The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-03-21


--.-.....................
plans and specifications In the possession G
the committee. The necessity for an exam
ination Of this character only is shown b.
the statement made by Mr.. Archer " tina
the quantity of work offered (by the Trede
gar Company for $3.50, 950) is little If at oil
less than the city would get of Tanner
Co. for S4I, 000." The report OF anothe
engineer equally az competent, which i
embraced in this paper, will enable tn
Council to draw their own conclusions Ii
this matter.
The petitioners next proceed to say
-" Now, we do not assaiI the motives Of any
| one, but there are some circumstances con
neGtcd with the matter which we would dc
Injustice to ourselves not to state in the
strongest terms. We allude to the fact that
the committee showed preference to the
highest bidder by, comforting with them af
ter the bids were opened, thus giving them
an opportunity extended to neither of your
petitioners to explain their plans and
specifications; and we further have all-
thentic information that the committee did
confer with that party about price, and did,
in fact, come to an understanding with Tan.
ner IL Co., unknown at the time to your Pc
titioners, their competitors and lower
l
d Co.'s assent TO reduction of $500 in their
bid and in this your petitioners complain
OF a violation of the sanctity Of sealed pro-
posals, under which they were induced to
| make their tenders to the city. Your petit
| TONERS submit that if it was advisable to
cali in the bidder who charged S47 800 to
reduce his bid to S47 900, it would have
been much more proper to have sent for
the lowest bidder, who offered the work
for 1856, $50, and have made him this COM
municatiOn." We have three bids for this
work from three establishments in this
city-all equally responsible. Their plans
for the holder are substantially the same.
One Of the bidders, however, offers COL
umns we prefer to yours, but his offer Is
much higher than will make up for the diff
ference in the cost. Would you not be
willing to furnish for $4,000 what he asks
81, 900 for?
The statement that "preference was shown
to the highest bidder by comforting with
them, and by giving them an opportunity
to explain their plans and specifications,
and thus violating the sanctity of sealed
proposals." is entirely assumed on the part
of the petitioners nor did the committee
obtain Tanner & Co.'s assent to reduction
+of $500 on their bid.
The best reply to this statement will be
given in the following accurate account of
the proceedings of the committee They
met at Il O'Clock NJ. Some unfinished bust
ness occupied their attention until half
past IL. Every member Of the committee
was then present. One of the drawings
was then unrolIed, and the speciti-
cations belonging thereto carefully read,
every member examining the details as
shown in the drawings and described in the
specifications. After every member was
satisfied with the examination, then the
communication naming the price of the
same was read, discussed, and laid aside.
This course was pursued with the papers
Of each of the bidders LIST, Tanner d Co.
pany 4th, Talbot d SoDs. These exami-
nations occupied the time until haIf.past 4,
there being an average of one hour bestow.
ed upon each set Of papers. During this
time every member OF the committee SEEM
ed only DESTROYS Of mastering the details of
the different plans, and the relative merits
Of each was discussed alone and in compare
son with the others, the only utterances of
personal preference having been made
by two members in favor of others
than the successful bidders. After this thor
ough examination OF the papers, one of the
committee suggested a combination of two
of the plans offered by Tanner & Co., which
was not expressed in either of his offers,
and the price Of which was assumed by
averaging the bids made for two OF his
plans. The advantage OF this combination
elected the approval of other members Of
the committee, and it was agreed to con-
slider the proposal of Messrs. Tanner &
Co. in this form. At the request of one
of the members, the superintendent wrote
note advising Messrs. Tanner & Co.
of the plan, requesting their approval.
As soon as he lett the room with the note,
the chairman, calling attention to the late
ness of the hour, required the vote, the
question being upon the adoption of the
single plans offered respectively by the
Tredegar Company and Messrs. Talbot &
Sons. and the suggested combination Of two
Of the six plans offered by Tanner & Co.
The suggestion being made to vote by bal
lot. it was agreed to, and the three ballots
first read being for Tanner g. Co., the other
ined, thus placing it beyond possibility
for any one member to say how an
other voted. Whatever might have been
the sentiments of the committee indi-
vidually, it was agreed that neither
of them had ever seen an award made
more fairly, and we think the Council and
our fcllDw-citiZens will agree with them.
1t will be seen from this statement that
all who were represented had fair hear
ing, timely motto" having been given to ma
ture the plans which they intended to pre-
sent. The committee are not well enough
informed on this subject to decide whether
the plans which were rejected are, in the
words OF your petitioners, "those Of the
most approved works in this country and
England"
Every member of the committee had seen
some one of the best works in this country,
and neither of them had ever seen one with
the holder supported by the single COL
umns, and practical difficulty with this
plan which was apparent to all who had
examined into the matter presents itself in
the fact that the chains which hold the
centre-balance weights sometimes break,
and supposing this machine must be liable
to the same accidents, it will be seen that
the difficulty of removing weight of 1000
pounds from the bottom of the inside of
a column more than fifty feet deep would
be very great compared with the same OPP
Grafton i'll the open triangular space pre-
sented in the plan adopted by the CON-
mittee.
There are other merits of much greater
importance connected with the three. pillow
plan which it is not our province to detail
here, but which will present themselves
palpably to experts in mechanical engi-
neering.
As to the recommendation that the COM
mittce should have sent for the lowest bid
der, and having exposed to him the plans of
the others, and to have told him we prefer
this, which is offered by another, and to
which neither you nor we have a shadow
of claim to use, but if you will work by it,
and under-bid him, you shall have the con-
tract. Tn the oninion of the Detitioners
confess we do not think so. The
final suggestion made by the petitioners