Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1909-03-30

properly filtering the water for the !,
use of the city. Most of the bidders
are we'll established firms of large re-
sources and excellent reputation for
successful work in. this line The
amounts of the several bids vary but
slightly
IN order to still further analyze the
relative merits of the various bids
submitted, we have adopted the plan
of bringing each bid up to standard
construction, adding or deducting, as
the case may be. the estimated amount
which. in our opinion. would represent
the value of the differences in ma
chinery or equipment as proposed.
After bringing the most attractive
propositions to such a fixed standard
as this, we find that the lowest bid
ders have ranged themselves from low
est in the following order:
L. Thomas Lightbody of Youngs-
town Ohio
2. Proposition No. 2, of the Pitts
burg. Pa. Filter company.
3. The Roberts Filter Manufacture
ing company of Philadelphia, Pa.
4. Proposition No. .. of the Nor
wood Engineering company of Flor
ence, Mass.
| 3. Proposition No. 6, of the Pitts
burg Filter Manufacturing company.
6. Proposition of the New York
| Continental, Jewel Filtration company
We have not been able to analyZe
the bid of the Sand and Gravel com
4 pany. of East Liverpool Ohio. as the
details for this proposition are lack
ing, but we have been much impress
ed by their proposition to build a
plant upon the hill site, for the sum of
$4,000, and have given it careful at
tention, as explained hereafter.
Some of the bids submitted are
not as susceptible of careful analysis
as others. We would say, however
that the difference between the low
est and the highest named in the
list, after standardizing their con.
lstruction to the best of our ability
is about $4,000, which difference in
dictates satisfactory. close bidding.
We feel that the mere cost of the
proposition, furnished by the bidders
is no criterion from which to make
selection. AS a matter of fact, the
Ivalue of each proposition in its equip
ment and methods of construction i!
proportional to the amount of TIL,
bid. and it therefore becomes mat
ter of selection upon the equipment:
proposed and the record OF the bid
ders rather than upon any compari
son of cost.
There are a number of items {,
} (which we have attached importance
i'm looking over the propositions sub
mitted. These items are:
/. The adoption of hydraulicall.
D operated valves throughout. w,
think, in plant of this size, it i
important that the attendants shout,
81 devote their time TO controlling TIL
Operation of the plant rather than tn
needless exercise of manual labor
0 Any feature, facilitating the ease o
-ioperation of the plant, would be con
0 ducive to closer and more satisfact
l. DRY regulation.
+ .. We desire to see the plan
= equipped with operating tables an
: recording cages also with samplin
{ devices, all of which tend to care
i full and efficient control.
i 3. We believe that the mechanics
operation of the plant should be SUI
piled with more efficient type O
J. low lift pumping engines than tina
J. offered by most of the bidders.
n 4. We favor an independent sys
It tenn of piping for air agitation of tn
k sand bed and have also given clos
S attention TO the comparison of tn
5. rise of wash water per minute i
If each proposition.
= 5. Some of the bidders have nc
r fully provided for the ultimate capa,
n ity of 100000 gallons, require
, under the specifications, in the d.
sign of their conduits, channels an
n other appurtenances and othe
4 omissions have been considered
comparing the bids.
6. We are greatly in favor of Ella
i ITCHY in tho operation of the coagl
lating basins, and we have paid clos
attention to the methods, propose
by the above bidders, to obtain tn
elasticity of operation by the prop'
mixing and application of the coagl
Tents, which should be at more tina
one point.
Other features have been careful
reviewed by us and the 30 propos
tons have been tabulated and con
pared.
Taking all things into consider
ton, not only costs but every lite
entering into the various installation
/ proposed, together with their gener
arrangements, we believe that tt
city will make no mistake in accep
ing, with slight notifications, eith'
proposition No. 2, offered by the No
wood Engineering company or pro
osition No. 6, submitted by the Pitt
burg Filter Manufacturing compaI
or the bid of the Roberts Filter Ma
ufacturing company of Philadelphia
If we can be said to have any pre-
erence in the matter, it may be int
! Gated in the order named, although
must be admitted that differences