Evening journal., 1916-06-06

a stone produced by several persons
and from several quarries, or whether
Il was a kind produced by one per-
son from one quarry.
In cases where contracts have been
awarded to the lowest bidder on a
given kind Of stone and not to the
lowest bidder on any kind of stone
mentioned IN the bids. the Levy Court
has complied with the provisions of
the law. and TO the hest interests OF
the taxpayers. if It has fairly taken
into consideration the quality of the
stone as well as the price bid in de-
termining which Of several bids Is
lowest.
II is fundamental principle that
there should he hut one lowest bid
der on any one contract and there
cannot be. under the present practice
as many lowest bidders as there are
combinations OF stone II the quality
as we'll as the price is considered.
Comment BY Highway Commissioner.
The Commission of Engineers was
furnished with full information In re-
lation 10 all contracts for road con-
struction awarded after the first day
Of January. A. ID. 1913. and from said
information has quoted examples Of
contracts awarded by the Levy Court
to illustrate the practice of award
ing contracts to favored contractors
in three instances.
Section 15O5 of the Revised Code OF
the State Of Delaware. 1915. provides
! that the said Levy Court. or the said
commissioner may reject any or all
| bids if in their opinion good cause
| exists therefor, but otherwise the said
| Levy Court shall award the contract
/ to the lowest responsible bidder.
The right to reject any or all bids
/ was reversed i'm the specifications in
each OF the above cases. I'm the
/ opinion of the Levy Court and the
/ highway commissioner good cause
/ existed at the time of the awarding
OF the contract for the rejection Of
the bids of the lowest bidders.
In two Of The above cases, at the
time Of the awarding Of the contract
each Of the lowest bidders therefor
were awarded at the same time con-
tracts to construct other roads. The
Levy Court and the highway com
missioner we're both Of the opinion
that the contractors were not equipped
to perform all the work for which
they we're the lowest bidders within
the time specified, and were also of
the opinion that better results would
be obtained " each road received the
entire attention OF the contractor. In
the other case the bidder to whom
the contract was awarded agreed in
his proposal 10 and did complete the
road within one hundred and twent!
days. The bidders referred to by
the Commission OF Engineers as the
lowest bidders agreed to complete tho
work within two hundred days The
other bidder referred TO by the Com
mission of Engineers agreed to com
polte the work within one hundred
and fifty days The contract wa
awarded on August l4th. a. ID. 1914
and was completed before the begin
ming Of winter. If - had been aware
cI to either Of the other bidders re
/ fcrred 10 the road would have bee
+ closed 10 the public during the winte
I months. This in itself would hay
been sufficient TO reject their bid
I In awarding the contract the Lev
, Court and the highway commissioner
, In determining which Of the sewers
bids was the lowest. took into con
sideration the time named in the pro
7 nosals as we'll as the price bid.
Statement BY Commission q
3 Engineers.
CONSTRUCTION Of bituminous ma
y cadam pavement (bituminous pave
ment huilt by penetration method
$ and bituminous concrete pavemen
o (bituminous pavement built by mix
ing method Sections 2S to 36 inclui
a i've. The specifications for these type
c og bituminous pavements are unsatii
T. factory and incomplete with referenC
{ to materials and methods Of constru
Il tion employed.
l. Comment by Highway Engineer,
With but one exception no 5itum
n nous macadam roads have been hui
- during the past four years. and du
v ing said time the specifications In r
v spect to bituminous paving have ha
no application 10 any contract Il
4 the constructor Of a road in tn
county excepting a piece OF roa
about one-half of mile in lenet
Immediately north Of Middleton
y which was constructed about thr'
e years ago. This road so far hi
cost nothing for maintenance eXcer
e ing what was expended for a ligl
o coat of bituminous oil, about tN
wears ago. and is i'm excellent conc
n ton When any bituminOus paving
a contemplated in the future, the spec
r fcations should be revised and a
l. vantage taken of the latest data
l. respect thereto The highway COZ
/ missioner is a member OF the Amei
le can Society of Municipal lmprov
& ments and all reports and informatiC
,e published by said society is mailed
he him.
n Statement by Commission Of Eng
neers.
section 50 provides for the ro,
y 10 be kept sprinkled until the I'm
certificate of completion is given
B. the highway commissioner. Th
% would seem to indicate for the ye
ID after first acceptance which requil
IF ment is severe. unwarranted and u
N usual"
T. Comment by Attorney for Levy Cou
IN Under the terms of the contra
" and the laws of this State, there
re bnt one acceptance. and that is VIII
ne the final certificate of completion
to given by the highway commissic
a. er.
r Statement by Commission Of En-
o. neers.
20 Section "a provides that the co
% tractor agrees to complete the &C
- tract within the number of work.
~ days named in his approval. This
=, sumes. as is undoubtedly the ca
~ that the contractor is allowed to sta
3e in his proposal the number of da