The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1914-02-20
JUDGE BULLOCK
DISSOLVED THE INJUNCTION
fered No Wrong i'm the Manner of
Accepting Bids on the Public
School Building.


School Building.
In the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Mar
ion County, Fla-In Chancery.
Henry W. Tucker VS.. Board of
Public Instruction for the County
of Marion, State of Florida. ct al
This cause came on to be heard on
motion to dissolve the temporary in
junction heretofore issued herein.
and the same has been argued by so
licitors for both parties. The only
questions involved are the bids for
the plumbing and heating.
The notice for bids as published in
Jacksonville, Fla, and in Atlanta,
Ga, was different from the notice
published in Ocala, as to receiving
bids, but all notices referred to the
plans and specifications, and where
they were TO be seen, and, Of neces-
sity they must be considered in con-
nection with these notices in making
bids. These specifications require a
surety bond from plumbing and
heating contractors $4,000, on
plumbing; SIS, 900 on heating con-
tract, $4,000 in ALL; thereby clear
ly advising that there would be sep
arate and also joint bids to be con-
sidered
The bills show that the complain
ant did, before action by the defend
ant board, submit bids, and submit
ted separate bids, and that he did bid
for both plumbing and heating joint
ly S5,7619S and bid separately for
plumbing S3,17S.9S, and separately
for heating s2,5S29S; that Koons &
Golden bid on plumbing s2,957, be-
ing S221.9S less than the complain
ant bid on the plumbing, and the
contract was awarded to Rooms &
Golden. 1t is also alleged and ad-
mitted that Rooms & Golden bid for
heating s2,777, being s94.02 more
than the complainant bid for heat
ing, but the heating contract was
not awarded to Rooms & Golden.
The Atlanta Steam Heating Co.
bid for heating s2,497, being $S5.9s
less than the compliments bid, and
| it was awarded the contract for heat
| ing.
The bill shows that the complain
ant, at the suggestion of the board
did submit both separate and joint
bids for the heating and the plumb
| ing, and having submitted to offer
separate bids, | cannot see that he
can now complain that the notice
was misleading.
| 1t will be seen that the board has
awarded the contracts to the persons
Offering the smallest bids for the
separate proposals.
A deposit of three per cent of the
amount Of bid was required in the
notice published in Ocala, but such
requirement was not in the other no.
tees, and the answer of the defend
ant board admits this fact, but it is
not shown that this fact Influenced
the bidding, nor any harm shows tt
/ have been done to the complainant
in that the defendant board having
discovered on the day of receiving
| bids that it had neglected this re
quirement for deposit of three pei
cent in the notices published othe1
than in Ocala, and when it discov
cred that fact after only one bid ha(
been opened, the board then waived
the deposit, and as several bidders
were non-residents and not to blame
for failure to accompany their bid
with a deposit, does not of itself in
dictate faVoritism or corruption OF
the part of the board 1t is averret
in the answer that all being present
no bidder objected, which averment
however, is denied; and it is turtle
admitted that the parties to whom
the respective contracts were award
ed did not accompany their bids will
the three per cent deposit.
The board specifically reserved tn
right to "reject any and all bids
The question then has been reduc