Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1912-03-28
of give an honest guarantee on.

not give an honest guarantee on.
Second: l do not approve OF the In
demnity clause covering patents. as 1t
looks to me like the intention was to
require a certain patent bridge and
don't approve of specifications drawn
up to protect any certain individual or
firm.
Third: While the specifications give
the loading which the bridge shall be
designed to carry, they DO not give the
unit stress, and this point certainly
does not look good to me as regards
the intention of the specifications"
Says Stark Has Inside.
central Iowa contractor declines
to bid, and this is his reason:
Il presume these specifications are
the same that have been furnished
other counties in the state, If so,
would not care to bid on any of the
work, as do not consider that it would
do me any good, as \. NJ. Stark Com
specified by them"
Calls Indemnity Clause Absurd.
A big western firm of contractors
will not bid. after seeing the specifi-
cations. and these are its reasons:
contractor shall protect Marshall
county from infringement of patents
whether granted or applied for. and
also that the contractor must show
Marshall county that all demands made
by the person holding the patent are
satisfied before the county will make
final settlement.
This is a most absurd clause in any
Of re
absolutely has no idea of what will
happen to him, and in reality confines
competition to the person or persons
holding the patent rights i'll question.
"Of course. each bidder submits his
own plans. according to your specifi-
cations. but you understand that there
is a type of concrete bridge that. on
account of its cheapness of construc-
ton. practically eliminates com petition,
and while in our judgment. 'skinnins'
the concrete and reinforcing in order to
cheaper construction does not work
out right in the end. still wc have come
in contact with competition Of this
kind SO often that We do not care to
have anything to do with proposition
that is so evidently one sided as the
specifications which we have seen.
set of plans and specifications we
would be glad to figure on the bust
ness
Peterson Will Not Bid.
Elmer Peterson. q local contractor
after seeing the specifications. has de-
cided that he will not bid The reason
he gives is that he could not submit a
plan. L can't make one he said. sit
.ot, =; 20 no Nd m
no engineer
Il was Peterson's opinion that the
Specifications the supervisors have
adopted would not work with every
bridge plan, but are intended. more es-
pecially. for a certain kind of bridge.
"The Luttin bridge" said Peterson.
is a good cheap bridge, there's no
question about that"
Highway Engineer Finds Fault.
Thomas H. Mac Donald, OF Anles,
Commission. finds the following faults
with the specifications:
'eF'irst-The specifications designate
the ioadings which the bridge shall be
designed 10 carry and say absolutely
nothing about the unit stresses in the
material This point alone is sufficient
cations in the mind OF any engineer.
| "Second-These specifications under
| the paragraph entitled, Bond contain
! the statement that the contractor sub
i hitting the bid. which must be &C
| companied by plans by this act ap-
proves these specifications. We would
not have q set of our plans used to
approve such a set Of specifications.
''Third-The commission will never
submit set of plans under a speci-
ication which carries. as do these, the
indemnity clause.
Clauses Objected To.
! The following are the clauses Of the
| specifications. TO which objection has
| been made by the contractors quoted
! and by the engineer of the state high
way commission:
| Indemnity-The contractor shall pro-
! tect Marshall county against actions
for infringements of patents. on ac-
count of any patent. whether granted
or applied for, on any device used on
the structure and shall show payment
10 patentee Of all demands before
! final settlement with county.