The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-30
The Rejection of the Bids Of Feb. ~
May Cost the Taxpayers More
than $1,000 Additional.
REVIEW OF THE SITUATION
REMINGTON BROS LAST BID HIGH
Err THAN THE FIRST.
A Custom for Certain Men to Do the
Work of Sprinkling, No Matter
Who Has Contract.

The Board of Public Works is expected to
take action to-day the bids for sprink-
ling the unimproved streets of the city.
These bids were received Friday and were
referred to the city engineer for investi-
CATION. 1t is not known how the board will
act.
The lowest bidder is Remington Bros.
They, with c. Rust, had the contract last
year. On Feb. "a bids for this years.
sprinkling were received by the Board of
Public Works, and w. II. Newly, whose bid
was $3.50 per 10000 square feet was the
lowest bidder The board, however, figured
Remington Bros. lowest and were prepar-
ing to make a contract with them when
restrained by Judge Carter, before whom
Newly brought injunction proceedings. The
next day March g. the board announced
that it had rejected all bids at special
meeting held at o'clock on the preceding
day. Newly questions the authenticity of
this special meeting record in his suit.
Since the filing of Newby's suit public at
tention has been directed to the sprinklng
contract 1t is understood that Newby did
not bid because he heard threats that if
successful his work would be made embar-
RAISING financially. The second set of bids,
received March 27 found c. Rust & Co.
formerly Kenningtons partner and not a
bidder Feb. 2O. 1. F. Reeder (who is said to
have been interested in Newby's bid of Feb.
90 and Remington Bros as the bidders.
The last named bid $19.75 for each great
square COOO0 square feet. for two daily
sprinklings, and $21.5O when three were
ordered" This was the lowest bid of the
three bids, yet Remington bid $3.50 for two
sprinklings Feb. q, or $1.70 less than his bid
of last Friday. His bid a month ago at
areC
on a one or three years basis. although at
that time Newly bid specifically as to the
tenure of the contract. In the first bidding
w. c. Buddenbaum bid for Fred Fuehring,
who was high.
INCREASED COST.
All bids were upon the schedule of streets
for 1903. The area represented in this sched-
ule Is 19, ,425 S2S square feet, or 19421h great
squares. At s19.75 great square the cost
will be over $4,000. or 5000 more than under
Kennington's bid of Feb. "a. or over 5000
more than Newby's. In other words, re-
jecting the first bids has resulted I'm increas-
ing the price 5000 or more. This is ex-
planned by the fact that all the present bids
are specifically on the one-year basis, while
the first were (constructively, but vaguely,
as held by many) on the three-year basis.
Should the board order three sprinklings
a day on the same area that 1t did last year
100000 square feet, there will be an addi-
tional cost of s1.75 for each great square.
Should Sundays be ordered. as is anticipated
by the board. for the bids and specifications
specially mention ii, the cost will be in
creased. In addition Irvington and Tuxedo,
having 100000 square feet, are to be added.
So that the prospect of using the whole
$4,000 for sprinkling seems without doubt
If the board awards this years contract
to Remington Bros. Their contract last
year was at a much less figure. There
is no pretence that Ii is more expensive
to sprinkle this year than last.
1t has been the habit for several years
for a few men who own sprinkling wagons
to do all the work. no matter who got the
contract. II is generally known that Fuehr-
ing would have got portion of the work
IL Kenningtons first bid had succeeded.
of whom are interested. feel that the pub
lie sprinkling is subject for the closest
scrutiny by the Board of Public Works be-
fore il awards any contract.