The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-06-25
COAL CONTRACTS NOT
TO LOWEST BIDDERS
District Loses by Over Ten
Thousand Dollars.
TECHNICAL DEFECTS IN BIDS
no Price Stated for Slowing and Gel
lieries From Which Coal Is to
Come Not Specified.

Awards Of contracts for District fueI
for 1904 were not made to the lowest
bidders. In some cases there were two
proposals lower than that of the sue
cessful bidder.
Joha Kennedy. jr.. who was the lowest
bidder en- several kinds Of coal which
are used most extensively by the Dis
trict. did not get a single contract. He
protested against the awards. but the
Commissioners upheld those recommend
ed by F. O. Beckett District property
clerk. and r. D. Simms. District Su-
perintendent of Property. and approved
by the Government board
The difference between the prices of
Mr. Kennedy and those of the success
fu- bidder. J. E. Chapman. on bitumi-
nous mine run coal is II cents a ton. or
$1,000 on the 5000 tons which it is esti-
mated the District will require. The
difference between the prices on anthra-
cite offered by Mr. Kennedy and those
made by V. Baldwin Johnson is so
marked that the Government could have
bought the amount of hard coal it is to
purchase from Mr.. Johnson for 81 ,464. 40
less II it had accepted the Kennedy bids.
Explanation of Awards.
The recommendation of the property
clerk and superintendent of property
made this explanation Of the awards.
which is approved by the Commission
ors:
1T will be noted the bid of John Ken
redy, jr., is the lowest on items 3. T.
5. 6. :. and S. but it is recommended that
this bid be not considered, as the bid
does not specify the vein or individual
colliery from which coal is to be fur
nished. as is required by paragraph ;
OF the specifications. and from the best
information that this Office can obtain
the said bidder was not, in the sense
OF the specifications OF the proposal on
which the bid was made. a bona fide
dealer at the time the bid in question
was submitted"
William j. Zeh offered TO furnish hi
luminous mine run coal at 50 SO a ton.
or 81 cents ton less than the price Of
fered by Mr.. Chapman, the successful
bidder. The acceptance OF this bid
would have resulted in a saving TO the
District OF 81. 22O. In explanation OF the
refusal to accept Mr. Zeh's bid the fol-
lowing statement was made in the rec
omme ndation:
Informality in Zeh's Bid
Relative to the bid OF W J. Zeh.
which is the lowest for item 1. btu
minous coal. it is recommended that said
bid be not considered. as it is informal.
In that no price is named in the bid
for the slowing of bituminous coal"
A bid OF Mr.. Zeh on white-ash furnace
coal. which was lower than that OF V.
Baldwin Johnson on the same coal. was
also rejected. The price offered by Mr..
Zeh was s6.32 a ton, while Mr.. John
sons bid was s6.47. The explanation
given OF the refusal OF Mr.. Zeh's pro
Dosal on this anthracite coal is as fol-
lows:
1t is recommended that the anthra
cite bid be not considered, as IT Is in
formal separate price for slowing not
being bid as required
Section Of the specifications. upon
which the refusal 10 accept the Ken
nedy bids is based. is as follows: Bid
Gers will state from what Individual
collieries and veins the coal. both btu
minous and anthracite. is 10 be taken
II accepted. deliveries must be made
from the specified collieries and veins
aud from no other unless specially an
thorized by the Commissioners in writ
Ing"