The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-05-20
CARY IN HOUSE, ASKS
ABOUT WASTE BIDS
Asserts There's Something
Wrong In Allowing Loss
ka of $4,000.
CONTINUED from First Pagel

Continued from First Page9
should be resorted TO, the allowances
from Bean might bring his bid a few
hundred dollars lower than KiTeen <
Cations, but under present conditions
ard is the contract now stands, there
is a difference Of SO, 40 against the tax
payer
These If specifications. according to
Mr.. Cary's data. ask what amount the
contractor will allow the District in the
event the contractor decides to use the
District dump, also the additional
charge II at any time the collection area
is increased
The unsuccessful bidders contend that
the Committee Of Awards construed
both of these ifs as actualities and
accepted the hi6h bid.
A representative of Kflleen & eaton
received the following letter, dated May
5. from the Commissioners, which let
ter is now in NJ. Cary's possession.
THE Commissioners direct me to
make the following response TO your
communication asking what disposition
has been made of the proposals Of Kill
leen & Cation for the removal of ashes
rand miscellaneous refuse in the District
of Columbia, submitted by them March
1.-THE proposal of James II. Cation and
John z. KiIleen received on March q,
ito collect and dispose of miscellaneous
refuse was not accepted. as II ola not
conform 10 the requirements OF the IN
tBtructiOns TO Bidders that a description
Of the method Of disposal should accom-
fpany the bid
1.-The proposal Of James H Cation and
John F. killeen 70 dispose Of ashes was
because
lowest proposal received
Why High Bids Are Accepted.
by order Of tho Commissioners, dated
April /, 1910. the proposal Of Michael r.
sReady to collect and dispose Of miscel-
tIaneous refuse weekly for a period Of
five years from July /, 1910, and the pro-
posaI OF James W. Bean TO collect and
sdispose of ashes for the same period.
swere accepted. These being the lowest
formal proposals received, and being
4 considered the most advantageous 10 me
I District.
'sThe action OF the Commissioners was
based upon recommendations TO them
by a committee appointed for the pur-
pose, consisting of the superintendent
1 of Street Cleaning, the chief clerk OF
: the Engineer Department. an assistant
z corporation counsel, and the chief clerk
Of the auditors Office. This Uommittee
gave the hearings 10 the bidders and
e
reported stenographically for the in
formation of the Commissioners and
have been considered by them.
For this reason, the Commissioners
do not deem IT necessary TO give any
further hearings, nor 90 they believe II
adv1sa bic or proper 70 change their ac-
ton In approving the recommendations
Of this committee
Signed: W. TINDALL, Secretary
Board Of Commissioners.
Would Change System.
Representative Cary, who, upon the
Showing made above has introduced a
resolution 10 change the entire system
of awarding such contracts in the Dis
trict, so that the work may be done by
sthe municipality and not bv private
contractors, is unable TO accept the ex-
PLANTATION coming from the District
building. In fact, ne is rather CaustiC
in his criticism of the manner Ga which
. this particular contract has been award
L 60, ana does not hesitate to say that
+ the matter requires a fun investigation,
upon which he viii insist.
1T Is here in plain figures said Mr..
{ cary Why should the people Of the
4 District be required TO paw more than
$4,000 In excess of what q responsible
. -lrm offered 10 do this work for. and
Tor the performance Of which they gave
2 bond. which, by the way. never has
been returned to them2
4 lam unable to say as yet where tho
trouble lies. but I have become FIRMLY
e convinced that there is something wrong
at the District Building I have dealt
win these Kind OF cases before and
s have smoked out a few OF them II is
my intention 10 pursue the same tactics
Z mere and those who expect me to drop
3 the matter will be disappointed.
e Incidentally. the whole system Of
refuse collection in the District Of Co
tuulhla Is wrong and the work is nor
properly attended 70. only those who
p
coed in having their ashcs and waste
articles removed with anything like reg
ClarItE- The man who fails 10 lin -
ceiEeS no attention and is brazenIy
passed bv.
Responsibility the Question.
THAT. however. is incidental The
question is. who IS responsible for This
loss TO The District, through the accent
ance of a high rather than q low hid Of
equal merit2"
Especial attention is directed toward
the fact that the bidder who received
the contract to remove miscellaneous
refuse, which includes such articles a.
paper, rags. tin cans and other borrsa-
mold accommodations. exclusive of EAR
bage, IS required under his contract tn
make but one visit weekly Under fba
Killer, & Cation bid, the Commissioners
might have REQUIRED two COLLECTIONS -.
week, these bidders making no distiDr-
etion between weekly and A bi-vyeeIlT-
+ collection Ready s bid for two colIec-
r tons per week was S11.69OOO in excess
gof KiIleen & Catpn's.
The makers Of the rejected bids as
/ sert that the District was amplv pro
tected against any possible loss bv a
Z bond and that this should sweep aside
4any technical distinctions In awarding
sthe contract. Mr. Cary. who is Coing
20 present the matter To the House Dis
rtricL Committee, VIII also have some
spicy comments TO make upon a tecbni-
cal loophOle which he saws has been
sought at the cost of many thousands
10 District taxpayers.
Commissioners Reply.
The attitude of the committee on
awards, and in turn approved by the
Commissioners. is set forth as follows:
Bidders are required 10 furnish a bond
Of % per cent Of the total amount Of the
contract as a guarantee of its fulfill
ment In order TO recover on this bond
in the event of the contractor TO carry
Nat in in Milk Trust.