Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-03

for same yerc furnished the contractors.
Auditor tombstone In reply 70 question.
states be does not know on what day the
plans for the pump houHe were furnished
the contractors. City Engineer Kerr
states the plans ere.furilshel before he
had charge Of the work. CONSTRUCTION
Engineer Hawcs states. 'ihe exact date
do not know. II was IN the mouth Of
April, 1892"
r In relation to the delay caused by the
city. for which the city could claim NO
forfeiture, City Engineer Kerr says:
"'rhe Ball property delay i desire 10
say that sevCrgl small delays In ordering
different things at the pump house would
have been Ohviated II the contractor had
had price In his schedule y aud Q. The
CONSTRUCTION Engineer, Mr.. bRwes says;
'"rhe contractors were delayed IN eNca-
waiting the foundation for the pump house,
and also in getling plans for the pump
house. as new plans had % be made
after they broke ground for the building
as there were no plans for same except
sketch of foundation plan.
IL is impossible for me 70 state how
much money should be held back under
the forfeiture clause IN the contract in
face OF such evidence as has been sub
mitted to me, Of the facts Of the case.
The test of $50 pounds rs provided IN
the specifications, Is In the nature u
guaranty, and 1 am of the 0pinlvn that
sufficient money should De held BACK
to make the test and repair probable
leaks and breaks. As 70 what ;hat
amount would be | submit tho answers
OF the city engineer and he consruc-
ton engineer. City Engineer Kerr
says; IT would be a great mistake IN
my opinion, to pay any more thun we
have" Construction Enginnir lfawes
says; Il should say that Sl01 was
ample 10 repair all breaks that would &C.
cur. but would retain $1,000 unless the
city Is secured In other waTe-
The city council will see that there
are so many contradictions and eva
aons Ia the statements hereto annexed
% exhibits A, b. q and -, that the
city attorney cannot advise the city ccnn
ell as TO what disposition should be Ufoe
Of the remaining 10 per cent ot Tie con
tract price stil In the hands of o. city
council.
In conclusion. I am OF tho opinion Tint
when the work has been completed uc-
cording to tho plans and specifications,
IL Is the duty of the engineers IN charge
10 accept the same, for the reason that
all the work was done under his inime-
date supervision and control nnd thh
the city council should pay tie balance
Of the contract price, less tho amount
that may have been forfeited or claimed
as n penalty under the contract and the
necessary amount that Il viii falic TO
make the test, as provided In the con
tract aud repair probable leaks and
breaks.
This is in addition to the bond Of the
contractors, which is likewise a security
for the faithful performance of all the
details of the plans aud specifications
vi der the contract How much these
ere IL Is impossible for me 10 even con
lecture, for the reason that l cannot
learn from anyone in authority how much
OF the delay II any, was beyond the re-
scnable control of tho contractors, how
much was due 70 the negligence or delay
of the city itsolf, nor how much 1t would
take TO test the pipe line aud repair prob
able breaks and leaks
submit what testimony 1 have been
able 70 obtain. TO the city council and no.
gret Il is not more explicit Ia order
that intelligent action may be had
thereon. Respectfully submitted.
II. j. POWELL,
A