The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-07-12
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

III IS curious 10 see how technical DIFF
ficulties will spring up and make trou.
bic which could easily have been avert.
ed by a little forethought. With re-
spect to the use of asphalt in paving
contracts. for example, it is understood
that the city attorney holds that the
practice OF the last seven wears in put.
ting In certain kind and quality of
asphalt governs in the contract which
must be entered into by the city with
the successful bidders or recent paving
extensions ordered and awarded. 1t is
true that the Invitations for bids speci-
fled asphalt paving. but in the city at.
torney view the particular kind of
asphalt to be used in these extensions
is designated by continuous use for
seven years, and the sort of asphalt that
has been used continually during that
period must still be used unless other
wise specified or expressly allowed. A
situation that could easily have been
avoided by little care in the wording
of the call for bids.
The question arises. however, if some
other kind OF asphalt-say Utah rock
ssphalt-were used BY the contractor,
and his estimates and paw were held up
on account Of this use, would any court
before whom the case came, decide that
Utah rock asphalt was not asphalt in
the meaning Of the advertising and the
call for bids7 It seems TO us to be
reasonably clear ease that the court,
IN snch instance, would decide that
the contractor, in using Utah rock as
phalt, was using asphalt. and had fully
met the terms and conditions Of his bid
and contract. This being the case, il
seems evident that the city can fairly
take whatever risk may be involved
in the use of the rock asphalt to make
the paving extensions that are pending
And if, as stated, it was the intent of
the Commission that the Utah rock
asphalt should be used, there ought not
to be any hesitation regarding that use,
unless the contract can show that he
would be put TO great financial disad-
vantage by using rock asphalt, in a plea
that he understood that the asphalt to
be used was the sort Of asphalt thai
| had been used in the past years by the
city, as interpreted by the city attor,
ney. In such case it would be the duty
of the contractor to show the differ
ence that. would actually arise between
the understanding which be had when
he made his bid, and the fact that he
would be confronted with in the use
of Utah rock asphalt.
In that way We could get at rea.
sonable approximation OF the differ
ence in the contract between the USE
of Utah rock asphalt and Of the asphalt
that has been used in the past We
consider this information desirable. be
cause contractors have claimed that
there is considerable differenc,
against them in the use of Utah rock
asphalt, as compared with the use Of the
liquid asphalt as heretofore. But with
a fair approximation of this difference
it would still be at the option of the
city to direct the use of the Utah as
phalt, paving the difference if any
against the city. that may be shown tc
exist as between tine use of the two
kinds of asphalt,
There is a very decided feeling here
backed by important influences, thai
are deserving Of consideration in favor
OF the use OF Utah rock asphalt. 1t il
certain, also that this Utah asphalt il
used elsewhere in great quantities. anC
there would appear to be no reason
why the desires of the Utah peopl,
should not be conformei 10. in the us,
of the home material, as against the
imported First OF all, however, ther,
should be an actual computation Of the
difference if any, in cost; and if it il
shown that this difference is in favor
OF the contractor. then he will derive
advantage by lust that much in his con
tract; if IL is convincingly shown thai
he would be at disadvantage. and thai
disadvantage is not too great. the city
may be content to pay that small diff
ference. and have the home materia
used.