The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-03-17


concrete floor and top in arcade same
as specified for court and an extra
amounting to $4,000 is hereby allowed
for same"
On page 10 and 20 of general specin-
cations, under title paving, reads as
follows:
All the court yards and light courts
are to be paved with artificial stone
made and laid in the following man
ner:
The ground to be leveled, graded and
tamped in the most thorough manner;
the first layer of concrete to be inches
thick and to consist of one part of
by the architect, three parts Of washed
coarse sharp sand, and six parts OF
gravel, not larger than will pass
through a IL inch mesh wire screen;
this material will be thoroughly mixed
dry and then dampened enough with
clean water so that the ramming will
bring the water to the surface. The
next layer will be applied one
inch thick, consisting Of one part
of Portland cement, OF an approved
brand, and one and three quarters
parts of washed cleaned coarse sharp
| blocked with the necessary expansion
| joints, the warps to be laid in blocks
! not over 8 1-2 feet wide. The top
| course to be f1oated smooth and true
to grade and finished with dry cement.
This item refers to arcade leading
! into the building and leads into the
| light court and Is a part of the court
yard. and I'm our judgment, this item
| should be disallowed.
Further than this the architect, af-
! ter giving order above quoted, says in
| his report to board Of January 31st,
| as follows:
Architect Regulates His Order.
Item 70, flooring arcade $500. This
matter is in controversy between con-
| ira ctor and myself. He received order
from me to do this work, but this is
only between me and him as to the
| charge.
He contends that It is not in the
contract and l contend that it is in
the contract
Defective Plans.
II. Finish round kitchen floor
We find order from architect to
general contractor as follows:
| You are hereby instructed to pla ce
| caps and finish around openings where
kitchen floor strikes window An ex-
ira amounting to $500 is hereby al
lowed for same"
i It appears that the architects plans
were defective as above referred to
| with reference to the kitchen floor as
this e&pedient was resorted to. to help
him out Of the difficulty.
/ We think that all OF these items
with reference to this extra cost, COW
ering change of windows, placing
Mullion windows, finish in the kitchen.
sky-lights in the kitchen, women's cell
block, etc, should be charged up to
the architect and deducted from the
amounts that may be due him, as they
were all caused by defects in the
plans.
At any rate, this item is included in
item 81, already allowed in this report
! If easement sash had been put in
this finish would have been required
without extra cost.
$4,000.
We find order from architect to
general contractor as follows:
September s. 1910.
you are hereby instructed to place
concrete footings under buttresses and
an extra amounting to $4,000 is here
by allowed for same"
| The eight buttresses discussed under
item "a. and plainly provided for or
the floor plan, sheet No. 2, of draw
ings. On the foun dation, sheet No. 1
there is no foundation provided for the
same. In our judgment. however, this
item is covered by graph of gen
| eral specifications, already quoted, en-
titled drawings and specifications tc
| be cooperative"
We think that the plans and specin.
| cations are sufficiently definite, (el-
, though the plans do not show the
| foundation detaiD to have required
, the contractor to do this work under
. his contract without extra charge t
the county.
20. Steps in front Of sheriffs Office
, | (walls). S10S.40.
| Erd n
eral contractor as follows:
August Is, 1911.
you are hereby instructed to builC
. steps and wall in front OF sheriffs of.
/, fee and stucco same, and an extra
! amounting to s10S4o Is hereby al
lowed for same
: Referring to elevation plans, origina
: drawings, sheet No 4, showing the
front on Jefferson street and step:
from sheriff's office, mentioned in thii
item. these plans do not show that thu
= steps come down to the sidewalk grad,
but only give a portion of the steps II
question. We are of the opinion tina
the contractor should not have takeI
| advantage of the lack Of detail, bu
should be held to >that clause or thu
specifications on page ), general spect
U fcations, heretofore adverted to, an,
| also the last clause on said page ant
: ! first paragraph on page Of sam
! speclf1 cations already quoted IN thl
a report We think that plans are suf
!. | ficiently definite to have advised TIL
g building contractor of necessity for tn
| steps In question, because the sidewall
grade in question as shown on shee
; and plans No. shows that the step
II as detailed do not step to sidewall
: line by 21-2 feet.
Further than this, the specifications
: page 2 title examination of prem
y iseS" r-euuires as follows:
The contractor shall be held to hav
y examined the premises and site so a
n TO compare them with the drawing
# and specifications, and to have salts
n fed himself as TO the conditions of tn
n premises before the delivery Of hi
II proposal and no allowance shall sub
4 sequently be made in behalf Of tn
Il contractor By reason of any error o
q his part"
e With reference to walls that fan
the steps on either side which we fin
Ie on examination are built of concret'
.e these are not provided for on plan
0. and Specifications. There should be