Evening journal., 1916-06-06
WILSON FIND MUCH GOOD NEW CASTLE COUNTYS ROAD SYSTEM

Recommendation by Attorney LOT
Levy Court.
n is recommended that the said
Section a., reserving the right to IN
crease or decrease the quantity OF
the work, be retained in the specifi-
cations not, however. for the pur-
pose Of making II possible To increase
or decrease the work by making i'm
portant general changes, but for the
purpose of permitting the Levy Court
TO make necessary changes In mat
ters of detail. II Is also necessary
that the right to decrease the guam
tity Of work be reserved so that in a
proper case 1t would be possible for
the Levy Court 10 take over and com
plete any portion Of the work which
the contractor as net performing, or
. is not In position TO perform ia
accordance with the terms of his
contract II is we'll known to the
members of the Levy Court that is,a
J Levy Court It's engineers and attor-
neys were. a short time ago. very
much embarrassed in connection with
a very important piece of work which
! was being done for the county. be-
cause the contract for the construc-
. tion of the work did not contain a
provision similar to this. but only
81 contained provision for taking over
t all the work remaining to be dsne
{ under the contract In that case If
! the Levy Court had had the authority
q TO decrease the amount OF work 20
be done by taking over that portion
of the work which was not being
@ prosecuted by the contractor with
d the proper amount OF diligence the
@ public would have been greatly hene-
@ fitted as the work then could have
10 been prosecuted with more prompt.
8 ness and without causing as much
r inconvenience. II the entire worl
4 had been taken over, which the Levy
j. Court had authority to do under the
j. terms of the contract. there woulC
q have been great deal Of delay
n caused by the Levy Court not helms
G in a position TO have finished wits
s promptnoss certain portions Of worl
u done for which the contractor at tina
= time had materials and was full
= equipped to do. In no event woul'
II be recommended that the Lev
" Court enter into any contract for thu
IiNNnll NANiAu VT NNe illlNA AhhA NA'A
't OF work which did not contain pro
o vision allowing the Levy Court tn
right to decrease the amount OF work
'e Statement by Commission Of
N Engineers.
ie ION page 81. under proposals.
~ the contractor states the unit price
for which he will perform the differ
s- ont kinds Of work as specified in TN
proposal On page 25. Section AZ,
ne as stated that bids will only he II
or ceived for the road completed, an
~ that itemized bids are for the use
on the highway commissioner for NAL
ce ing partial estimates as the wol
.o- progresses. or IN payment for any e
nc ira work lf ibis scheme is follo'
IN ed. 1t should be provided that, If al
m items of work are omitted, the lur
ely sum price should be corresponding
II decreased in accordance with
he itemized bids
in Comment by Attorney ior Levy Cou
On. Under the provisions Of Secti
aid 1925. Of the Revised Code abo
ne quoted it is impracticable
OF award a contract for the cOnstru
ne tion of a road excepting upon lun
lot sum bid for The road complete tn
nd being so. the itemized bids can on
N be used for the purpose of makr
partial estimates or in fixing u
g. value OF extra work. Under the pr
vision of said Section IL would n
N be proper. II any item OF work we
ne omitted. to decrease the lump su
IS price. I'm no event would depat
OF ure from the practice, inviting
n lump sum bid for road constucti'
Id work. be recommended without
IS amendment 10 said Section 1926
IS Taking up the recommendation
li the commission of engineers that q
u highway commissioner prepare al
H' issue comprehensive annual repO
-, Mr. Speakman points out that und
Ut the law the highway commission
is required by law TO present bic
$50 nial report to the Legislature.
81, adds:
'al Published reports Of public Office
i'm and public bodies having the cont
IVY Of or the expenditure Of pub
~ monies, are always desirable and
~ is recommended that the highw
'au commissioner be requested To hel
e.it after make additional annual repo
,' covering each fiscal year, and If
no' expense be not too great that
w same shall be published by the lie
Court.
-, Commenting on the criticism of
,e commission Of engineers as TO
m, m high cost Of some New Castle cour
& ,,ts roads. Highway CommissiCNer W
~, son says:
~ az The cost per mile Of the improv
en highways in New Castle county
o' not excessive and above the norm
,,, prices in adjoining States. a
~. ni throughout the northeastern secti
u W of the United States taking into co
~ sideration the following
~. The contract for each improy
~ -, road in New Castle county includ
~ ~ the cost Of culverts, drains a
~ pri, bridges. while in some other Stat
tho parts Of this. especially the bridg
SON are omitted.
7y 81 Undoubtedly the retention Of #
ter per cent OF the contract price dc
md increase the price, but it must
tbe borne in mind that the road is ma
des tanned for one year at the contr
on tors expense.
,be The roads built north Of Wilmi
one ton. in the steep. hilly. clayey secti
he necessitates very heavy cuts and
ave and extra care i'm drainage. VIII
ted adds greatly to the cost
aid There is no local stone good enol
-ec- for wearing surface, so that