The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-01-13

out the rest Of the building, and num-
erous substitutions of concrete for
brick 1t is impossible, even If we de-
sired. to give an itemized statement
of the cost OF changes. The board de-
cided TO change the construction. We
invited & bid from the Southern Ferro
Concrete Company. It made plans and
specifications and a bid. We sub
mitted them TO the board and It ac-
cepted all of them. including the price.
II was not an alteration. We may re-
mark that the bid thus accepted was
less than all previous bids for the
same work made when the contract
was let. The county has settled at all
times upon the basis OF that contract,
and the cost TO the sub contractor and
TO us of doing the work is no longer a
matter of concern to anyone.
Statement Of Cost of Railing in Court
Room.
G. This is also misleading because
the work included in the sum of
$1.4S9.00 mentioned was not only rail-
ing, but all the interior wood finish
of the court room, which was omitted
from the original specifications. We
made a bid for the doing OF this work:
1t was accepted by the board and has
been paid for. and no further state
ment is required. or will be furnished.
Itemixed Statement for Plaster Mould.
ing. Second Floor, SAT-,
(A). The board asked for the specific
cost of doing this extra work before it
was done. We submitted bid which
was held over by the board for some
time and accepted. and the work done
in accordincae with the specific con-
tract to ray that specific sum. There
is no statement 10 be made, ana none
viii be made. We may remark that
the work cost us more than the amount
which we bid and for which the
county contracted.
Cement on Outer Walls of 6uiIdins.
IS. ~White Atlas cement on outer
walls of building shows cracked sur
ia ces in many places, which should be
recemented by contractor
The original specifications provided
for cementing the outer walls of build
ing with, Portland cement. Upon the
order of the board and the architect.
white Atlas cement was substituted,
the architect submitting the brand to
the board, which was accepted and
adopted by it. This cement was ap-
piled strictly in accordance with the
directions of the manufacturer, and
the architect has so stated In his re-
port to the board. There has been no
default. or negligence. ION our part in
its application, and no reason why we
should recement the walls.
Things Required But Which Have
Been Done.
We do not understand why the
board requires us at this time to do
these things. The anxiety 20 make a
long list of charges against US has led
the board to insert requirements made
of us by the architect In his letters OF
November gath, 1911. and November
9th, 1911, in spite Of the fact that
these requirements have been COM
piled with by US, and that the board
prior to its formulation Of these
charges was informed by the architect
in an open meeting of the board that
they had been SO complied with. This
includes the following items:
81. Cleaning windows.
80. Entrance lanterns
100. Dead cement mortar removed
101. Stains ON walls and ceiling re-
moved.
II any stains appear since we re-
moved them. they are attributable to
no default or neglect Of ours.
1e2. Stain plastering under windows
in jail room and halls.
10s. Ceiling in solicitors room 20
be reprinted
This was painted as a sample for
the board and not as q part of our
work and we made no charge for il.
The discoloration of it arises from the
leaks coming from the paFapet walls,
as we have mentioned.
104. Plastering Of ceiling main hall.
third floor.
105. Furnish lock for elevator pent
house
We have this lock. It has been
rendered to the architetc and can be
obtained at any time. It is a loose
lock and has not been put on because
1t was subjetc to be taken by anybody
IL put on and left unlocked
106. Hardware on windows in white
and negro mems cell block TO be sup
piled.
This itern is repeated by you and
we have already replied to IL in the
foregoing part OF this answer.
SO. -Four man-hole covers in white