The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-12-20
Councilmen Hear From
Man WhoLost Wharf
Contract.
CLAIMS THAT HE
DESERVES AWARD
Engineer Walthers Resents
Method by Which Committee
Barred Advance Suggestions
and Then Slashed Plans.
Some Talk of Investiga-
ton to Get at Facts.

Vehement protest against the action
of the Committee on Improvement OIL
the James River in awarding the con-
tract for erection of the proposed new
city wharf to the Raymond Concre4l
pile Company has been filed By Charles
f. Walters, an engineer and contfac-
tor of Pittsburg, Pa, who claims the
contract on competent plans. and as
the lowest bidder. within the appro-
priation OF s20,00D.
AS the design to which the commit
tee gave the award on recommendation
OF a subcommittee and City Engineer
oBliing exceeded the available appro-
prIation, the papers were referred by
the Council to the Committee on fi-
nance. wucn meets tonight, when the
matter may be taken up.
So far no member of the Council mas
indicated what action, II any. he WI
take. but in view OF the charges hied
by the Pittsburg engineer. many be-
lieye there should be careful investt-
cation, botn as TO the standing of the
man making the charges and as 10
their merits
Complains by Circular.
A half dozen members OF the Cohn-
oil including some membets OF the
Committee ON James River, had re-
cular last night City Engineer Boil
ing said he had heard that the con
tractor was not satisfied with the
award, but that he was prepared TO
give his reasons for recommending the
plan adopted by the committee at the
proper time.
~ his letter to Councilmen, which IS
nothing II not vehement, the disap-
pointed contestant charges partiaiity
on tile part OF the CRY engineer IN
passing on the designs. y paragraph
from hSs letter reads:
'.As understand the situation. the.
engineers were not thought to be COM
petent to produce a satisfactory design
OF their own. Now II seems absurd
that this very engineer or engineers
should pass on the merits of other dc.
signs. There is no logic to IT. the en-
giueer is either competent or not. II
he Is not, his recommendation become
farce and may subject the city to a
lawsuit, and I do not propose TO suf-
fer financially If there is any recourse
open to me-.
by Direction of the Council.
Members OF the Committee on James
River Improvement, made up OF rep |
resentatives OF both branches OF the
City Council ard of the Chamber OF
Commerce, state that the question OF
the ability or lack OF ability OF the City |
Engineer and his assistants did not en-
ter into the matter; that the Council, by |
resolution instructed the committee to |
advertise for Plans specifications and
bids. and to select that design thought |
10 be best suited TO the city's needs |
and award a contract subject to APP |
proval by the Council--a method which !
has become general In large construc- |
ton work where special designs are
desired. 1t was the plan adopted In
building the second and successful set
Ting basin llume, and IL is the plan
under which TIE city is now calling foI
proposals for erecting new free
bridge The only objection heretofore
raised is that there is but one bid or
each set of designs. making a general
competition between engineers in de-
signing, but no competition in building
the actual design selected.
Had No Instructions.
In his letter addressed to Members
of the Council Mr.. Walther states that
before he started on his plans he re
quested the engineers office to give him
some idea of the local requirements for
the wharf. but was informed that he
must design and propose as he saw fit.
and that he was therefore very much
surprised when after the bids had
been opened and made public, the City
Engineer took a decided stand for
certain type of construction, emphasize
Ing that such and such We're the re-
quiremcnts, and that no other plans
should be accepted"
He says that he only learned of these
requirements after the bidding, and that,
in ignorance of the City Engineers
ideas on the subject, he prepared plans
for a wharf somewhat similar to the
construction of Youngs Pier. at Attain
tic City, a pile construction wharf,
rather than Eulkhead, his price being
$17163 much the lowest bid and the
only one within the appropriation He
says that his plans were simply re-
jected as mot in accordance with what
the city wants.
He goes into an elaborate discussion
OF technical points Of difference, en-
phaszing that his design did not re-
qulre back fill and that in case or
freshet the sand fill in the plans adopt
ed might be washed away.
May Come Up Tonight.
1t has not yet been decided by mem
bers to whom such a letter has been
addressed, whether the Committee on
James River Improvement should he
called to look into the charges or
whether they had best be handled by
the Council or by the Finance Commit
tee, before which the dock proposition
Is now pending. It may be that in the
argument before the Finance Commit
tee tonight for an additional appropri-
alton to erect the wharf proposed by
the Raymond Concrete Pile Company,
and recommended by tho Committee on
Improvement OF the James River, a
sufficient answer will be given to Mr..
Walther's statements to obviate the
need of further and more formal in
quiry. 4. recommending the Raymond
design the committee was frank ;
enough to say that it was only third
choice; that a better wharf, proposed
by II, NJ Allport &; Son, OF Richmonu,
had been otfered, but cost moro than ],