The Washington herald., 1909-06-03


BY awarding the District laundry con-
tract for the fiscal year 1910 10 the Toll
man Steam Laundry az the figure Of 81
1875 in excess Of the bid Of the Empire
Laundry, the District Commissioners may
become entangled in a maze OF legal COM
plicatiOns.
Il also has been hinted that an appeal
may be uSde 10 President Taft, as the
contract was let contrary to the findings
Of the general supply committee. created
/ by executive order
James S. Cotton & Sons. proprietors Of
the Empire Laundry have announced
their intention Of fighting the case TO q
finish. They declare they VIII, Il neces-
sary, petition FOR a writ Of mandamus
against the District government
Omcials OF the Treasury Department de-
clared yesterday that should the Com
missioners allow the contract 20 be exc
cuted. contrary 10 recommendations OF
the general supply committee, and the
board Of awards. the latter created by
an act embodied IN the revised statutes,
I the Comptroller Of the Treasury may re-
fuse 70 pay for the services given
stand by Their Action.
/ Members OF the board OF awards and
/ the general supply committee VIII not
I discuss the case, but stand by their
+ rejection. or recommendation Of the re-
/ lection cf the bid Of the Tolman com
pany. and defend their position by re-
I ferriug TO the statutes and the recent Or
! der OF President Taft
! Commissioner West. IN whose depart
ment comes laundry work. declared yes
terday he would stand by his decision
and would not consent 10 letting the
/ laundry contract 20 the Empire company
J He bases his determination. which he de-
cIares 70 be the unanimous sentiment OF
/ the Board Of Commissioners, on the laws
Of the District. which, he declares. gives
the District property clerk authority 70
make all purchases for the District gov
eminent upon approval OF the Sommis-
( siOneTs.
The reasons ascrfbed Tor the rejection
OF the lower bid for the work IS that
the Empire company which Tor TWO
years held the contract, did not give
proper or adequate service"
James :. Cotton declared he could and
4 would prove that his work for the Dis
I trict in past years had been uP 70 the
standard required by the departments.
and pointed out that his work for nine
/ departments Of the Federal government
was satisfactory. He said the ComElis-
sioners would give him no explanation
for the rejection OF his bid. which. be
said. cast a reflection on his business
standing.
I The lauudrycan said he had appealed
/ 20 the Commissioners ard was unable 20
1 obtain an explanation. he said he had
also visited the secretary OF the board OF
awards. and had prepared a letter 10 be
/ forwarded 10 the board. asking that some
/ explanation be given as 10 the refusal Of
! the bid when all requirements had been
met
Bids for the District laundry work were
1 opened on May g. Only two bids were re-
! celved by the District committee on
! awards, one from the Tolman steam
/ Laundry, figuring 20 do the work for
Ss313E. and TIE other from the Empire
/ Steam Laundry. which bid s. 45s5 so. or
/ Sl,Ss3-75 less than the TOlman company.
The Higher Bid Won.
{ When the bids were closed, the Dis
| trict beard Of awards recommended 10
/ the Commissioners that the contract be
I let 70 the Tolman company. notWith-
standing their higher bid The board was
/ asked IFS reason for rejecting the lower
/ bid. and in explanation forwarded 10 the
! c Commissioners a lengthy report. declar-
! ing the Empire company had been tardy
/ IN calling FOR and delivering laundry, and
/ had. therefore, been the cause for com
I plant from the heads OF practically every
/ department The Commissioners then
I favorably considered the recommendstion.
/ The recommendations OF the District
/ board were forwarded 10 the general sup
/ ply committee. which body rejected the
I higher bid. The recommendation then
( went 10 the board OF awards, which body
/ recommended that the BID OF the Tolman
company be rejected.
When the papers were returned 10 the
/ Commissioners, they we're signed. and
/ according TO Commissioner West. Il only
remains for the contract 10 be executed.
Commissioner West said yesterday he
had inquired into the matter. and would
not accept the bid Of Mr. Cotton AZ any
figure. he said Mr. Cotton had failed 20
live up 20 his contract. and as he had
failed 10 give satisfaction in the past.
there was no reason for giving him more
work 10 do. The Commissioner was
emphatic in declaring against the &C
ceptance Of Mr.. Cotton's bid
NJ c. HargrOve. District property clerk,
said he had recommended that the higher
bid OF the Tolman people be accepted in
preference TO giving the work 70 the En-
pire laundry. as the latter company had
not fulfIled the contract in a satisfactory
manner when Il had the work He said
the heads Of all but one department had
declared against giving the work 20 Cot
| tons company. and this action had been
explained 20 the Commissioners and 10
Mr. Cotton. He admitted Mr.. COttOn's
bond had not been declared forfeited
Too Much for the Money.
Mr.. Hargrove said the work could not
be done in a proper manner and proper
service be given for the money asked by
the Empire company. and it was this in
a measure that caused the board 10 rec
ommsnd the higher bid be accepted
NO explanation has been offered me
and I am unable 20 think OF a reason for
the Commissioners TO reject my bid said
Mr.. Cotton yesterday. 7 can prove by
I various District officials that I have al
/ ways given good service and have never
violated my contract.
You say the District Commissioners do
not think I am Teliable2 Well II was
not reliable. 1 certainly would not carry
/