Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1889-07-12
The Paving Contract.

Rock ISLAND. July 12-No one prob
ably has any personal objections to
Messrs. Atkinson & Oiof having the paw
ing contract on Second avenue. If citi-
zens of our city by fair dealing are
awarded a contract for doing public
work. public sentiment would be better
satisfied to have it thus than to have it
otherwise. But in soliciting proposals
and awarding contracts everything should
be conducted in an impartial aud honor>
able manner. All bidders should be
placed upon equal footing and the award
made upon one and the same specihca>
tons and conditions If specifications
are 10 be changed, either in material,
mode or kind of work, or in manner and
sources of payment, such changes should
be made before the bidders are asked to
make their bids. Were these plain and
honest principles observed by the city
council in letting The paving contractI
The city council in inviting bids from
contractors, made the condition (among
others) that the contractor should look
to property holders and make his own
collection for that proportion of the
whole amount which is to be borne and
paid by the owners of the property con-
stituting the ad lacent frontage, and also
as evidence of good faith required
each bidder to deposit certified
check in the sum of $500 that he
would enter into ard execute contract
with the city II awarded the work. All
the bidders made the required deposit,
and supposedly all bid upon the specified
condition as to mode of payment. When
the bids were opened. read and compari-
son made, Atkinson & Olof were de-
clared the lowest bidders and were
awarded the contract
Here comes the point of inquiry In
making the contract with Atkinson &
Olof, the city council msde two impor-
tant alterations or changes from the cons
ditions of the specifications upon which
bids were asked and received. Instead
of adhering to the mode of payment
specified. the city contracts to pay APP
| proximate estimates out of special assess
| ments as far as collected. and the balance
| out of the appropriated paving fund, and
| when the whole work is completed and
| accepted to pay the amount then remain
| ing unpaid IN like manner--s change of a
very material and beneficial character in
favor of the contractor. The point to
which attention is called is the fact that
material change was made, whether
polite or necessary it is not necessary to
consider in this connection. The speci>
ficstions called for Galesburg or Bloom
ington brick. In contracting with At
kinson & Olof, the city council au-
thorize the use of Gslesburg or Bloom
ington brick OF other brick of equally
good quality. Under this clause the
smiable city council in its discretion
may become satisfied, perhaps, that the
brick made by the contractors themselves,
or in any of the other brick yards in this
city or vicinity, are of equally good
quality. and such concession would most
assuredly he very material and pecuin-
arily beneficial to the contractors, Nessrs.
Atkinson & Olof. Who is to gainsay or
withstand the city council if they choose
to allow them TO use brick of their own
make, by simply declaring it is of as
good quality as either Galesburg or
Bloomington-or as good rs Bardolph
brick. if you please?
No contractor bidding under the spe-
cifications had any right to expect any
| such variations or terms, or such favor
able concessions. As il now is there is
no certainty that the city is getting the
work done at the least cost, because there
is no possibility of knowing at what fig
| ures other contractors would have bid
for the work If they could have had the
chance to bid upon the changed terms
afterwards made and gwen to Atkinson
& Olof. 1T is no disparagement to
these gentlemen that the city council
made the chances indicated, but is the
action of the city council fair and just
towards other bidders from whom they
rigidly exscted $500 deposit as the
pledge of good faithf If the changes
spoken of were really necessary, (snd
| very probably they were), would it not
have been evidence of the city's good
faith to have rejected all bids and called
for new proposals in accordance with the
requisite changes? As the matter now
stands, is it rightfl
PROPERTY HOLDER
On Second Avenue