The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1891-09-19
FIFTH EDITION..


The rejection by the Street and Sew
er Department of all tho bids for paw
ing streets lately advertised for has
led to considerable discussion. The
bidders are the leading omplainants
against the Street and Sewor Depart
ment. They came, some Of them, from
Philadelphia, Chester and Baltimore,
and complain OF the expense they have
been put to In coming to the city sur
veying the streets and paying hotel
bills. Even the Wilmington eontrac-
tors who had not their expenses think
that they have been treated very UNI
fairly,
They say that 1t was very unfair to
them to open their bids and publish
them in the papers, as each bidder can
take advantage OF tho other in future
bids.
Tho board Of directors having given
as the reason for rejecting the bids
that they can do better and cheaper
themselves. others who assume to
know as much about ii as thoy do say
this is impossible. The contractors
say that men will do more work under
a contractor than they will under a
city foreman or overSeer, and again
the city phys $3.50 per day for labor,
while the contractor receives the same
labor OF Sl.25 per day, and while the
city pays 81. 50 per day for teams for
hauling contractors can get tho san1
teams for e2.25.
Contractors will be very careful to
comply with all the requirements of
the contract us tho city engineer might
make them do 1t over again, whercaI
If the city did not do it right, it would
be optional TO rectify tho error, 1t u
urged also that contractors have all
/
will cost the city from $500 to Si91
to procure. These and many other
reasons aro urged why the city would
be largely the gamer by getting tho
work done by contract. But now
comes the Street and Sewer Depart-
ments side of the matter for ii must
not be supposed that they would un,
dertake such a large contract without
seeing some advantages ahead.
They say, in reference to the cons
plant OF the bidders, that their bids
has often been done. and bids have
been made public whether they yet IL
or not. The board. they say. has a.s
ways reserved the right to reject any
or all bids. The directors complain
that the samples of brick furnished
did not stand the test. After EngineoE
llatton was through with them they
looked like anything else than services
able brick. They had made inquiry
and found that they could purchase
bricks as cheap and get as many OF
them as would be wanted as easily az
the contractors could. As to the grad.
ing, the directors say 1t is to BIZ given
out by contract anyhow.
| As another reason why the directors
want to do the work themselves is
the trouble they have had with con-
tractors In the past. In some instances
IL cost as much TO inspect than the work
itself cost, the directors say they can
do better by doing the work Them
selves and inspect 1t themselves. AS
to laborers and horses and carts they
say they have the same advantages
the contractors could have, and il they
have incompetent men they have tho
power TO discharge them and hire bet
ter ones.
They maintain that their proceed.
ings were fair and open, and there was
no secrecy on their part in their action
or bids. Thus the matter stands al
present, with the directors intent upon
doing their paving under their own
immediate surveillance.