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

1t will be seen that there twenty. one specif.
cations, or items, IN relation to the marble work,
for which proposals were invited, as one complete
and entire bid. Mr.. c., as above stated, did not,
in his bid, embrace beds and bills, although
there were two specifications for them in the printed
form; specific estimate being required for each
item, protection to all parties in case of VA
rance OF quantities, and which could not be effect
ed by bid OF gross sum for the whole work. BY
reason OF this omission, according TO the well
established rules OF government contracts and in
justice To other bids, Mr. Ca bid should not have
been received by the Architect, but declared in
formal. II Mr. c. intended to embrace the cost of
those two items in the aggregate amount of his
bid, why did not explanat tory note n that effect
accompany il. Without such an explanation, how
were these items, amounting to the sum of S. 900
or $1,000, to be considered embraced in the ag-
gregates 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 TO be
paid for as extra. II the bid be entertained and
the omissions be permitted to be received after the
bids OF others are opened talked about by the
bidders themselves, how easy to place the omitted
items at such price will secure the bid, or, if
necessary, charge not even a nominal price, but
declare them as In the present to be embraced
ia the general aggregate. The Architect, however,
to give Mr. Cs bid standing before him, supplied
the omitted items, fixing the prices at the acreage
rate estimated for by the other bidders Was there
illiberalty or glazing fraud in this,
We now proceed, with the above tables before
the reader, 70 show who was the lowest bidder.
Mr. u, IN his table, exhibits difference of S4,-
1l2 76i, between the sum allowed the undersigned
for work already executed according to the prices OF
their bid, and what would have been allowed
der bis bid, showing, he asserts, loss to 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, as explained above, could but be in
serted in sheer Justice to other bids il his bid was
to be entertained at all.
The other expcdient is by showing the differ
ence between our charges and his, on five certain
items oil the work now in part executed; and moro
unbushing, fraudulent perverson of the truth 10
mlslead the public could not have been presented.
Our table of specifications and estimates exhibits
twenty-one distinct items of work required to be
bid for The price estimates Of these several
items vary according TO 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 TO
the completion Of the wings Some items are for
work commencing with the building, and continu-
ing almost through its entire progress; others at
Inherent stages OF the work, and 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 TINS diversity runs through all according 10
sound notions OF what the work could be done for.
10 illustrate the foregoing remarks, (and the
reader Is earnestly requested TO examine them aud
the illustration,) we will take two examples from
our respective bids Cube stone per superficial foot
Steps 10 stand inside, superficial foot, 81 rs at Mr.
Cs bid, 81 % atours. Both Of these items amount
IN their respective aggregates to large sums. In
the hrst example Mr. c. Is the lowest bidder in the
second the undersigned. The former commenced
and progresses with the building until its walls