New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-12-07
BLOCKING THE CITY
POWER OF CARELESS
COMMISSIONERS.
Their Certificates Nay Make
POid Claims on Broken
Contracts.

the contractor Tor the
erection of the greensboro Bridge, that
the certiication of final payment under
contracts by the Bridge Commissioner
seriously jeopardiZes the city's chance
OF recovering for any failure on the part
OF contractors TO comply with contract
specifications. gives an entirely new and
important significance to the question
OF certification of final payments under
contracts by the various departments of
the city administration.
The city charter makes il obligatory
upon the Controller to revise and audit
all claims made upon contracts with the
city or any public officer acting on its
behalf. and specifically provides that i'm
any action at law arising out of that
audit no testimony shall be allowed
showing the existence Of a promise or
agreement by any officer or employe of
the city TO pay any larger sum than the
amount Of the claim so audited by the
Department of Finance.
The Controller. in view of the opinions
of the city's law department. that certif-
cation of final payment by the Bridge
Commissioner has jeopardized the citys
chance of recovery. has announced that
he has no option but to pay claims made
upon the greensboro bridge contracts
that have been certified TO by the Bridge
Commissioner. even though he has been
advised by his engineers that such pay
ments cover the cost of work not done
I'm accordance with contract specifca-
tions
Quite apart from the merits of the
Controllers attitude upon this question.
his decision does give a new and i'm
portant significance TO the granting of
certificates Of final payment by the
Bridge Commissioner for work done and
materials supplied in connection with
the greensboro bridge contracts which
the engineers Of the Finance Department
report have not been according to con-
tract specifications.
DISREGARD TERMS OF CONTRACT.
number of cases have already been
referred to i'm these columns in which
the Finance Department engineers have
taken strong ground that contract pay
ments have been certified TO by the
Bridge Commissioner i'm spite of the
specifications have been openly violated.
In fact there is scarcely a contract in
connection with the erection of this huge
bridge the terms of which. it is alleged
by the Controllers engineers. have not
been disregarded in one way or another
To the great financial loss of the tax
payers.
The Northeastern Construction Com
pany as the lowest bidder was awarded
the contract for supplying the railings
and constructing the granoithic side
walks upon the new bridge. II was "A
lump sum contract totalling s155.S21 for
the entire work. 70 be completed within
eighty-nine days from the time work
was commenced. The first estimate GER
tired to by the Bridge Commissioner
under this contract and forwarded to the
Finance Department for payment was in
the sum of S22,60s 10 cover the cost of
material required to make the bridge
ratings at the time il was delivered to
sub contractor outside of the State OF
New York To be manufactured
The Controller was advised by his en-
gineers to refuse payment Of the amount.
on lit Sfbuiifl AiidN Aif tpiilidtl per
mitted partial payments only when work
was actually done or materials actually
supplied The question was referred to
the Corporation Counsel. who hell that
the payment could not legally be made
under the terms of the contract until
the material was actually delivered.
The opinion further pointed out that.
inasmuch as the work of manufacture
Was being done by a sub-cOntractor of
the Northeastern Construction Company
outside the state of New York. the city's
interests could not properly be safe
guarded i'm the event Of claims or liens
arising under the laws Of another state
against the contractor who as man
ufacturer might have an interest i'm the
material for which payment was asked.
Acting under this opinion the Con-
troller refused TO make the payment uu-
til the railings actually were delivered
at the bridge. although the Bridge Com
missioner had certified that the material
from which they were manufactured
should have been paid for by the city
months before.
later estimate for partial payment
on this same contract in the sum Of
Sl2SISl. duly certified to by the Bridge
Commissioner. was forwarded To the
Finance Department for payment on
February IS of the present year. Ac-
commanding the estimate was a COM
munication from the Commissioner eX-
tending the time for the completion of
the contract from August 81. 1903. To-
February -, 1909 Reporting on this
claim the engineers of the Finance De
partment pointed out that the contract
called for the final completion of the
work on or before August 81. 1908 and
imposed "A penalty of 500 for each cal
endar day thereafter that the work re-
mained uncompleted.
TIME EXTENSION ILLEGAL.
The Bridge commissioner. the repOr'
states. had not power under the terms of
the contract To extend the time for the
completion of this work. especially III
view of the fact that the contractor had
already taken I5S days over the 80 davs
specified in the contract before any eX-
tension of time was allowed by the Com
missioner. Commenting on the granting
of a time extension under such circum-
stances. the report of the \ nance De-