The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-04-11
: TT eet Committee Ig-
nores Protest Of Stamp
er, Ragland & Co.
ERECT STRUCTURE
in TWELVE MONTHS
Chairman Adams Denies Charge
OF Onfairness in Hearing From
Contractors c ity Engineer
Boiling Says Melan Sys-
tenn Of Reinforcement
Is Best.


Committee on Streets last night award
Gu 20 l. j. smith & Company, Of This
city, contract for erecting a reinforced
concrete bridge over James River 10
replace Mayo's Bridge, notwithstand
ing the protest or Stamper Rarlant &:
Company, awarded first place n tho
report Of the board Of engineers.
The successful design IS III. vorlt re
Eng ineer Aiuscr. Of the Concrete Steel
engineering Company, OF New York
= "ldeiy known designing firm. IN
no,n concrete and steel bridges The
fridge Is TO be completed within
Twelve months from date or signing
INC contract. \ resolution ratifyinG
the award was recommended 10 the
Hoard of Aldermen which meets TO.
night, and viii DC referred 10 the
Committee on Finance. there being no
formal appropriation for the bridge
though the city is obligated 10 rs
erection The total cost. including
changes recommended by the BOARD OF
cht'ineers. Is TO be s222,osi. With an
eAtra $500 IL the city determines 10
lay and own the trolley rails
Modified Approaches.
y subcommittee reported in writing
last night recommending the smith
award out OF fifteen bids submitted
ten OF which We're rejected some weeks
ago. rhc report rccited tina, the sub
committee had adopted the green
line as the permanent grade OF The
approaches. bu. owing 10 the cos,
recommended that at THIS time q nlod!-
fed grade be constructed, starting on
the south shore twelve inches above
the present canal bridge, and on the
north shore eighteen inches above the
!. W Wood siding. and AZ each end the
grade extending out over the first span
OF the bridge The subcommittee also
recommends that the city acquire Ger
tain land to wi 'cu Fourteenth end Hull
Streets al either end OF the new bridge.
ar. Ferguson cast the only neg l.
tive vote on the subcommittee's report
and he stated that he opposed accept
Ing any except the design placed first
By the board OF engineers
TO Fininh In One Year.
Letters We're presented from City En-
Gineer Boiling recommending the
smooth paving OF the roadbed Of the
bridge, instead OF granite spalls, as
had been suggested and also calling
attention TO the fact that the Smith
bid specified no TIME limit. Mr. Smitt
said that he would incorporate in tho
bid to complete work in one year.
An extended letter OF protest from
Stampcr, Raglan nd e Company was
read. setting forth that that company
was the choice OF the board Of en-.
g.necrs and the lowest bidder. and
that Smith had had unfair advant.
ages in the method OF submitting his
supplementary bid.
Charles V. Meredith appeared for
stamncr. Ragland &: Company. and as
serted that the subcommittee had
given no reason for going contrary TO
the report of It's own engineers His
client. he said, had a plan drawn by
Richmond engineer, and approved
BY the city's board OF engineers.
Where did YOU get your ..lforma
ton that led YOU to override your cx
pert?' he asked. IF you are not sat.
listed. get another board OF engineers.
me question Of strength is a mathe.
matical propositions; 1t is not merely
question OF beauty or appearance OF
the pictures. You say you favor Smith
because he used the Melan system. or
reinforcement. Don't you know there
is difference among engineers as to
which Is the wiser method?"
Defends Smith Plan.
n: NJ. Smith. Jr., appeared for l. ].
Smith Company. on the ground that
1t was home concern. and that the
committee, after laborious, painsta King
and conscientious work caring AZ
length from all the bidders had acted
within Its rights in recommending tho
Smith plan The engineers he SAID
mad been drawing br;Tges for eigh-
teen years successfully The clty's
board Of experts had placed the stamp
er plan hrst' provided the cantilever
sidewalks were eliminated. m
That change" said Mr.. smith
widened each pier and arch seven fact
on each side. For that additions i fo,,r-
teen feet Of width Stamper shomia
nave added to his cost $4,000 to SEQ
"oo. Yet his supplemental bid was b,,t
SS,ooo- And he raises the cry Of un-
harness IN the supplemental bids. The
engineers criticized the Smith design
as 10 the thickness of the arch rings
engineer Rocker, of Richmond. has ex
ahmed them and says they are thfc1,
enough, but We are willing 70
strengthen them as desired, and have
added TO our price $1,000. If we adopt
the same loose bar system Of rein
forcement as proposed by Stamper. we
are the lowest bidder. We could de-
duct $4,000 If not required to use tho
Melan system, and we bid both WAYS.
There is that much more steel. in the
arches than they propose
Author of Plan Henrd
Engineer Muser. author Of the T. l.
Smith plans, discussed the technical l.
features or bis plan, saying that tho
arches required 400 tons OF stccl,-cost-
ing S2S,00o, while tlN snampcr method
Of reinforcement did not use onc-h half
that amount OF steel.
1--WE have not reduced our bid" as
serted Mr.. Muser. THAT statement in
tho Stamper protest is not a fact. Tn
our original bid We gave fully the vari-
Gus deductions for different grades or
having, and that Is our bid of to- ay.
with Melan reinforcement. the only
change being the addition OF $2,750 for
slight changes recommended by the en-
gineers, of which we do not concedc