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

lintels over all brick openings to be
made of two Axe steel angles as shown
on section and details drawings. Re
ferring to drawings we find that on
detail sheet No. II the lintels mention
ed in specifications fully shown by
typical window drawing. l.. r. Benz in
report to board Jan. 81, 1912, says:
Item No. %. Lintels in windows and
No. 81, lintels over Windows the same
remarks refer to these as under item
No. 10. only these windows were IN
white mems cell block instead of color
ed mems, on north and east walls of
white mems cell block. No extra al
lowed for this and it should not bel
paid.
%. Slab in court, $500.
We find order from the architect to
the contractor as follows:
''You are instructed to place slab to
support over hanging court and an
extra amount to $500 is hereby allow
ed for same
This item is so vague and indefinite
that We are unable to make any report
on this, and ask for more definite in
formation from contractor as to the
same.
20. Lintels in windows cell block,
$121.0O.
We find order from architect to the
ccptractor reading as follows:
''You are hereby instructed to place
is lintels between windows in white
cell block and an extra amounting to-
$121.00 is hereby allowed for same.
Referring to the cell block wall. de-
tail of reinforced concrete scale IL
inch to 1 inch plainly shows no lintels
but shows ga inch round bars over
each opening. This extra should be
disalIowed. This item appears to be
included in the change of long win
dows authorized on February II, 1911,
amounting to s625.00. This item has
already been referred to and discussed
under heading of Debts, Item f.
L. r. Benz in report to board, Jan. 81,
1912, says: Item No. %. Lintels in
windows, and No. 21, lintels over win
dows. the same remarks refer to these
as under item No. 10, only these win
dows were in white mems cell block
instead of colored mems. on north and
east walls of white mems cell block.
No extra allowed for this and it should
not be paid
"a. Extra partitions, $25953.
No order for this can be found and
We do not find any action on this by
the board. Mr.. l.. r. Benz says in his
report on January 81, 1912:
Benz Not Familiar With Partitions.
Item No. "a. Extra partitions,
$259.53. I am not familiar with this
order, but l know that some partition
work was done, but matter is not clear
enough. 1 notice the cost of $259.53 as
given in, exceeds my authority. any
way, it probably refers to partitions or
enclosures around pipes and pilasters.'
Was not this item included in bid for
changing partitions on second floor,
$657.00, and contract for vault and par
tition on first floor, $950.00. See charge
of items D and E. debit sheet con-
tractors statement.
Item 95. Scotia around openings,
$137.00.
We find order from the architect to
the contractor reading as follows:
you are hereby instructed to place
scotia around all openings of Jail
building to serve as back band and an
allowed for same
This item should be explained by the
contractor. as there is nothing in the.
order sufficiently ineligible to guide
us in determining whether this relates
to the finish of the windows opening
in the court section of building or the
Jail section. If it is the court section,
the plans and specifications seem to
cover fully this item mentioned See
pages SO. 81 and 80 of the specifca-
tions.
. If this item relates to the concrete
cell block on page 20 of the specifica-
tons it is provided that the walls of
the cell block building of the women's
cells, the condemned cell. guard room,
padded cell, and execution room, and
kitchen, to receive one coat of cement
mortar travelled smooth to a thickness
OF not less than 1-2 inch. The omiS-
SIGN of this IL inch cement mortar
possibly necessitated another finish for
the openings in the cell block building
The cement mortar was omitted but no
allowance was made for same by the
contractor. In our opinion, this is fully
provided in plans and Specifications
and should be disallowed.
Charges Duplicated.
26. Vault door, $1,000.
We find order from the architect to
the contractor which reads as fol-
lows:
You are hereby instructed to place
vault door in vault on first floor and
an extra amounting to S175.00 is here
by allowed for same"
This item is bly, an oversight
as this was included in the contract
for the vault and extra partitions. See
minutes of meeting of board of county
commissioners, book page SIS, Janu-
airy II. 1911. showing the following:
Matter of accommodations for Of
flee rooms in new Jail building was
taken up and estimated from Blount
Construction Company was read as
follows: Vault floor. $4,000; extra
work, s607.0D; second floor, $4,000; to-
tai. $1,607.00.''
At meeting of Feb. z, 1911, this was
reported on by Architect Benz, and bid
was accepted. This item should be
disallowed.
81. Manhole covers negro cell block.
$500.
We find order from architect to con-
tractor reading as follows:
You are hereby instructed to place
manhole and covers in floor of negro
cell block for the plumbing trenches
and pipe trenches, and an extra
amounting to $500 is hereby allowed.
for same"
This item appears to be correct, as
under the plans and specifications as
heretofore adverted to, it is required
of the contractor to excavate and build
trenches for the laying of pipes. drains,
ETC., but there was no provision, nor
do plans show any provision for man
hole covers. This item, being neces-
SarV should he allowed