New-York tribune., 1907-08-27
PIERCE BID THROWN OUT
LOWEST FOR 1SHOKAN JOB
Macarthur Brothers Get Contract
for Big Reservoir.

kills for S12,6O9,iiJ Ihe JOnn Pelrce Noiii-
pany had submitted the lowest bid. it being
S10315350 The Tribune Friday last told
exclusively that the board investigating
the bids to ascertain If the interests of the
city did not require the rejection of the Peirce
Company bid.
Despite the fact that the Peirce Company is
thoroughly responsible, that 1t had deposited
a certified check for S250.O00 with its bid and
that John Peirce. the head of the company. was
the builder of the masonry of the new Han OF
Records, the Peirce Company bid was thrown
out because as stated by Commissioner Chad
wick below It would have entailed great loss
the Peirce Company.
The five bids for the Ashokan dam. with the
companies making them, follow:
The ORourke Engineering Construction Com-
stew art Kerbaugh- -Shanley Company . 1885. .sI3
Bradley Construction Company I5.921.a50
Macarthur Brothers Company and the Win 80 o -
John PIERCE Company. lO.s15,a5o
Commissioner Chadwick of the Board of Wa
ter Supply said last night that the non-accept-
ance of the Peirce bid meant g probable saving
of about 100000 to the Peirce Company. Mr..
Chadwick's statement verified later by l.
/ Latin kellogg, counsel for John Peirce. who
said that Mr.. Peirce would not begin legal ac-
ton to compel the city to award the contract
to the Peirce Company as relieving Mr.. Peirce
of the contract meant a saving of about $1,000
600 to him.
Commissioner Chadwick made the following
formal statement:
| The Commissioners OF the Board of Water Sup
ply to Whish vas referred the proposals submitted
phases OF this matters report as follows
which shall hold water which Involves a special
form OF construction. requiring expert knowledge
The cost Of the work, separately and inde-
Z chief engineer
signing engineers and an assistant engineer. Is
lowest bidder. These estimates OF the engineering
department M t m are confirmed BY the BIDS Of four Of
! the 1--WE bidders. eacn one of whom has had mo:e
es m % IN m this his parteuaT pa @ kind Of work M
figures on masonry work. with which is familiar
dence gi @ @ 81 TO fa% PGs
and embankment his figures over 100000 less
! than the next lowest bidder.
Peirce Company. the lowest bidder, states that in
reservoir construction. his company has had no
FOR their figures: that upon investisati%n he can
procure no figures on these items to protect their
finds that the estimate is low do satisfactory
work % for nj himself Or the city Therefore the est
| @ deTs out OF hye Is practically confirmed by the
other conclusion to be reached In the light his
evldenGe' tnan lht the oid OF the lowest bidder IS
much below the necessary cost besides being
cededly based upon lack OF knowledge and expert
To best secure the efficient performance Of this
work IT is necessary that the Board Of Water Sup
I The question the clements of which are financial
standing. knowledge. experience and such margin
for profit will willingness and ability 10
continue the work 10 its conclusion with essential
/ efements belng, vital, therefore: in the case q
knowledge and experience in the matters OF eXcava-
tion and embankrnent for reservoir construction
Ultimate profit. is deemed sufficient. in the inter
ests Of the city. TO recommend the rejection of
Your commttee Therefore recommends & in ysw
set forth therein and the answers To questions
sbser Messrs sa Freeman @ M Burr and ears Which
herewith submitted and which concur. sup
pS II itself has been able to bring to bear upon
this subject. that contract No B. for the c0nsrac
thur Brothers Company and Winston & Co. at their
6d 6mouns MHiGh to 2 81 sss rs the Committee having
| fed itself To the financial standing knowledGe
experience and ability of said company 10 90 ''e
work.
In supplementing his formal statement Conf
missioner Chadwick said:
"Mr. Peirce in Europe at the time that
the vice-president of his company, Emil Die
bitsch turned in the companys bid for the con-
! tract The simple fact of the matter Is that
the Pierce company is without experience In
handling excavation and embankment work,
and the bid put in would have rendered 1t I'M
possible for the company to have done the work
| without tremendous loss. The commission does
| not want to have any contractor undertake a
| contract under such conditions. Mr.. Peirce is
an honest If we had awarded the con-
| tract to his company doubtless he would nave
done his best to make good. He would how
! ever have been compelled to exercise the great
| est shrewdness in the progress Of the WORK. so
as to have lost little possible Mr.. Peirce
returned week ago last Saturday, and l sent
for him at once When he went the bids
as stated already he not able to satisfy
himself that he could do the work without very
! seriors loss In fact he glad have the
award 20 to some one else. He did not know
until this afternoon. when the award was made
that another firm was to get the work.
Following are some comparative figures on
the bids for embankment and rehlllng-
CLASS A-25eoooo CUBIC YARDS.
Macarthur Brothers Company. etc..... soc soc yard
Peirce Company &C Il Etrd
CLASS B-3.2oo.ooo YARDS.
Macarthur Brothers Company co.. s9f ysTd ysTd
J
/ CLASS C-I oo.o0o YARDS
ssAfsT5 sa Pc. RSsnsss ohssn1 @ sc Yard
| EARTH 100000 YARDS.
Macarthur Brothers Company CSC. yard
comp 1875 yaFG
Stewart Stanley & Kerbaugh Company. SIC. a yard
Fer the masonry, like concrete and cyclopean
work with which the Perce Company is thor
oughly familiar the bid of the Peirce Company
! was close to the others, "a shown:
| MASONRY. CONCRETE soooo CUBIC YARDS
arthur BROTHERS Company Observation-Disclosures. s4 90
Bradley Construction Company: y:.............-.. 4@
| stewart Stanley Kerbaugh Company. ...-...- . TO
t-Yc1oPEAN MASONRY. CLASS A.
o,Ro,rke Engineering Construction So 30
oasfPaefon nf9nsTs GSPas Company 500
John Pierce Company. '0o
Commissioner Chadwick said that the city
| must if possible have the Catsklll water sup
nIv ready for use in seven years. and it would