The times., 1899-04-02
TEE hand SYSTEM
OF Street CLEANING
Time Limit for Bids Closes
Monday, April 10.
Many Objections Are Being Urged
Against the Specifications.
Attorney Thomas' Opinion Sustain
ing the Position Taken by the
District Commis missiOners.

The efforts of the District Street Clean
ing Department to introduce the hand
cleaning system, which was so successful
| ly experimental with last year on all the
streets of Washington, and to reduce the
expense OF contract machine cleaning Will
| cause a lively stir among contractors on
| Monday, April TO- when bids for sweeping
the streets until the close of the next fiscal
year are opened.
Specifications for the work have been
sent out to large contractors in all parts
of the country, and the wording of these
papers has been done very carefully in Or
der to insure the best results. The speci-
fications are arranged in four sets-one for
sweeping improved streets and avenues by
machine. a second for sweeping the same
by hand, another for sweeping unimproved
streets and alleys, and final specifications
for sweeping improved alleys.
The first gun on the side of the opposi
tion was fired some time ago by con-
tractor in the West who desired to bid on
the work, but who was dissatisfied with
the specifications. He said that according
to them he could not do the work with his
machine. Superintendent Warner Stutler,
in charge of the District Street Cleaning
Department, said he thought any change In
the specifications would be detrimental to
the service. The Commissioners according
ly informed the contractor that no changes
would be made.
Not long after the receipt of the COM
municaticn from the man in the West
Jere NJ. Wilson. attorney for Albert Dag
gett, wrote to the Commissioners calling
| attention to the specifications. He main
| tanned that they should not provide the
number of foremen to be employed by the
contractor. and said the specifications do
| not indicate the amount of work to be done
| by hand and the amount to be done by ma
| chine.
ut is In substance provided in the act
| making appropriations for this work,
| reads the letter OF Mr. Wilson that IL the
| work is not contracted for according to
specifications then the Commissioners may
do It, but must do 1t according to specifca-
tions submitted TO the bidders
Judge Wilson then calls attention to a
paragraph in the specifications which pro-
vides that the contractor shall furnish one
foreman with every twenty-five laborers
or fraction Of such number working as a
separate gang.
The Contractors Obligation.
Continuing, the letter of Judge Wilson
| says: 1.-The contractor is TO be obligated 10
perform his contract, and he suffers the
penalty of failure. / do not see why, un-
der such circumstances, the specifications
should prescribe the number OF his EN-
pIoyes or require him to have class OF
employees whose services may be wholly
| unnecessary.
This specification would seem TO be in
tended to force upon him an expense which
might preclude him from bidding at thu
vii ta5 hx,y ha fnr
| will be an important element Of expense
and must be considered by the bidder /:
making his proposal.
"1f a proposal is not made at the priC
limited, then the Commissioners are TO d
| the work, but they are to do 1t under Il
same specifications and / can hardly thin
that 1t is proposed that the Commissioner
shall appoint and pay foremen Of gangs, a:
seems to be contemplated by these speci
| fcations, and yet that is what the ac
| would require you TO do.
There Is nothing in the law requiring
you to make such provision in the specifi
cations and to impose such a burthen OF
| the contractor. and i respectfully submit
| that, as he must give ample bond to do tn
| work, the attempt to control him as TO th
| number and kind of employees is not onl!
unusual, but unnecessary and unwarranted
| and, therefore, that the provision should b.
eliminated.
Il further invite your attention TO th
fact that there is nothing in these specif
cations to indicate to the bidder how mucl
work he may do by hand or by machine
thus leaving him entirely in the dark as t
| this. 1t is quite apparent that no one cal
bid intelligently without some indication
as TO the amount of work he is expected {
do especially as he is required to bid b.
the 600 square yards. This, also, ] sug
gest, is a feature of these specification
that should be made at least approximate
definite
The matter was turned over to Super
intendent Stutler who made the following
reply to the statements of the attorney 70
the contractor:
Mr.. StutIer's Letter.
81 have the honor to make the followini
response to the request of Hon. Jere NJ
Wilson, attorney for Contractor Daggett
to have certain sections Of the speeifloa
lions for cleaning streets by hand changed
THE provision requiring the contracto
to furnish foremen, to which objection
made, would if eliminated be detrimcnts
TO the service, for the reason that it is nee
essary TO have foremen TO receive and carr
/ out orders from the inspectors.
"If the work was paid for at certai
price for one time going over the surface
! as is the case in machine cleaning, "
would not need them. but it is not so; tl
work is paid for at so much per Loo
square yards for u days cleaning of eigt
hours.
, allowances and deductions are mad
according to the time made or lost, an
} the men must be required to do salts
factory days work to guarantee full al
lowance TO the contractor
, THE provision requiring foremen wa
put in the specifications for the reason thu
, it was necessary to have them, and not
force ON a contractor an unnecessary e,
pense to preclude him from bidding, as
, charged
Mr. Daggett. the present contractor fo
hand cleaning, has furnished since June 81
1887, to the present time, four foreme
for sixty-fve laborers. or an average {
, one foreman to 16 Ia laborers, and
cannot understand why he should object
, the provision which only requires one fore
man to twenty FIVE laborers.
1t is Just as necessary to have foreme
, for future contracts as it is at presen
even though the price per 1000 squar
yards is less.