The Washington herald., 1907-04-27
statement by Mr.. Middle.

This is declared impractieable by Engi-
neer Commissioner Biddle. who explains
his position in the awarding of the con
tracts as follows:
The object sought and recommended by the engi-
nccr Office Is the sans that indicated ia the
previous indorssment-tlat is 10 say tho awarding
Of this contract 10 the lowest bidder IN each case
The plan indicated IN that Endorsement, viz, 70
aWaTd the asphalt pavement to ons bidder and the
brick cutters 10 another must be evidently impGac-
tieahie il carefully considered
The method Of LAYING G street pavement is latter
the curb Is laid and the street graded % put In
the concrete foundation or base from Clrb 10 curb.
then las the hF1ck gutter and finally the asphalt
I surface. As the rrcc BID for the gltter includes
The concrete base underneath. il Is apparent that
the concrete under the bricks cannot be laid saIa-
ratcy from the concerto under the asphalt without
a break in the base along the line q the gutter.
which would give weak pavement In such r@re
cascs the gutter and its base laid separately
from the asphalt and its base, the base under the
brick is brought six inches or outside the brick
so as 70 cause satisfactory bond. This could not
be done II the work was undertaken By different
contractors.
Prom an engineering standpoint. such division IN
the work would be impactjcable. UNJUST 10 both
contractors and the streets 20 b. Kept closed
70 the public longer than necessary.
Therp does not seem 10 have been any need TO
state this IN the specifications the asphalt and
the brick sutier SO bound together ia che con
s-ructl0n of the pavement that no contractor cuuid
have possibly considered it othervise. In many en-
gineerins specifications the bids are cauvassed on
prices for separate items included in the eonstFuc-
tion. which items SO related that it would be
impossible 70 divide them among different contrac-
tors This IS thoroughly understood Hy bidders ard
need not be specially stated.
The question thus reduces itself to choosing the
lowest bidder. OF bidders, ior TIE paving Of fifteen
more Independent streets, each q which could
nom an engineering standpoint be laid hy a differ
ent contractor as they would in no Way interfere
with one another
There Gre two types Of pavement considered on
one type the Brennan Construction Company is the
lowest bidder. the other the CmnioEd Paving
Company The authority of the Commissioners %
divide the bids this bass is unquestioned- The
award Is therefore recommended as rgevioGsly-that
Is 70 the lowest bidder paFeneuts without brick
cutters and TO the lowest bidder Iavements with
bfick cutters.
The statement Of the Brennan Construction Com
pany that different decision made 10 the cree
ton q the sewage pumping station IS true Ia that
case the substrCerure and the superseture were 80
closely connected that, while IL would have been
possible % construct them separately. the small saw
ing due 70 the subdivision Of the contract was more
than offset by the probable gain be time ana more
satsiact0Gy results were 0btained by having single
contractor. IN other words. it was % the interest
Of the District ia that case. ia the present and
absolutely within the Specifications that The award
was made.
The recommendation in my previous Endorsement
that the Brennan Construction Company be not ne
quired. If they did not desire, 20 accept the
contract Tor the streets without guttus. rs they
could be required 10 do under their guarantee,
made solely IN the interests Of the Brennan Con
struction Company. and for 10 other purpose, as
the engineer department is perfectly satisfied with
the Brennan Construction Company as a contractor.