Evening journal., 1916-06-06

nundreu dollars. In the past the same
bidder has frequently submitted bids
on the same day for several pieces
OF work. IL is also fair to assume that
at or about the same time he has sub
mitted bids for the doing OF other
work for other counties, municipali-
: ties or persons lt would be a great
injustice to require every bid 10 be
accompanied with a certified check
for five hundred dollars.
?. The certified check or bond, as
the case may be is taken for the
. purpose of indemnifying the Levy
Court in case the successful bidder
should fail TO enter into a contract
for the doing of the work.
Under the laws of this State suit
would not lie against the Levy Court.
In the event that the lowest respon-
sbile bidder should fail to enter into
a contract where the bid was accom-
panied by certified check. it would
be necessary that the amount of dam
r ages. If possible, be adjusted under
an agreement between the Levy Court
and the said bidder and experience
has shown that this method Of adjust
ment is not satisfactory If the Levy
Court should arbitrarily retain the
full amount Of said check there would
be no way by which the bidder could
recover the amount to which he was
equitably entitled. Where the bid
was accompanied by bond the
8 amount of damages would be ascer-
tanned in court of competent jurs-
diction by the finding of a jury. No
complaint could be urged by the Levy
Court or the said bidder or the public
as to this method of fixing said dam
ages.
Statement by Commission Of Ena-
neers.
"On page occurs a statement that
any change made in said plans. speci-
ications. agreement, contract or guam
titles without the consent of the se-
curities shall in no way vitiate said
bond This is an extremely doubtful
procedure and should be eliminated.
This would further seem to indicate
. that the Levy Court has the right
to change plans and it would appear
: that under this authority the Levy
! Court on August 26, 1918 awarded a
: contract for constructing the Glas-
Z gow-Summit Bridge Road in Pen
cader hundred under plan A to Alfred
2 II. Mcdowell, but, according to the
statement of cost of constructing the
Z road, 1t was built in accordance with
plan B at an extra cost Of s2.132.
: Mr.. Mcdowell might be the lowest
!, bidder for plan A and not be the
: lowest bidder for plan B so that the
road as constructed would not be
: built by the lowest bidder"
Z Recommendation by Attorney for
I Levy Court.
The above suggestion of the Com.
! mission of Engineers should not be
= adopted.
I This provision in the instructions
: to bidders is also incorporated in the
!, bond givn by the unsuccessful bidder
:, and is necessary entirely as a matter
OF precautiOn so that recovery would
. not be defeated in an action upon
:. said bond upon mere technicality
for a slight deviation from the plans,
specification agreement, contract or
: quantities Under the law the Levy
D Court has the authority to make nee
;. essary changes in the matters Of de-
- tail and increase or decrease the
price accordingly, but in no event can
, it make important general changes in
. the said plans, specifications, agree
ment, contract or quantities with or
= without the consent of the sureties.
: It is interesting to note that the
contract used in the State of Mary
land. Section "a, under the heading
General Clauses" is as follows:
"The right is reserved by the COM
; mission to make such changes in the
! plans and specifications as may from
Il !, time to time appear necessary or de-
sirabe. and as may be recommend
=. ed by the engineer. and such changes
> shall in no way invalidate the con-
= tract"
4 In the bond adopted by the State OF
: | Maryland for use in connection with
e road contracts the following provi-
. sion appears in the condition thereof:
: "The above bounden principal shall
: in all respects comply with the terms
= and conditions of said contract, and
= his obligations hereunder, including
y the specifications therein referred to
. and made part thereof, and such al
= terations as may be made in said
. specifications as therein provided
- for"
= The legal effect of the section quot
Il ed from the instructions to bidders
I. and the bond used In New Castle
T; county and the provision contained
= in the Maryland contract and bond
u are identical and the elimination OF
: the same in either case would not
a be warranted The attorney OF the
!, Levy Court knows nothing about the
., so-called change in the contract for
= constructing the GlasgoW'Summit
Bridge Road in Pencader hundred.
This is a matter which is proper for
the consideration OF the New Castle
County State Highway Commissioner.
D. Statement by Highway Commits
a siOner.
~ The following are the facts In
Is connection with the contract for the
n construction Of the Glasgow-Sum-
% init Bridge Road in Pencader hun
4 dred:
n Bids we're invited for the construc-
" ton of said road in accordance with
d the plans A and b. Under both plans
H. Alfred II. Mcdowell was the lowest
responsible bidder
Instead of the road heing built
g station 0 TO station $50 on plan A, II
d. was built from station TO station
r 222 for which the price bid was de-
" creased accordingly. station 0 TO
N station 222 on plans A and are
Df identical, a distance of four and two
{, tenths miles, and the price bid for
'. said portion OF said work was un-
Y. der each plan the same Afterwards
Al the work was completed by the said
ID Alfred II. Mcdowell under Plan B, s
distance OF about one thousand feet.
Al. I.s Al.