The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-28

omitted and insufficient allowance
made to the. State therefor, a loss to
the State of about $51, 800 in value,
without considering the quality of
the work done, viz, masonry con-
tract, $4,000; galvanized iron con-
tract, $4,000; woodwork contract,
$4,000. Total, $51, 500.
To. say the least, the changes made
in the above contract and the allow
ances or payments made therefor do
not indicate careful business. judgment
on the part of the Harbor Commits
sioners and the supervising architect,
but on the contrary show in several in
stances gross neglect Of the States
interests.
We respectfully submit that the Har-
Dor Commissioners having this work in
charge, while not exceeding the au-
thority given them under the plans and
specifications, did not prosecute the
work with the same energy, judgment
and economy that is usually displayed
by individual owners and which
should be displayed by public officials.
If the plans and specifications had
been so drawn that no authority had
been vested in the Harbor Commits
sioners or architect to make these, or
any changes, the State would, in our
judgment, have received a better
structure for the money spent.
Referring to the detailed reports of
our expert attached hereto, we are sat
isfied that his estimates are very con-
servative. The prices at which he
has calculated the value Of the work
NJ
mitted to several leading architects of
this city and authority has been given
by these professional gentlemen to
state in their judgment these prices are
fair and reasonable.
Further, per cent is allowed as con-
tractors profit on work Omitted. e.,
only 95 per cent deducted and 10 per
cent contractors profit allowed on work
added or extra.
treated at length in the reports at
tached.
The original specifications for galva-
nized iron work called for and exactly
described method of attaching the
galvanized iron sheets to the metal
framing, which would have resulted in
a first-class job. There was no at
tempt made to even partially adhere to
the specifications. The supervising
architect, on the ground that it would
be impossible to do the work as spe-
Gifted, directed the contractor, Will
liam Green, to do the work in man.
ner greatly inferior to the original
plan, and much less costly to the con-
tractor. In fact, 1t would be hard to
find a cheaper way of attaching the
galvanized iron than that which has
been adopted, while it would be equal
Nv hard to find a more expensive
method than that described in the spe-
cifications and contracted for and paid
for. no allowance in price as yet hav-
ing been made for the change. The
contractor, Mr.. Cronan. testified before
This Jury that when he bid on this work
he did not figure on doing this portion
If II according to specifications, and
that some one in the office of the late
architect, A. Page Brown, had told him
II would not be required of him.
Further, the State paid the sum of
5000 for additional wood Turing put
in to enable the galvanized iron con-
tractor to use the cheaper method. The
use of wood also reduces the fire-proof
quality of the work. On these points
the report of our expert is confirmed
by two competent witnesses, whose