The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-09-12

the Chief Engineer and the Inspector Of
Buildings to make a detailed statement of
such required repairs, which report is on
file with the Clerk of this Board"
II there was any necessity for the app
pointment Of Mr.. Broome or Of any archi-
tect, surely it was at this time, but the
specifications were drawn by the Chief En-
gineer and the Inspector of Buildings, and
upon them bids were prepared and the con-
tracts awarded. My contention is that the
appointment of Mr.. Broome is absolutely
unnecessary, for his services at best would
be only those of an inspector. Even this is
provided for in the same resolution of the
Finance Board, of which l made mention
before. The resolution provides ''That no
payment shall be made upon such contracts
until the Chief Engineer, the Inspector of
Buildings and the Committee of the Board
OF Education, upon such respective schools,
shall have certified that the work required
hereunder has been duly performed"
| have communicated with the several
members of the Board of Education, and
they have stated to me in writing that they
will personally attend to and supervise the
work Of repairing the schools in their
charge.
The Inspector of Buildings is willing to
comply with the terms of the resolution of
the Finance Board.
70 my mind the money which Mr.. Broome
would receive as compensation for his SER
vices under the terms of your resolution
would consume the balance left in the APP
preparation after the payments been
made for work under the contracts lately
awarded. This money might be spent to
much better advantage in making additional
and much needed repairs caused by the dam
age done by the last severe storm.
Mr.. Broome was trusted with the super
vision of the repairs to the schools last
year. Much has been said as to the manner
in which the work was lone at the time,
and the criticisms have been severe and adj
we're to Mr.. Broome. l am satisfied that
the supervision he exercised over the repair
ing of the schools then does not offer any
recommendation for his employment by your
Board at this late day to supervise the work
now under way.
Very respectfully,
REUBEN SIMPSON,
Acting Mayor.
Received and laid over under the rules.
From the sam officer.
JERSEY Cry, Aug. 80, 1893.
To the Honorable Board of Street and
Water Commissioners
Gentlemen, Il have considered the reso-
luton passed by your Board August Is,
1898, awarding the pavement with asphalt of
certain streets of Jersey City to the Trinidad
Asphalt Paving Company and the Barber
Asphalt Paving Company, the bids of the
Trinidad Paving Company being $40 per
sqnare yard on cobble or Belgian pave
ment and 3d. 20 per square yard on concrete
foundation, and the bids of the Barber
Asphalt Paving Company at the price of
$2.S5 per square yard on cobble or Belgian
pavement, and So. 25 per square yard on
concrete, both bidders agreeing to guarantee
the pavement for ten years.
! have read the preamble of the resolution
and the facts are correctly stated, excepting
the statement that the Trinidad Company
has had a greater experience in refining
should read that it has had a greater ex-
perience in refining than laying the asphalt.
The question of price is an important one.
The number of years the pavement is guar
anteed is an important element in asphalt
~prices-the longer the guarantee the higher
the price at the start. New York City has
awarded contracts to the Barber Company
on a fifteen year guarantee at four dollars
and seventy-four cents per square yard for
pavement laid OF a concrete foundation,
and three dollars and s~ixty-nine cents per
square yard when laid on old Belgian pave
ment. The Barber C~ompany's bid to Jer-
sey City with a ten year guarantee is So 5
per square yard on concrete and SO. IS on
old Belgian foundation. The same COM
pany bid in Newark. with a five year guar
antee. 50. 80 on concrete foundation.
The price bid by the Trinidad Asphalt
Paving Company in Jersey City is very low,
if the Barber price is fair as compared with
rates bid and paid in other cities. The
representatives of each company, when ques-
toned by me separately, admitted that the
bids presented were the result of a desire to
meet competition from a bidder with whom
the two companies have mutually strong
r~ivalries, and that bidders bid, though ex-
pected, did not appear when bids were
opened at your Board.
l looked at first upon both bidders as
having a common interest, because the an
alysis of the refined asphalt was very SINH
lar, and because neither bidder seemed to
show the slightest interest in obtaining the
award.
l do not discover opposition as to the ma
terial. During the last few days their atti-
tude has been antagonistic as to the merits
of the respective companies in reference to
the laying of the pavement. The Trinidad
Asphalt Paving Company. by its represen-
%tative, admitted that as a company it did not
lay pavement, but sold the refined asphalt
to other concerns who laid it, the Barber
Company in turn insisting that nearly all
the pavement laid in this country was laid
by that company. and that its methods of
laying and the materials it uses fixes the
| standard of asphalt paving. l have en-
deavored to satisfy myself whether the OPP
position was genuine or coltusive. I asked
if each company would accept the awa-d
as made by the resolution; erect its own
plant, which will cost between $12, 600 and
500, 900. and do its work with its own plant
and not sub-let the work to any other corpor-
alton. firm or contractor. To this question
| received from the representatives of each
company an affirmative answer. l caused a
written agreement to this affect to be sent to
each company. The Barber Company
signed the agreement. The Trinidad Com
pany refused. | pressed this question, be-
| cause statements wera made To me that Il