Evening journal., 1899-02-20

New York, had been awarded first
place in the competition, that he had
secured tnls by Submitting drawings
representing a large and elaborate
building with a decorative exterior, all
OF which he guaranteed could be erect
ed in a properly substantial way for
between Z and 7lk cents per cubic foot,
or for the whole building complete,
$4,000 as a maximum figure. and
with certain changes. sS7 600 as
minimum. AS one member Of your
honorable board is reported to have
said during the discussion following
the award, 'the pans offered by Mr..
Pierce gave the city the best and
cheapest building, therefore the COM
mittee had Unanimously agreed upon
Them. This shows that the cheapness
CT the building was considered one Of
the two essential points in determin-
ing the completion.
Supposing that the above statement
Of the case is substantially correct,
the point we wish to emphasize is, that
Mr.. Pierce gained the competition by
guaranteeing that the large and i'm
posing building represented by his
drawings could be properly built for
sum, that no expert would have ad
mitted the possibility Of, and which
the bids Of January 9 have proved to
be entirely inadequate, G. e., unless
the building has been most radically
changed). In other words, the esti-
mates given by Mr.. Pierce were alto
gether misleading; and through this
Misrepresentation Intentional or un-
Intentional, it matters not which, as
far as the injustice wrought on The
other. competitors by such estimates,
is oOncerned), he gained the award.
For It must be clear to yourselves that
the ether architects, having been in
formed by the chairman of your board
that 100000 was the approximate
limit Of the buildings cost; and in
conformity with such information, de-
signing a building to honestly meet
the given requirements and cost (get-
ting a bona fide estimate on the same)
were at a disadvantage and could not
make as good a showing as an archi-
tect who offered a $4,000 building
with the claim that 1t would cost but
little over half that While it is not
uncommon that an architect may be
unable to place his estimate within
10 or even 10 per cent of the actual
cost Of a building, 60 per cent. seems
beyond the possibility OF unintentional
error, and If the S1C9,O0O bid did not
include heating and ventilation, a
comparison between that and the cor.
responding sS7 600 estimate, the archi.
tect would not permit any other in.
depreciation than gross ignorance OF
deception equally gross. AT any rate
whether intentional or not, il is usua
in well-cOnducted competitions, (nOts
terms Of Jersey City literary competi
tion), TO impose as a penalty for suci
mistaken estimates, (when found in
adequate by the figures Of a selected
Contractor), that the arclitect previ
ously premiated. lose the building ans
be replaced by another. This is onl!
simple justice to the either competi
tors, who have given time and labo
to carry out the imposed conditions
Any other course would offer a Ire
MUM on Misrepresentation
If our information is correct ina
the architect has given a guarante
to erect the building for a certaii
sum, 1t would present a somewhat un
20 usual aspect to the matter For it {
not usually considered professional
to do this. and Il is seldom done b
reputable practitioners, since an archi
tect has his clients interest to loo
, after, and should not act with the con
tractor IL disposed to cheaper tn
Z building by poor work or mu.eria
Still, if the architect has given a guar
antee, and las he dclh .ess has)
& sufficient bond (wtthOut which a guar
- antee would be wOrthiess), the schOC
l board and the people of Wiimingto
y are 10 be congratulated for they ar
I procuring a s169O0O building for SIP
o 600. Under these unusual circun
G stances (wihere an architect puts hi
% hand in his own pocket for over $50
I OOO), our firm could not raise the que'
] tion of injustice.
U IT, however, no guarantee has bee
= given that could be made effectiv
and the people OF Wilmington are
= pay the additional cost Of the bull,
- ing, we feel that the circumstance
e warrant our placing this aspect of tn
q case before your honorable bod
d trusting that the other competitors, /;
y we'll as ourselves, VINO have as full
;, and as honestly as we could have 70
d lowed the instructions given us, ha'
d in a certain way the right to ask "
= TO seriously consider whether justii
d 20 az the competition does not +
e Quire that as penalty fer his unfak
claims or intentional mendaci
70 (wsichever 1t may be-, the select'
e architect be replaced by one Of u
e, others. We would ask for ourselv
a no more than we would for the othe
n simply that certain of tine desig
% submitted, Ga half dozen for instance
10 which in the opinion of the boa
e, meet the requirements most fully,
b. estimated on by a reliable c0ntractC
Ct In this way the claims Of the ardl
he teot may be substanbiated or dispro
ed. We feel confident that our CIV
te design, and doubtless many others ,
D. ford the MOST ample accommodate
s. could be substantially erected a
re would be an ornament TO the city at
Is cost Of $4,000 less than the accept
I'd design. We do not ask that any stai
e. ment Of ours be taken On faith,
nd Would urge that q careful veri6cati