The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-04-09
PROTEST AGAINST
AWARD TO SMITH
Stamper, Ragland & CO. Claims
That It's Bridge Offer Is
Really the Lowest.
WHOLE CASE is REVIEWED
Formal Documcnt~ANill Be Pre-.
sentcd to Street Committee
Of Council.

Formal protest against tho award OF
contract for the new concrete bridge
over James River to |. j. Smith ~
Company will be presented to the
Council Committee on Streets to-mor-
row night by Stamper. Ragland g.
Company. the authors OF the design
placed first BY the board Of consulting
, engineers. notwithstanding the report
! OF the subcommittee formulated in cx-
ecutive session, Stamper. Ragland y.
Company asserts that It's proposal is
the lowest In cost; that Al was given
first place BY tho clty's board OF en-
Eineers.1 and that l. j. Smith 4 a.
pany was givcn an unfair advantages
IN being allowed to file u supplement
tary bid after the committee had ad-
Journed and after the figures of all
other bidders were known.
Changed Character OF Paving.
IT is also stated by Mcssrs. Stampcr.
Ragiand & Company that at the final
executive session. when the subcon,-
mittee made its award to smith {
! Company. that firm made supple
mental offer. substituting granite span
! paving for asphalt blocks. and rcduc.
Ing It's entire figure 5000 III such
paving be adopted, Stampcr, Racland
q company asserts that it is mani
I testify unfair to other competitors "a
aiio" such Il change to be made in
|
me advantage In putting In his bia
AFTER the figures Of all Of the othe,
| bidders had been made Known rb,.
| protesting firm In statement Ia ~.
committee. says;
we DO not believe for {: moment
mat the city Will allow the NC ~
granite spall paving upon the bridge.
w ~ MI. smiths suggestion is TO be
| considered, then it is only fair 10 allor.
! bnc
! ehdhke. II such an unfortunate change
| IN material Is to be made We are viii
ING to reduce our bid by $3.50 Such.
a reduction would. of course. leave -,
| the lower bidder"
VIII Protcst to Committee
view Of the report Of the su,.
to'Hmlttee recommending the award
| ~ =. .. smith & Co. Stamper. Ragland
q company has prepared and wi,i srh-
nit to the COMMITTEES on S,ron,s -,
morrow night complete Statement,
~ me bridge transactions, asking l.a,
ne report OF the subcommittee bc "a.
Jcctcd and that firm be given
| award -
~, ene outset It is stated that whilc
-, ~ -, an. 10 make such a protest. Va;
10 view OF the facts, the firm halio,.e
the committee VIII sec th,t ~. 49,,
.'on IS justified. and that inillsticnp>hax
oecn done TO bidder as well 40 wro,,ol
20 me city al large. 1t Is then rectal
inst ma. IN December. 1910. the C.omnitte,
on streets advertised for plans. d..
tsn ~ uetall drawings. strain sheets
ana proposals for the new bridge Is,,,t
bidder had the same informa ton -. -,
me Guys requirements. win Mn,
printS oil location. The advertisement
! said that: Each plan and pronosnI
must be accompanied by certified
(; check for $4,000" N"
Violated Instructions.
Bids were opened Fcbrlar,. ond !,
| was found that L. j. Smit,, and Con-
Pahy, Incorporated. had submitted
seven plans and proposals. and The
Garollna Concrete Company eight plans
! ana proposals. though each concern in
eioscd but one certified check for S.
| eoo Stamper Ragland and Companv
| says: This was violation Of instr,lr
! ions 10 competitors. but We n,adc No
protest, as We were willing TO meet
| any design submitted. provided wc h,,l
falr competition in the final selection
OF sign. There were fifteen bidders
| anu AT subsequent meetings or sub
so, .n.,, az plans were rejected
save those Of l. j. Smith &. Co,EII. NJ
Ailport & Son, Carolina Concrete Com
pany, McCay Engineering Company
ana Stamper Ragland s. Co The pro-
posals Of these five concerns including
Inc seven designs Of Smith and cigh,
OF the Carolina Concrete Company.
| were referred to a board of consulting
engineers. consisting Of CITY Engineer
Charles T.. Boiling. Colonel G. +. T..
| BurSwyn and Wilbur j. Watson m
| Cleveland. Ohio, to report as 70 the
character OF construction. design,
| stresses, roadhcd construction, vent
| Of river flow. etc" The report Of ;hc
/ board OF engineers is characterized as
lengthy, exhaustive and thorough as
! to all designs" IT only recommended
| considerable OF one design by each
| OF the five bidders and made sugges-
lions as to changes in each OF the i've
Hcport "f Engineers.
| Later the board of engineers cIass,.
| fled the five designs in The following
order, provided such modification.
are included, as described in our detail.
! ed and general report
J ]. Stampcr. Ragland e. Co, provitj.
j cd cantilevcr sidewalks be eliminate
/ :. McCay Engineering Company. pro-
| vided length Of bridge be corrected to
provide required waterway area
8. T. j. Smith & Co, design II only
! to be considered. ANA thickness Of arcb
| rings to be Increased.
! s. Carolina Concrete Company, de-
/ sign A, with concrete spindle railing
>. n. NJ. Ailport & Son. provided the
/ saint Of the arch and spandrel wall be
| securely cciied
Cost OF plans.
| AS 10 cost, including the extra cost
! Of trolley rail, the five designs stood.
| Stampcr, s23d537; McCay. so23,a7T;
] Smith. s245.561; Carolina Concrete Com
J pany. s2i5.G50: Airport s2A7,OtS The
| NIcCay bid was ffty-thrcc feet too
| short from shore to shore, and way
! practically eliminated leaving tho
| Stamper firm at that time tho lowest
| bidder.
All bidders were then instructed to
prepare and submit In writing the cost
| Of additions aud changes recommended
| by the engineers. The Stampcr pro
| test says:
| I've accordingly made our additional,
! proposal in writing for all changes re.
| commended by the engineers, sealed il
! before leaving tho Office. and delivered
| IL to the subcommittee. as did all other