The Washington herald., 1907-04-17
Authority of the Board.

tAAsplar
Authority of the Board.
Moreover. in their proposals. the bidders agree to
execute such work as may be awarded them. There
can be question whatever that the Commissioners
have complete authority 20 award a contract Ia the
manner that they deem % the best interests Of the
District either as whole in part They could
not equitably REFUSE however, to give contract
TO the lowest bidder if that lowest bidder is re-
sDoRsible and competent ia their opinion But. in
this case, tie Engineer Department recommends that
the contract be given TO the lowest bdder-that Is
20 say, that the work be divided, the Commis-
siouers have the right 90 do ard that each divided
part be given 70 the lowest bidder that part. 1t
IS mpmcticahe % adopt the suggestion made BY
the Brennan Construction Company. at bearing.
70 give the WoTk Of laying Fr1hed block cutters 20
the Craniogd Paving Company and that Of laying
the asphalt 10 the Brennan Construction Company.
Il IS impossible without delays and Inconvenience
and 70 divide the work In this 1t Is under
stood by this Office. and have no doubt under
stood by all bidders that under the specifications
streat pavement was 20 be laid fr0m curb 70 curb.
aud must be laid entirety just much in
constructing brick wall, the placing q The brick
aud tho placing Of tue mortar could not be sub
divided and given 20 different CONTRACTORS.
The question Of all0tting the work TO keep
IA operation q second asphalt plant is, Of course,
important 70 the District in the future. both
as to price and as 20 quality q work. Ia this in
stance. hO#eFef this feature need NOT be considered.
as the recommendation Of the Engineer Department
is simply 20 award contract TO the lowest bidder
in sach case.
It is not considered desirable 10 recommend re-
advertisement Of the work. the prices BID
satisfactory ard 1t would be improper % admit that
under The specifications upon which bids asked
the Commissioners have not the right 20 subiiyide
the Work 90 as % award each part q Il 10 the
lowest bidder
In conclusion I would state there is absolutely
no doubt IL nay mind that the bidders on this W0rk
thoroughly understood ali the conditions laid down
in the specifications, and further understood the
right Of the Commissioners TO award the CONTRACT
Ia tie m2nuef herein recommended.
II the Brennan Construction Company is unwil-
ing 10 accept half Of the contract. recommend thar
the whole BE- given % the CTsnfond Paving Com
psuy, whose bid Is only slightly in excess
West stands for Lowest Bid.
Commissioner MacfaTland approved
Commissioner Biddle's action, thus set
Ting the matter, but Commissioner West
dissented from and disagreed with his col
leagues, placing himself on record as fol-
lows:
cannot agree with the setion Of my colleagues
IN this matter It awards these contracts upon the
basis Of asphalt psYrlnents with block CUTTERS and
asphalt payements without block CUTTERS. The bids
were not invited on thar basis Prices we're asked
tor laying asphalt pasenents and furnishing yitFhad
hlock Tor cutters two separate and distinct prop5
sitioas. The Brennan Construction Company vas
the lowest bidder tha former and should be
awarded the contract therefor; the Crawford Paw
ing Company was the lowest bidder the second
item and should be awarded the contract therefor.
II THIS is now deemed Impractical. the bids should
not have been asked on that basis.
Il seems 20 me- also that the pTineips upon
which the proposed aWaui IS % be made Is oue that
VIII lead 10 embarrassment IN the future. The
award gives to would be contractor large amount
ot asphalt paving uuon which he is not the lowest
bidder. simply because he bid very low on furnish
ing TtTihed block, which is admittedly very small
proportion Of the eutire work
The maintenance Of the plant Of the Crawford
Paving Company, while unquestionably one Of
great Importance 70 that corporation. is one that
should have Influenced it in bidding and does not
come within the consideration Of the Commissioner
Particularly do ] question the wisdom Of compelling
the lowest bidder 90 share half Of the contract
with a higher bidder under penalty Of losing all
the work 20 which my opinion. he IS justly en-
titled by reason Of his lowest bid.
/ desire TO 60 upon record in favor Of awarding
the contracts 20 the lowest bidders each separate
item fer which bids were invited.
Saved District $4,000 Year.
The Brennan Construction Company has
the contracts for important street paving
work now under way. including the re-
paving Of Pennsylvania avenue. II is said
that the District, since this company got
into the field. has been saving about
s50o00 a year, On the last big contract, !
the Brennan Company's bids in the ag-
gregate We're $lS0000 less than those Of its
nearest competitor. Under the circum-
stances, the action Of the authorities in
dividing the subordinate work and re-
jeCttng the lowest bid is regarded not
only as inequitsble, but inexplicabIe As
already stated, a complete reversal is in !
volved Of a position taken by the board
I'm d similar case. The board has re-
peatedly commended the Brennan Com
pany for the eilicsent manner in which il
has performed its work. As evidence of
the standing Of the company it may be
stated that in connection with the pres
ent contract a MEMBER OF the company
offered to deposit $780, 900 in cash to guar !
antee the carrying out of the contract. !
However, the Commissioners never have
questioned the eompany's ability, financial
or otherwise