The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-03-16
Mistakes Made in Sup
plying Specifications
to Bidders.
BURTON CLAIMS
HE PROVED CASE
Evidence Before Committee IN
vestigating Engineers Office
Shows That City Paid Con-
tractor for Hauling Stone
Which He Had Agreed
to Furnish.

Discrimina ton In specifications. prob
ably unintentional, was clearly proven
last night b. the evidence taken by the
subcommittee appointed to Investigate
the charges of Contractor G. G. Burton.
81 being shown that in several specific
instances specifications had gone out
for sewer work which were not inter-
lined with the requirement. as to fur
n!sh!ng stone, while the large ma iority
were SO tnterl!ned. 1t was also tcsti-
fled By several contractors that all
though their contracts clearly stated
thai theyc were TO furnish stone for
sewer caps. they In fact did not fur
nish It, but followed the former Gus
! tom and had it supplied by tho city.
Paid Twice for stone.
". 4. Fletcher. who not only CON
tracted for sewers, but also had a gem
eral contract with the city for furnish.
Ing and hauling stone. testified that
his sewer contrac; required him TO fur
nish stone: that he had not included the
Item In his bid. believing that It was
not necessary: that he had compile ted
the work and been paid al tho contract
pr!ce for finished work: that IN the
course OF the work he had hauled stone
from the city supply TO his own Job.
and charged for hauling and setting It,
thus according TO attorneys for MIR.
Burton, being paid twice for The same
stone II was commended that lie was
not paid twice. since he did no, bid
on stone for the sewer, though his
contracts, as signed. required him 10
furnish It, and :he city could have en-
forced that clause.
W M.ssrs O'Flahcrty and Fulton APP
pcared Tor MIR. Burton, as before In
the absence OF James w. Gordon from
the city. ". A. Moncurc appeared for
the children OF the late First Assistant
City Engineer Jack son Bolton, who was
IN charge OF sewer work at the time
3 the Burton charges wore Mod. Little
or no reference WAS made to MIR. Boil
ton, except III the case OF Contractor
4. w. Maynard. who corrected the rec
ord Of his testimony previously by say
Ing that II was City Engineer Boiling
not Mr. Bolton. who had told him he
need not furnish the stone, although
his contract required 1t. rhat part of
the conversation Mr.. Boiling distinctly
denied
Mayor richardson was an interested
spectator, sitting with the committed
Messrs. Nonderlehr. Miller and Gunst.
Contracts Differ.
When the committee was called to
order Mr.. Boiling resumed the stand
and Identified many sewer contracts
OF 1911 with interlineations a before
described In the handwriting OF Frank
It. Bates. requiring contractors to fur
nish stone. and some contracts which
did not show that interiineation. and
which Mr. Boiling said could only have
been given out by error. Mr. Boiling
also identified an interview and state
ment in The Times-Dispatch whicn
was offered III evidence by Mir. Fulton
Mr.. Boiling explained that the In
strucuons OF the Street Committee
we're not to change specifications. but
to prepare specifications. saying that
the committee Itself never prepared
specifca tions. but directed the engineer
to do such a work. It was agreed that
the engineer had authority to make
changes and improvements in the spc-
cifcatIons. and that II the changes
were all alike in all proposals on the
same work. they were immaterial
Had Two Sets.
doesn't this change show that bid
ders were bidding on two sets OF spe-
cihcations?" asked Mr.. O'F1aherty.
"Yes. there were contracts made
both ways" answered Mr. Boiling
'rThen that prove our case TO that
point" replied Mr.. OKLA herty.
Mr. Boiling explained that the spe-
ciRcations which We're not tnterlined
had gotten out without his knowI-
edge, and that he had protested to
ths Street Committee against adopting
the plan OF bidding per linear foot.
which had not proved SUCCESSFUL. Mr.
O'Flaherty showed one Of the newly
printed specifications recently sent out
on sewer bids, showing that it was in
terlned with an explanatory line as to
the drawings. which Mr.. Boiling said
had been done for information and
guidance Of bidders
Might Lead to DISCRIMINATION.
Then If whoever gives these spcci-
fcat!ons to bidders were to give some
with this explanatory note and other
forms without it. there would be dis
crimInation?" asked Mr.. OFlaherty.
II should think there would" an
who Savo out those forms not inter-
lined"
WHO made the calculations" asked
Mr.. Fulton. lin which mistakes were
made making the contract first $500,
then $4,000, and finally s1,s50?"
u do not know or my own know
ledge" replied Mr.. Boiling but If
you will call Mr.. Saville he can tell
you. who made the various calcula-
tions."
MFR. savillc will be called later.
wasn't a8contractor at disadvan-
tago who thought he had to furnish
stone when his competitors did not?"
asked Mr.. Fulton
"Yes, lie was unuucstionablv at
disadvantage" replied Mr.. Boiling.
could you not have required basins
wherever you saw fit. at the bid price,
even though not shown in the original
blue prints?''
II think could replied Mr. Boiling.
"but 1t would have been question
az to whether 1t was fair to require
anything tho plans do not call for"
Mr.. Maynard Testifea.
Contractor a. w. Maynard was called
TO the witness chair. and testified as
i to tho sewers he had built. saying that
Gil stone In his work had been fur.