The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-04-12

IN literal sense may De compe-
tition, but 1t is always If any bid is
received that competition which was in
tended by the Legislature, and which Is
comprehended in that award which In the
wisdom and power reposed by law in the
municipality Is the most advantageous
The test was given by the Supreme
Court in it's late decision in this same
case, and that test was the opportunity
to every person or corporation IN exls-
tence to ask for the contract. The OPP
portunity being given, and bid having
been received, the right of the municipal
authority to act upon 1t Is clear, and II
with a fair and bona fide exercise of juds-
ment 1t is declared to be and accepted as
most advantageous, it becomes conclu-
sive and binding upon the public. whose
authorities have exercised the judgment,
which they were selected to exercise. The
Judgment required under such circum-
stances is that the contract awarded Is
the most advantageous to the clty-not
that others who did not propose could
offer terms and bids more advantageous,
but that the judgment upon the bid pre-
sented, that it offers the terms most ad-
vantageous. This construction eliminates
nothing from the statute but the mode
by which the contract is to be entered
into by the law is preserved. and the ex-
else of the power conferred confirmed.
The mode of contracting Is preserved.
The right and duty to contract is sus-
tanned, and the act given the effect in
tended by the Legislature, that is the
award of the contract most beneficial to
the public; without this construction the
power to contract under the act of 1888,
becomes nugatory.
When the advertisement for bids ex-
eluded competition, as in the case of Kean
VS.. Elizabeth, 6 Vroom 351, where there
could be but one bid, and that for
patented article. proposals for which were
advertised, and the bidder was the only
man who controlled the sale of the thing
advertised for, then it was held the COM
petition required by the statute was not
had, but it was that a contract could not
be awarded upon it.
Where there can be competition diff
ferent rule must prevail. There it is the
purpose of the act to secure competitive
bidding, and the means to that end must
be taken by the municipal authority. 1t
may not be accomplished, but the right
to contract upon the result of such op-
portunity for competition remains unim-
paired. How otherwise could municipal
government be conducted. 1t might fail
at every step. The mode is preserved,
and by that mode in the exercise of a fair.
bona fide judgment, the contract can be
awarded. This is fair result of the
discussion and authorities. l Dillon Nun.
Corp, sections 466. 40 and cases cited in
notes. One bid is the lowest bid If se-
cured in compliance with the terms of the
city charter. and consequently it can be
the most advantageous upon judgment
or discretion fairly exercised.
The case of Van Reipen VS.. City, 20
Vroom, 262, holds nothing more upon this
point than that bidders must have an op-
portunity to compete.
And in this case when before the SUI
preme Court at the February term 1899,
as understand the decision 1t is that the
statutory opportunity being offered, it is
;mmaterial whether one or more bidders
proposed. This objection arose upon the
award of the contract and what the Court
said in that case was in view that there
was but one bidder here in this matter.
The opportunity offered to bid was such
a compliance with the statute as gave to
the municipal authorities the jurisdiction
to determine whether the bid was the
one most advantageous to the city.
The next reason considered, as urged by
the prosecutors, is that the advertisement
for bids under which the award was made
did not offer proposals for bids upon the
bases of a specific plan and the award
should, therefore, be put aside.
AS 1 read the specifications, this r-ason
L. aa+ In foaf 10
conditions were prescribed in the specifi
cations to which all the plans must con-
form, plan of works was to be submitted
which would furnish the required quantity
of water, with an option to purchase. An
other was for bid to furnish water for
twenty-five years with the rights to exer-
else the option and terminate the contract
to supply by the million gallons, and TO
furnish plans according to the general
conditions of the specifications. These gen
eral suggestions of supposed defects in the
specifications are pointed out by the prose-
cutors, but in no wise is it shown in any
way how any more specific plan could
have been provided. In fact as they ap-
pear they are definite.
The form of proposal used here have
been justified in many cases. 1 Dillon,
Mum. Corp, Ed, Section 1853. 1t is not
necessary that every precise detail Should
be set forth There is, nor can there be
any contention that bidders could not
conform in their proposals to these speci-
fcations 1.-THE City may invite bids in
various forms. provided each proposal is
upon a specific definite plan. l have made
examination of the detail of these sDeci-
fcations to some extent. They undoubt-
edly ask for a water shed or area capable
of delivering upon a certain basis the
quantity of water required. The construc-
| tion of the works are most minutely pro-
| vided for. The storage reservoir required
| is given in tables and computations; if
| these details or specifications were made
| more definite it might operate to prevent
| competition, and prevent an advan-
| tageous contract. Ig the gathering
ground was defined that would end the
| opportunity of competition, and 1t would
| of itself force the city to take just one
kind of contract. These proposals seem
| to be framed to meet the objection made
| in Van Reipen VS.. the City, 29 Vroom, and
that task seems to have been successfully
accomplished. The option to purchase is
| definite, the quantity required is definite,
| as too is the storage capacity. 1t is
| urged that the source of the water or
water area should have been defined by
! the proposal. That would Of itself per-
haps compel an award of the contract
| practically in advance of advertisement