Evening star., 1909-06-10
BIDS FOR DISTRICT WASHING
WHY ONE COMPANY FAILED
TO GET CONTRACT.
Letter of Complaint Asking for
Reasons and the Answer Recon-
mended by Commissioner West.

Feeling aggrieved at the decision of the
Commissioners not to award the contract
for the laundry work of the District for
the fiscal year beginning July !, although
it's bid was lower by $1,843. IS than that
Of the company to which the contract Is
recommended to be awarded, and at the
reasons given for the refusal of its pro-
posal, the Empire Laundry Company has
written in a letter to Commissioner West
protesting the action and asking the
reasons.
"Since writing you upon your sugges-
tion, under date OF May 10. calling your
attention in detail to the large differ
ences in the aggregate amount of the
laundry bids and citing few facts or
reasons why we could not understand
the action Of the board In awarding. the
contract to the Tolman laundry we have
noticed oy the newspapers that you nave
been interviewed upon this subject. ana
your statements in support of your &C
aion are a great surprise TO u.s. says
the letter. I'VE are at loss to under
stand the allegations made by you' ana
we desire to take exception TO your con-
clusionss, borne out in your assertions.
unless substantial proof of the same is
forthcoming from the records of your
office or that Of the property clerk.
ITO this end, we respectfully ask:
'F1rSt. Inc copy Oh letleT Ol
single complaint ever addressed to US
Second. Evidence of poor work or un-
satisfactory service from any OF the po-
lice stations or firehouses.
Third. The reason why, II the above
evidence is in your hands, that during
the life of our last contract, when poor,
unsatisfactory service was given. as al
legged. our contract was not declared FOR
feited and also why, after the expira-
ton of that contract In question, our
nd good SdtiSfQc-
tory enough for the property clerk to So
licit from us, without bid, continuance
Of that service for some months. Written
record of his request to this end We have
in our possession.
1--WE feel satisfied that you have been
misled in this matter in some way and
further that the property clerk has been.
too. when he alleges that the laundry
cannot be produced satisfactorily at our
prices which we now bid. when as a mat
| ter of fact the Tolman laundry have dur
ing this year just ended produced the
work for a great deal lower set of prices
| than those we now bid. Can these con-
ditions be reconciled by you, provided
you have all the information In hand?
s"All we want is justice and. notwith-
| standing the final stand you have taken.
we respectfully ask that the above infor-
nation be given US. as we wish to sift
this matter to the bottom"
AS to a reply to this letter. Commission
er West has made the following recon-
II
of Commissioners:
II move the writer be informed in re-
sponse to the first request that the rec
ords of the Commissioners Office show
that July 81. 1908. September II. 1906.
September %. 1906 December .. 1907,
January %. 1908. and March o. 1908. let
ters were addressed to him warning him
that unless the unsatisfactory character
of the work performed by him was speedi-
| ly remedied 1t would be recommended
that the Commissioners annul the con-
| tract with him.
I'm reference to his second request,
| that he be informed that the record Of the
Office shows very large number of COM
plants from various departments COM
| planning of poor workmanship and unsat-
! isfactory service. which complaints are a
part of the District records: and
| Further, that the records of the Office
show that while the writer of the within
letter was doing the laundry work under
temporary continuance he declined per-
emptorily to continue service and caused
the District considerable embarrassment
| before arrangements were made to have
another laundry continue the service
1