The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1909-03-02
7 WENTy-E|GHT
DRYDOCK
FOLK
By Ernest G. walker.
IAN Special to the Advertiser. J

with the bids for the Pearl Harbor |
drydock, which bids were opened here |
yesterday. The bid of Boston man,
c. M. Leach, who gave his address as
care Of the navy yard, that city, was
one of them. He had the lowest fig. |
ure on every item of the specifications,
but, fortunately or unfortunately for
him, his bid was not ace ompanied by
bond and therefore will not be con-
sidered. He sent certified check for
100000 and promised to furnish the
bond if the, contract were awarded
him. But Admiral Hollyday told Del
| egate Kalanianaole and Mr.. George b.
| Mcclellan, after the bids were opened,
that Leach's would not be considered.
and that the award would 60 to the
Pacific Construction Company, as al
| ready cabled to the Advertiser.
In round numbers the bids of tho
eight competitors stood as follows: Ed
ward Malley, 1884 McAllister street,
Cal, $2,760,l75; Cotton Bros. & Co.,
241 bacon building, Oakland, Cal, $2,-
1000; Macarthur Brothers Co., IL
Pine street, New York City, 3,46s,OOo;
San Francisco Bridge Co., SOS Monad
mock building, San Francisco, $685..
900; McDermott Contracting Co., 11l6
Pennsylvania building, Philadelphia,
SO, 100000; +. J. Lord Construction
Co., Campbell block, Honolulu, $685.
739; Pacific Construction Co., 16 Cali
fornia street. San Francisco, $2,37l,-
700; and C. NJ. Leach, care Navy Yard,
Boston, S1,sS6,Ss3.
There was inquiry from twenty
eight individuals and firms all told for
| ho MI
for the Pearl Harbor drydock, but of
these, as already indicated, only eight
firms entered bids. This was signifi.
cant as indicating the difficulties of
the work. For while some of the in
quiries were probably made without
any particular intention of bidding,
still it is plain that an examination
of the plans and specifications con
WINGED a number of people that the
project was too great or the risk too
great for them to compete for the con-
strnction. There was undoubtedly no
small difficulty in securing bond from
surety companies for the bids, because
of the hazardous financial character of
such undertakings. Those who in
quired for plans and specifications
were, apart from those who bid, North
| American Dredging Co. of Philadel-
| phia, p j. Carlin Construction Co. of
Brooklyn; Healy. Tibbitts Construc-
ton Co. of San Francisco, James Stew
art & Co. of New York City, Arthur
] McMullen of New York City. Sam Tate
of New York City, Eugene Kuhne of
| Tompkinsville, n. Y; S. Pearson &
Son, inc, and Henry r, Worthington
both of New York; IL. V. Talbot &
| Co. of Brownsville, Pa; Lackawanna
Steel Co.. Risdon Iron Works, McGil
vray Stove Co., Matson Navigation
Co., CITY Street Improvement Co., X
A. Perry, all of San Francisco; New
Jersey Foundry and Machine Co. OF
Jersey City, McDennott Contracting
Co., American Dredging Co. and Car
negie Steel Co. of Philadelphia, anG
several Others.
II There was "A big company present al
the opening of the bids, among then
L. j. Lord, l.. M. Whitehouse and w
II. Hoogs, all of Honolulu. AS tn,
lowest responsible bid, that of the Pa
: cifc Construction Co.. is for $2,800,00
there will be need of an additional au
f thorization by Congress for the dock
s Admiral Hollyday took this matter NJ
|. at once with the Delegate from Ha
wall, who. with Mr.. Mcclellan, visit
d cd members of the Senate COMMITTEES
? on Naval Affairs to ascertain whethe
IS there could not be an amendment OF
II the naval bill now pending there S,
j. that the contract could be promptly
I. awarded and its execution entere,
is upon. The original authorization TO
f. the drydock, it will be remembered
d was 100000 The Navy Department
il will promptly forward the necessar,
IS estimate and it is probable that tn
>. additional authorization will go int
Il the new Navy appropriation law.
r The figures quoted for the sevel
g. bonded bidders and the one who wa
IS not bonded, came under what wa
"a known in the specifications as "IteI
/. No. J." 1t is officially described as tn
a "net price for the drydock and acces
a. series complete, in accordance wit
plans and specification. This item cor
:. templates a drydock 1l95 feet lon
as over all and 1852 feet from outer 81
Ia to inside of coping at head, havin
=. yshaped head and octagonal pun
we'll. -
u Each bidder submitted figures o
eleven other items. Several of thes
items covered possible changes in til
plans of the drydock. Item No. 10
instance applies to drydock "col
structed in accordance with the alte'
N nate trapezoidal plan of head en-
N dock" Item No. 4 affected the redu
" ton in price of the bid if the innC
lock were reduced in length.
The L. j. Lord Company of Honolul
he came very close to getting the contrac
en- 1t was the next lowest responsible BIZ
on der and lost the contract by only abo'
he 100000. Its figures, in comparisc
of with those of the winner, the Pacit
of Construction Company, follow, by nur
es. bered items;
to Pacific
pt- Item. T.. j. Lord. Constructio
No. l S., 500. $4,000 s2.37l, 1905
ger No. g.. 645,92s.00 2,442,9OO'
am No. g.. 1850, $4,000 2,442.T00,
nd M 4 4.7s2.OO 3,4s0l
in No g. 1855. 029O0 2.9a2 ZOO
it'll No g.. :, sos, 92s.O0 2,ss6, 800
No. T.. e.6l9,547.OO 1884, 100.
,'rn,o IA cav