The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-03-17
We find order from architect TO gen.
eral contractor as follows:

CLdA GeLLl dNAOI dS lullOWh*
September II, 1911.
You are hereby instructed to place
cove mould white women cell block,
and an extra amounting TO S21.00 is
hereby allowed for same"
This item is covered by pages SO and
SS of specifications already quoted un-
der our discussion OF item No. "a.
Referring to plans and detail draw
tngs, sheets Z and s, section MN, ii
Is plainly shown that the cement floors
are to be coved to the top Of the
steel channels as provided.
This item should not be allowed.
This item, however, is probably an
error, for we have examined the cell
in question and find mould on outside
Of same, as item "a, and If this is the
charge intended It should be allowed.
50. Stucco instead Of plaster, fail
part of building, S5S.75.
We find order from architect to
general contractor as follows:
September II. 1911.
You are hereby instructed to apply
in jail part OF building cement stucco
| in place Of plaster and an extra
amounting 70 s53.75 is hereby allowed
for same"
This item should be disallowed for
| the reason that 1t is provided for in
| the general specifications. Page 25
provides that the walls OF the cell
4
| the condemned cell, guard room, pad
ded cell and execution room and kitch-
| en- to receive one coat OF cement NOR
| tar troweled smooth to thickness Of
/ not less than 1-2 inch. This finish has
not been furnished or applied by the
| contractor, and the report Of Architect
| Hopkinson to the board on the unfin-
ished work upon the jail covers this
part completely.
If it were true that the specinca-
| tons quoted from do not cover this
| item and required the contractor to
! put on cement plaster, as contended
! by him in his letter to the board; un-
| der the change from brick to concrete
! construction OF cell blocks; we find on
reference to the specification OF rein
/ forced conrete, page l, paragraph 6,
/ the following: The court floors TO be
cement finished, as laid, and the cell
block walls to be given ono coat of
cement wash Of the same character as
| that used by the general contractor on
all exterior stucco work. The charge
| Of $53.75 is clearly In violation OF the
contract and specifications, even taking
| the contractors own view that plaster
was not to be applied under the gem
eral specifications.
SS. Cove mould, white cell block,
| $4,000.
We find order from architect to
general contractor as follows:
September 8, 1911.
you are hereby instructed to place
cove mould on first floor white cell
block and an extra amounting to S45.0C
is hereby allowed for same"
This item should be disaIlowed fol
reason Of disallowance Of item 81
This item is, however, probably error
for we have examined cell block in
question, and find mould on outside
same as item "a; If this is the charge
intended it should be allowed.
Charge Duplicated.
81. Manhole covers, white cell blocl
and sheriffs Office, S46.25.
We find order from architect to gen,
eral contractor as follows:
June 10, 1911.
You are hereby instructed to plac,
manhole covers in sheriffs Office ant
white cell block, and an extra amount
ing to $46.25 is hereby allowed 70
! same"
This item should be allowed. w,
wish to state in connection with same
however, that on June 6, 1911, th
Blount Construction Company fur
nished a bid as follows:
Furnish all labor and material 10
building 271 lineal feet of 9-inch bricl
,, wall, feet high, including footing
/. also 6 manhole covers and rings. AL
for the sum of S561.7O. for bricl
1t will be noticed that manhole GOV
ers and rings were included in thi
bid. 1t will also be noticed that thi
item of $561.70 includes the manhol
covers here charged for has alread,
/, been included in the statement on tn
: first page Of their statement, iten
~
However, item u" so far as bricl
trenches are concerned were disal
lowed because they are provided for II
the specifications, already quoted
Still no provision was made for man
hole covers in the plans and specifi
cations and this item should be al
] lowed.
= After the bid. which we have men
1 toned, was furnished including tn
manhole covers and rings on June {
1911, we find that J.. r. Benz, archi
l tect. gave to the Blount Constructor
e Company the order above quoted.
s This is inexplics.ble.
3 IS. Changing centering third iool
e $4,000.
E We find order from architect {
4 general contra ctor as follows:
I "July !, 1911.
, You are hereby instructed {
change third floor kitchen floor cen
. tering, and an extra amounting [
: $4,000 is hereby allowed for same"
This item II appears relates to tn
4
AZ, changing beam and floor kitchen
$4,000.
Furthermore, the specifications pro
vide that the contractor shall furnis
s and remove all forms and centering
3 We have discussed this matter full
Z and quoted from specifications in on
: discussion of item go. This iter
should be disallowed.
Sc. Stairs for boiler house, $4,000.
> This item, we find. is covered by or
der from architect to general contrac
tor as follows:
e July 10, 1911
s You are hereby instructed to pU
s stairs to boiler house floor from cour
= and an extra. amounting to $4,000
e hereby allowed for same"
s There does not appear to be any Pre-
= vision for steps leading from coul
q down into the boiler room, which /
n the plans and specifications is provide
to be . feet lower than the cour
K This item should be allowed.
d In the heating specifications we fin
q sheet 1, paragraph s, last clause. q
IS follows: Provide, If necessary, steT
a leading from the ground level to has
LII -