complete
and entire bid. Mr.. c., above stated did not
in his bid, embrace beds and bills, although
there were two specifications for them the printed
form; specific estimate being required for each
item, as protection to all parties in case of a VA
rance Of quantities, and which could be effect
ed by bid OF a gross sum for the whole work. By
reason OF this omission, according To the well
established rules OF government contracts and III
justice 10 other bids, Mr.. C.s bid should not have
been received by the Architect, but declared in
formal. If Mr.. c. intended to embrace the cost Of
those two items in the aggregate amount Of his
bid, why did not an explanatory note n that effect
accompany IL. Without such an explanation, how
were these items, amounting to the sum Of s 900
or $4,000, to be considered embraced in the ag-
gregate! The danger and injustice Of such bids
are manifest. If accepted in such form, and the
contract be made at the prices attached TO each
specification, IL would leave the omitted items be
paid for as extra. II the bid be entertained, and
the omissions be permitted 10 be received after the
bids oil others are opened or talked about by the
bidders themselves, how easy to place the omitted
items at such price as will secure the bid or, If
necessary, charge not even a nominal price, but
declare them as in the present case be embraced
in the general aggregate The Architect, however,
TO give Mr.. C.'s bid standing before him, supplied
rate estimated for by hs other bidders. Was there
iilberalty or glaring fraud in this'
We now proceed, with the above tables before
the reader, 70 show who was the lowest bidder
7l2 76i, between the sum allowed the undersigned
for work already executed according the prices OF
their bid, and what would have been allowed
der bis bid, showing, he asserts, a loss 10 the
Government OF that amount. This difference IL
made out by two expedients, one by emitting any
charge for beds and bills, amounting, at the rate
liked by the Architect, to the sum Of S3,351 90,
and which, explained above, could but be in
serted IN sheer justice TO other bids IL his bid
10 be entertained at all.
The other eIpedient is by showing the differ
ence between our charges and his, on five certain
items OF the work now in part executed; and more
unblushing, fraudulent perversion Of the truth 90
mislead the public could not have been presented.
Our table Of specifications and estimates exhibits
bid Tor. The price or estimates Of these several
items vary according 10 their character Some
items are comparatively small regards the guam
titles and total cost others large in both respects.
The bids Invited and the contract entered into en-
brace the whole marble work from the beginning 10
the completion Of the wings Some items for
work commencing with the building, and continu-
ing almost through it's entire progress; others at
different stages Of the work, aud some not until
nearly its completion. In relation to these items
our estimates and those Of Mr. c. in some instances
approximate closely, and in others differ widely,
and this diversity runs through all according 10
sound notions Of what the work could be done for
To illustrate the foregoing remarks, (and the
reader ~ earnestly requested TO examine them aud
the illustration,) We will take two examples from
our respective bids Cube stone per superficial foot
at Mr. C's. bid 8 49,, at our bid 81 %. Another:
Steps TO stand inside, superficial foot, 81 rs at Mr..
Cs bid, s ~ atours. Both Of these items amount
IN their respective aggregates to large sums. In
the hrst example Mr. G. Il the lowest bidder; in the
second the undersigned. The former commenced
and progresses with the building until lie walls arc