Los Angeles herald., 1907-11-30
SAY WA TER
BOARD SHOWS
AVORI7ZSM
LOSING BIDDERS SUE TO STOP
CONTRACT
RECIPIENTS OF BIG AWARD
SELECTED, CHARGE
Heron, Rickard G. Mccone Protest
In Suit Against Acceptance of
Hugh J. Duff's Bid for
Compressor

T, Favoritism in the awarding of con-
J. tract for the machinery for the Owens
Jriver aqueduct is the charge made by the
| firm of Heron Rickard &c McCone in a
complaint filed yesterday in the superior
court against the city of Los Angeles, the
board of water commissioners and other
city officials
| Besides the charges made in the COM
plant members of the complaining firm
intimate that a favorite company Is al
ready slated for the million dollars worth
of contracts soon to be granted. Dunn,
Laidlow &c Gordon of Cincinnati, Ohio,
represented by the Baker iron works, are
declared to be the commissions favorites.
| The complaint alleges that the recent
bid for a cross compound Meyer steam
valve gear duplex compressor was un-
| fairly and unlawfully awarded to Hugh
T. Duff of the Machinery and Electric
company of Los Angeles. The machine
offered by Duff and which was accepted
| is claimed not to be according to specifca-
tions and it is said his bid was not the
| lowest.
| The plaintiffs claim their bid is the
lowest for the kind of machine specified
and that the board, on the recommends
| tion of Superintendent Efulholland, IN
lawfully accepted the bid of the Machin-
| cry and Electric company of Los An
gelee.
| The suit asks that the city be restrained
| from entering into a contract with Duff
or the Machinery and Electric company.
| A still graver charge is brought by
the plaintiffs, who claim the speciica-
tions as given out by the board were such
that there was no common standard by
1t -. y.-sI AVID cn
larranged that the board could award any
contract it might desire.
Site a Factor
| The plaintiffs claim that the place
where the machine was to be erected was
not given out publicly. 1t would make a
difference of several thousand dollars to
the bidder if the location were to be off
the line of the railway, where the ma
chinery would have to be hauled at great
expense. 1t would be cheaper, they claim.
to erect such machine near Los Angeles
than near Bakersfield.
Bids for the large blower were adver-
tised beginning with October s, 1907. A
machine with the capacity of 1000 cubic
feet of air per minute was called for.
This was to be erected on foundation
to be built by the board. The place
where this was to be located, plaintiffs
claim, was not stated, and consequently
firms could not figure on the exact cost.
The details necessary to making an exact
estimate of the cost of such a machine,
the plaintiffs claim, were not furnished.
| That the specifications were prepared
and formulated by Mulholland, with the
design that there should be no common
standard by which to measure the re-
spective bids and that there should be
no putting within the reach of bidders
sufficient information for them to intelli-
gently bid for the air compressor and
that the commissioners should not be able
to know who was the lowest bidder is the
charge of complainant.
The bid made by Duff is said to be for
sS7S5. and was accepted. 1t is asserted
that the specifications of the machine
offered by the successful bidder do not
comply with the required machine in
weight, capacity or extent of vacuum,
being below the standard required.