Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1907-07-12
Awarding Bridge Contracts.

The board of supervisors of Gala
veras county let two contracts for
bridges at their last meeting. One at
least is joint bridge over the Moke-
lumne river near Camsnche, and
Amador is equally Interested with
Calaveras county in the construction
of the same, having to bear one-h half
the cost. Neither bridge was let to
the lowest bidder, as the law requires.
According to the Prospect the bids
of Canton Bridge Co.-the successful
bidders were:
Camanche bridge 1854
Murray Greek bridge 1884
Total sll59O
The bids of &. w. Swain for the
| Camanche bridge, and of GarbaIini
Bros. for the Murray creek structure,
which we're respectively the lowest
bidders, we're:
Camanche bridge s927S
Murray creek 1890
Total S11165
Here is difference OF 1923 in favor
OF the Amador bidders, and they were
The only local builders of the terri
tories concerned that figured in the
contest. Certainly, it would seem
that If any discretionary powers were
to be exercised in the matter, they
should be IN favor of rather than
against the local firms, other things
being equal. But it seems from the
| published minutes of the supervisors
proceedings, that after the bids were
opened the Canton Bridge Co. pro-
posed, if given bath contracts, to con-
struct the two bridges for the sum of
sl13S7, and on this proposition the
! contracts we're awarded to that firm.
This is still s2lS higher than the
compined bids OF G. w. Swim and
Garbarini Bros. tor the same work.
We believe In open and above boaId
competition in such things. We give
place to the following communication
from one of the bidders on this SUBJ
iect:
lone. July 8.-Dear Sir Il presume
that at this date you have seen the
result of the bridge letting of the
Joint bridge at Camanche, of which
this county is to pay 4 the cost. As
believe it to be matter of public
interets l have thought it best to
write you relating. You will find a
list of the bids in the CaIaveras Pros
pect. l was the lowest bidder On the
Camanche bridge, my bid being
S927S, and the board of supervisors OF
Calaveras county let the contract to
the Canton Bridge Go. of Kanas City,
NO., tor the sum of 1914 or giving
them 1926 above the lowest bid. | dc
not feel that my bid was rejected fol
any fault OF mine, as you will also
note on the Murray Greek bridge thai
Garbarlni Bros. of jackson, we're the
5 lowest bidder and they also gave that
S contract to the Canton bridge Co. oil
Kansas City. Mo. As the Joint bridge
connecting Amador and FL Dorado
! counties was let in this county by
: our board of supervisors, they sent
= the Ell Dorado board copy of the
. plans ana also telephoned to then
s the amount of the bids and got theil
: approval for letting the contract
: This was not the way that the boarC
: of supervisors did with the Canancht
g bridge. The attention of the matter
t has been taken up with Mr. Amick
who will temporarily withhold hi:
signature until an investigation is
made. The history of the bridge II
as follows: The supervisors mel
jointly at Camanshe and adopted the
plans of @. W. Swain of lone, which
was for $50 it. steel span and 1y(
TT. trestle appoach of wood or Of
Org. pine piles driven to a refusal
The cost of this bridge was s6OOO
The plans were accepted and bids
advertised for, but the Canton bridge
company prevailed upon the board tt
return the bids to the bidders un.
opened, and advertise for bridge
plans. All the bridge firms knew
that the Canton bridge agent was tC
furnish the rIans to the county sur.
veyor, and Try to have the plans Of
the Canton Bridge Go. adopted. The
plans that were adopted were the
same as the Swain plans, having the
ElwelI pier, and the same span and
the same weight, but as the plans
were made in the interest of the
steel men and not in the interest OF
either county, the Canton Bridge
Co., had steel joists on their plan
and also a steel trestle. The plans
of the Canton Bridge Co. are for a
good bridge, and are the same as
submitted with the exceptions as |
have stated. l have no fault to find
with their bridge. For the price OF
the bid 1t is worth the money, only
by reason of fair competition | should
have been entitled to the contract.
do not enjoy the hard work that |
had on the plans which were adopted
by both boards, and for which did
not receive any compensation, also |
was the lowest bidder, and the con
tract was given to favored firm for