New-York tribune., 1907-11-20
CHADWICK ON STAND.
Explains PIERCE BID.
Sans Firm WoUld Hare Got Con
tract Had Board Been Assured.

Soprnissfoner Charles ~. Chadwick OF the
Eoard o. Water Supply. at the inquiry yester-
Gzy conducted BY John Purroy Mitchell, Com
missioner OF Accounts. into the reason for award
ing tho Ashokan Dunn contract 20 the Mac
Arthur Brothers Company and Winston & Co.
ct about S235000o more than the John Peirce
Cc-spaaF was wiling TO do the work for. said
that IL Peirce had assured the board that he
could 90 the work the contract would have gone
10 him.
ATr. Chadwick said thaf he had sent for rep
reseutative os the Perce firm, and that in re-
spouse 10 TIE request the vice president Of the
company, a Bfr. Devidge, called. but declined 20
discuss tns matter. preterring TO let Mr.. Peirce
himself 10 that Mr. Peircc in Europe at
the time
Was it in5inated to Mr. Devidge that you
thought the Peirce bid too Iow?" asked Mr..
Mitchell.
The very fact tnat 7 sent for a representative
OF the hrEn was proof that I thought the bid too
low" replied Mr. Chadwick, but did not say
81 words
J. Waldo Smith, chief engineer of the board
Nr Chadwick said, had told him that the
Feirce bid was TOO low.
Asked to explain about the rejection of the
Peirce bid. NJ. Chadwick said
az found OF Investigation that the Peirce COM
pany he'd had no experience On the kind of work
we wanted done, and that all the other bidders
had had much experience. then thought that
II would be we'll to look around for experts and
realizing that each Of the bidders had put up a
bond OF S250.000 to secure the contract and that
each was anxious to get the award I came to
the conclusion that the best experts were the
bidders themselves
when ! talked with Mr.. Peirce he admitted
that he he'd made mistake that his bid was
too low and that he had had no experience in
that class of work"
Because the chief engineer and the consult
ing engineers and the expert bidders above Mr.
Peirce agreed that his bid was too low you con-
cluded it was?' asked Mr.. Mitchell
Il did" was the reply.
The witness admitted that the bid Of the high
est bidder was approximately as much higher
than the engineers estimate as the bid of the
John Peirce Company was lower. He was un-
willing To say whether not he would reject
the Peirce bid if he were satisfied that there
was margin of profit in II. Il should take into
careful consideration" added Mr. Chadwick,
'the experience of the bidder
Mr. Chadwick said that in his interview with
Mr.. Peirce he had not asked how he arrived at
the figures of his bid
why did you not?" asked Commissioner
Mitchell.
ct didn't think it necessary" replied Mr.
1.-THE mere fact that the bidders bid is lower
or higher than the engineers estimates is no
criterion that the bidder is wrong"
"As a bare statement Of fact, no."
WAS any consideration given to the rejection
Of all bids?"
Yes
'Why did you not reject all Of the bids?"
Because thought it for the best interest
OF the city not to-"
In answer to another question as TO the real
reason for the rejection OF the Peirce bid, Mr..
Chadwick said:
If Mr.. Perce had stood up for his bid and
said that he could do the work he would have
had the contract, but he did not do So
do you not think" asked Commissioner
Mitchell, that Mr.. Peirco could have the ex-
rperience necessary 10 construct the Ashokan
Damp"
He could have foreman, but not the tech
nical brains necessary for a work like that"
The hearing viii be resumed to-day.