New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-05


/ The plan OF the Improvement to use the ma
| tcsial from the prism excavation In building adj
jscent banks. These specifications were drawn ac-
cordingly bu; made Il undry expensive to build the
, bank with material obtained elsewhere.
! On ten contracts the middle division. No. IS
TO e. Inclusive. the banks were raised during open
; navigation. before prism excavation began. Five
Of the contracts. analysed with quantities and
prices. show additional cost caused thereby OF
$S5 oO. and the other five are estimated to In
volve Ike additional cost.
Excavation FOR building vertical wall on some
contracts estimated by assuming slope. in
stead Of measuring. unless the land failed to stand
at the slope when II measured for the con-
tractors benefit. The space was also paid
for as embankment for back-hnG. Arbitrary as
sumption to the basis OF measurement Is also
applied to mucking. where the area only is meas
ured and. depth Of ak inches being assumed. the
cubic yardage IL computed
Muck!ng the subject OF abuse In Rochester.
where men sent to contractors with tickets from
ofice-h holders set at unnecessary work Of this
sort.
Rock is specified as solid ledge rock or hard
pan which. In the opinion OF the resident ergi-
neer cannot be ploughed while soft or rotten rock
or hard-pan which. in the opinion Of the resident
engineer be ploughed. Is "arth.
| The evidence the subject OF classification on
nineteen contracts is analyzed. On ,lany OF them
n Reconsideration Of material which had been there
| tofore returned as earth was shown Specimens
| from some are described. On two Of them the
resident engineer required by the State Engi-
neer to make a rock classification against his own
| judgment and protest On most Of them the ma
tcr!al loosenei with picks and In some rctuahy
ploughet but in few the prescribed test ap-
piled
IMPROPER CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL
| The Commission concludes that he engineers
have misapprehended the true meaning OF the
specified ton rock classification. The true test
| NOD
by ploughing blasting. The resident engineers
| Opinion" which seems TO determine classin,auoh
| without reference TO prescribed tests. IAN only
| properly operate In the narrow zone where the
| relative cheapness OF ploughing or blasting Is
| debatable question The Commission concludes
| that on tho Western Division, according TO the
| proper Interpretation of the specifications there
| was improper classification: five contracts on
| the Middle Division larger proportion OF cassi'
| fed material earth, under the speclncaton'
on ten Of the Middle Division contracts the class'-
| ncatlon was made without regard to the specifed
| test; on the Eastern Division there was improper
| classification on five contracts. The cost Of bard
pan classification including shale. on tbs western
| Division. is sg9l III
On contract No g. Western Division. 10000 yards
OF rock were found by sounding on the preliminary
| survey and omitted from the quantity sheet !"
| cubic Yards being entered nominal quantity
The contractor got the contract on an unbalanced
| bid of 50 per yard. The amount already excaVated
is over 20 900 cubic yards costing $4,000 Inc es'i-
mated amount remaining is 1900 yards. so that
completed rock excavation on that contract VIII
cost $4,000. This is the result OF an unbalanced
| bid on a nominal quantity. II rock had been prop
| erly exhibited the total cost OF rock would nave
been less than s35 900. instead Of $1,000
ADDED EMBANKMENT PRICE.
Embankment over-runs from 1884 cubic yards
| IN estimates for contracts let to 1894 cubic
Yards including quantity to complete them The
| ic
According to the specifications. all material moved
for any purpose is paid for as excavation II II Is
used in embankment. nothing is paid unless necee-
sarily hauled 100 feet unloaded from scows or
handled twice In back-hlling around masonry
when embankment price is added TO excavation.
Surplus material is required TO be hauled and
placed where the engineer directs provided the
| average haul does not exceed 1000 feet NO pro
vision Is made for compensation to contractors II
| required to haul spoiled material a greater ois-
| +snce Nevertheless the State officials have uni
formly added embankment price to excavation price
| for spoiled material II hauled 1000 feet. In this
way on contract No. 8. Eastern Division. embank-
ment price of so cents added to excavation
price of 2s cents. and contract No. i. Middle
| Division embankment price Of 60 cents was added
| to excavation price for overhaul OF spoiled ma
terial More than half Of the total amount OF cost
| Of embankment improperly paid for material
| overhaued and wasted.
The cost Of contract work on June /. by engi-
neer's certificate was s. 09o 2O4 81. The amount re-
| turned as extra work IS 1924, $40 S. The actual
| amount Of extra work is much greater but' IN
| the way the certificates are made out incapable
| OF ascertanment except by laborious computations
| from field books. The law requires that any change
| NJ nlan involving increased cost be agreed TO by
the Superintendent and State Engineer, and sub
! nitted to the Canal Board. This has not always
| been done but where prices have been found In
| the quantity sheets which could be used In paying
for such work Il has been directed TO be done End
| md 10 contract, without
| ten agreement or submission to the Canal Ptard.
Even where agreements were made. II the class or
| work found in the quantity sheet was used the
additional work was returned II under The main
| contract
| ALLOWANCES FOR EXTRA WORK
A much larger proportion Of the work than the
| certificates show not in the contemplation OF
| tho narties nor within the terms OF the contract.
The schedule Of prices fixed for extra work agree
ments compared with prices for like work In regu-
lar contracts, shows that the interests OF the state
are not protected In specaI agreements "here 'here
| can be competition
| The custom has obtained OF making allowances
,or work after Y was done. the claim that 1t
| was extra work Usually this has been doLe by
allowing the contractor the labor for such extra
work at cost with 10 per cent allowance FOR proht
| The contract price contract NO. 4, Middle d.
,,s,on was sl4471 On May it had cost 1851 S7S 50.
This contract required special study before letting.
hut II was treated II 1t had no peculiar features
The contractors were permitted to prosecute the
! work as to involve great increase OF cost Within
| ,bree months the work was practically los; sight
=, ord carried on under special agreement and the
allowance OF claims for extras. until 1t ended In
surrender,ng the work to the control OF the Super
| ,ntendent of Public Works under force account
| agreement This seems to be a case where the
| contract having been pracuca'y "uii'"e' s"ouiu
| have been terminated.
| The Commission hxes the amount OF money i'm
nroperly expended In the manner pointed out. at
not less than 81 10000.
| On contract No 8. Western Division. elaborate
| MANS were made involving an expense OF about
| s1oo mn for the benefit OF the milling industry OF
| ea,,,or, In the city OF Syracuse the superin-