Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1916-07-11


that prior to the letting of the con-
tract there was an arrangement be.
tween the engineer and Zitterell &
Sullivan, bidders that if they secured
the contract, he would interpret
said provisions inserted in red ink
in The specifications to mean that
gravel mixed with twenty per cent
sand, smaller than minimum size
provided for in the specifications
might be used. Under this the
contractor might use less expen-
sive material in the performance of
said contract than the specifications
required and a less efficient material
and that said contract was let by
the city after such understanding
between the proposed contractors
and the city engineer and no at
tempt was ever made to carry out
the requirements OF the specified
|tions in this respect and the re-
quirements of this understanding
were not performed. It was shown
that the curb and gutter were not
constructed according to the con-
tract entered into by said city with
the contractors constructing the
same, in the following respects.
LIST. The material used for the
foundation of said curb and gutter
was not of the quality required by
said specifications. Samples of the
material were preserved by the
plaintiff prior to the time the foun-
dation for the curb and gutter were
laid and were produced upon the
trial.
Plaintiff protested against the
use of this material to the mayor,
chairman of the street and alley COM
mittee, city engineer, the contrac-
tors and contractors superintendent.
During the trial excavations were
made under the curb and gutter and
samples of the alleged gravel foun-
dation produced at the trial.
These exhibits have been certi-
fled to this court and show that the
material for the foundation of the
curb and gutter were not such as re-
quired by the specifications and
show, we think, that even the mat
erial used was not the kind discus
sed or agreed upon between the en-
gineer and the contractor before the
letting of the contract and agreed
upon by them as substitute. The
evidence shows that not to exceed
sixty, and some of it not to exceed
twenty per cent Of the material used
would comply with the specifica-
tions as to the use of gravel. II
further appears that river wash
gravel reduced the expense of con
|structing the curb and gutter about
four cents per foot, and appellee
claims that had other contractors
known that the substitute was ac-
ceptable their bids could have been
reduced accordingly.
1t appears that the next lowest
bidder for the contract of curb and
gutter in this case. was only two
cents per linear foot higher than the
successful bidders, Zitterell & Sui
livan, and that such bidder, being
the plaintiff, bid upon the specified
tions and had he known Of a modi-
fication could and would have re-
duced his bid four cents per foot.
The concrete used in the c0nstruc-
tion of said curb and gutter was moi
mixed as required by said specifica-
tions.
The specifications required the
cement, sand, and gravel to be
thoroughly mixed. in a dry state
and then further mixed after be-
ing wetted.
The contractors did not follow
this provision of the specifications
but wet the Ingredients before mix
ing. This was a cheaper process
and resulted in saving to the con-
tractors
The requirement enhanced the
amount of the bid: the substitute
reduced the cost to the contractors
Again, the specifications required
that the concrete should be COM
posed of one part cement to three OF
sand and gravel.
Two witnesses testify that by ac-
tual measurement the mixture was
one of cement to between, three and
a half and four and a half of SAND
and gravel Sand and gravel is
cheaper material than cement, ant
weaker mixture produces a poorer
job.
Again, the specifications provide:
1.-The cement is to be composed OF
one part Portland cement to three
parts of perfectly clean gravel con
tanning sufficient well graded SAINT
to fill the voids.
No gravel shall be larger than one
4