Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-04-17
FAvoRI1ISM CHARGE DENIED
DISTRICT OFFICIALS COMMENT
ON ALLEGED DISCLOSURE.
Without the Basis Of Fact-Matter Of
Paving Contract-An
Explanation.

The statement which appeared in local
paper this morning charging the District
Commissioners with setting new precedent
by showing favoritism in the matter of a
street paving contract was emphatcaliy
denied by officials of the engineer depart
ment of the District this morning when seen
by a Star reporter.
The article referred to stated that I'm
the face of a vigorous protest embodyiES
the charge that it would be AN act of fav-
oritism' and against the forcible objection
entered on record by one Of their number,
the Commissioners have set rather re-
markable precedent In the matter of con-
tracing for street work. in that the lowest
bidder does not get the contract In full, but
only half Of it..
The charge that favoritism has been
shown, declared the officials. is without the
basis of fact. They said the contract in
question has not yet been let and that 1t
will be several days before 1t is definitely
settled. They stated that there has not
and will not be any favoritism shown in
the final awarding of the contract. They
further stated that the only protestant In
the case is the Brennan Construction Com
pany of this city When 1t became known
that this company was not satisfied with
the recommendations of the officials of the
engineer department. which were to the
eHeCl lnal the work Tor aSphalt1ng with
out brick cutters be awarded to the lowest
bidder for that particular specification, and
that the work Tor the asphalting with the
brick cutters be awarded to the lowest bid
der for that specification, p. J. Brennan,
president OF the company, was given a pub
lie hearing before the board of Commits
sioners, at which he stated his objections.
The merits of his bids were reviewed, but
not the slightest reference was made by
him at that time to the alleged favorltsm
which was printed this morning.
Explanation Made.
In explaining the case, and referring to
the accusation. the officials showed that
the Brennan company has only recently
been awarded a mammoth contract for
street paving which will amount to more
than 100000. and that the contract for
asphalt paving and furnishing vitrifed
brick gutterng, over which this trouble has
arisen, Is a small contract, and does not
amount to more than $4,000 This fact
they explained, removes any suspicion or
charge that the Commissioners desire TO
show favoritism.
The officials Of the engineer department
say the specifications under which the pro-
posals for this work were made are clear
and by the terms of the specifications they
are perfectly justified in giving the Bren-
nan company the contract for all the paw
Ing where brick cutters are not called for
as it was the lowest bidder for the asphalt
"Oih, anu tHdl tIcy SilOulu award the con-
tract for the pavements which are to have
brick cutters to the Crawford Paving Com
pany, the lowest bidder for the gullering
Commissioner West takes issue with his
colleagues. and holds that the entire asphalt
work sohuld be given to Brennan, and that
the Crawford company should only have the
brick gutter work.
The Other Side.
Commissioner Biddle and Commissioner
Mcfarland contend that it would be Inn
practicable to have one contractor doing the
asphalting on a certain street and have
another contractor laying the brick cutters
on the same street. and that 1t is intended
by the wording of the specifications that
this work should not be divided in that
manner.
1t was pointed out that the Brennan COM
pany has saved the District several thou
sand dollars since it came into this field and
competed with the other companies but the
officials do not look to creating monopoly
here. and the question of alloting the work
so as to keep in operation a second plant
Is, of course an important one to the Dis
trict in the future. both as to price and
quality of work.
However. this feature 1t is stated, Is not
considered in this case. as the engineer de-
partment mas recommended simply on the
basis of the lowest responsible bidder ac-
cording to the specifications.
Commissioner mcfarland stated today
that he might write an Endorsement on the
papers giving his views after the return Of
Commissioner Biddle, but that he did not
think he ought to talk about 1t until the
final decision was reached. However, he
was willing to say( first. that the charge
of favoritism absurd IN view of the
fact that the complainant contractor had
recently been awarded the largest paving
contract, involving S2o0000 or $500, 900, while
the pending matter was very much smaller
in amount, and, second, that the proposed
award would give the work in the case Of
each contractor to the lowest bidder for
that kind Of work.