St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1912-12-14
Home Talent Denied the Right
gIO Bid for Go Instruction
of The New School
House.

parish. The superintendent of
public education, Mr.. G. J.
Thompson, is in my opinion, re-
sponsible therefore. Not satisfied
with the right to attend to his
duties, he wants to boss every
thing connected Herewith. This
is made manifestly to appear by
what follows:
Immediately following the cleo
ton for a school building in this
City, | approached Mr.. Thomp-
son with a view of offering my
services in assisting a building
committee, and suggested he
place on the building committee
some mechanic with some exper-
ience. He Feplied he had already
spoken to Messrs. Stevens & Mel
son and they were good archi-
tects. And on the third day fol-
lowing the election, MIR. Thomp-
son called the school board to-
gether and awarded the contract
for the plan and specification to
Messrs. Stephens & Nelson.
This would indicate he had
made up his mind, these gentle
men were going to boss the job.
A building committee was ap-
pointed, but great care was taken
to not place any mechanic on
the committee.
About Nov. 1st there appeared
in the local papers, a notice that
bids would be received for the
construction of the building. |
Immediately applied for plan and
specification to prepare bid for
the 29th OF said month. The
architect Stevens & Nelson, on
the l4th Of said month replied as
follows:
Mr.. Chas. ThibodeauX,
0pelousas, La.
Dear Sir:
We have your letter in refer
ence to sending you a set Of
plans and specification for the
Opelousas School, and in reply
beg to say that this building is
to bea reinforced concrete build
ing and we have specifically
stated in our specification that
all contractors figuring on this
building will have TO be accus-
toned to handling reinforced
concrete and will have to be able
to point to some large REINFORCED
concrete building which they
have erected successfully before
we can allow them to figure on
this building" )"
Now I had erected many large
building. But before | have time
to procure the evidence and sub
nlitted it to the architect and OBJ
tain the plans and specification
to bid thereon, it was too late.
Mr. Homer Ventre was similarly /
situated. IF we had been timely
furnished the plans and specific |
alton. we would have put in our
bid. AS it was, we were com
pletely shut out By plan that had
method in it.
The notice for bids should
have stated what were quail !
ifications necessary for bidders. !
Insteadof which, the specification
did, and these We're in the hands /
of the architects unwilling to
furnish bidders with the same
until these bidders had furnished
these gentlemen with evidence
Of The fact they were competent !
to Go the work.
I submit that was an arbitrary
method unWarranted by usage
end custom. Had | been furn-
isned the plans and specification, /
/ would have bid upon the work
and furnished evidence of my
qualification.
These plans and specification
withheld from the proposed bid
ders under the circumstances
above related, destroyed compe- /
tition. As evidence of this, only /
two bids were offered. There
should have been ten or twelve. !
Other proposed bidders were
doubtless treated as Mr.. Ventre /
and myself. Required to furnish
qualification, before having been /
permitted to sview the plans and
specification.
charge that Mr.. Thompson /
Was at the bottom OF this.
have already shown he had spok-E
en- ta iessrs. Stephens & Nelson .
prior TO the vote on the tax.
ha showa no mechanic was
placed on the ecQmmittee. I have
shown no plans nor specifi-
cation were furnished. and final
u I charge that Mr.. Stephens of
the firm of Stephens & Nelson,
stated TO me, in the presence of
Messrs, B. r. Splane, Willie Ar
ioin and A. S. J. Campbell that
superintendent Thompson had
stated to him. there was no one