Milford chronicle., 1918-05-24
REASONABLE BIDS FOR
new ROAD IN THE STATE
Contracts Given by Highway Board
for All Projects. VIII Take
Immediate Action

bids made for building the various
sections of roads, which we're opened
May 18th at Dover. At the meeting
last Monday the engineer. Mr.. Upham
recommended the awarding OF con-
tracts for six Of the eight projects
received, and his comment on each
instance follows:
Contract No. I-Dover to Cheswold.
4.05 miles-Prices below engineers esti-
mate; recommends award TO Heyman *
Co. OF Jersey City. Cement concrete;
cost Sl54, 1860: with reinforced concrete
pipe, Sl55, ,96S so; with corrugated metal
pipe. Sij5,532S0.
Contracts No 2-Cheswold 10 smyrna,
49O miles cement concrete-Pr.ces. So
900 above engineers estimate recon-
mends award to Frank l.. Cohen, Bunalo,
N Y; cost, S237, 1852; with corrugated
metal pipe, S2S9495; with reinforced
concrete pipe. S2S9.l0L
Contract No. 3-Penuy Hi road, 246
miles vitr!hed brick with concrete foun-
dations. Prices approximate engineers
estimate; recommends award TO Richard
Hopkins Of Troy n. y; cost. S231792.
Contract No. 4.-Wilmington and Phil
adelphia pike, rs miles Of v.trihed brick
roadway, with concrete foundation
prices approximate (brick surface below
engineers estimate: recommends award
Youngstown, o.; cost, S3fS434.IO.
Contract No. 5.-Delmar 10 Laurel. sos
miles Of cement roadway-prices slightly
below engineers estimate recommends
award TO Fl. p. Walker and R. L. Savage
Of New York City; cost $283,4oO.
Contract No. 6.-Laurel TO Seaford, 490
miles Of cement concrete-prices approx
innate engineers estimate; recommends
award TO Kaufman & Carey Of New
York City; cost, S2O5, 726,
Contract No. 7.-SeafOrd C Bridgeville |
6.61 miles Of cement concreu-prices ap- |
proximate engineers estin34te; recon- /
meads award OF contract flKaufman & /
Garcey Of New York Ciy3 POST $3.50 .2OS. |
Contract No S-Ellendai to Milford |
miles. The bid was S237,r2, which was
about $4,000 over the esimates The |
engineer recommended its rejection and |
advertising for new bids
Consistent Prlts.
In presenting the abovereport for your
consideration" Mr. Uphan said, IL wish
to call your attention to the prices. AT
first glance the proposals. swhen compared
with road work Of fewkears ago. seem
high, but upon analy~--gnd taking into
consideration the heavyi increase in the I
prices OF labor and mi nterials, the pro-
pOsals for the Delaware road work, with
two possible eXceptionssare comparative
ly consistent. Some of.the bids are very
low when considering ne present cost Of
materials and labor.
During the PAST -hSe years labor has ,
increased from lc0 .WI5J per cent, aad .
materials from 100 tof 30 per cent, which |
when taken INTO collaboration. corrects {
the present idea thafth cost Of present
road construction va be in comparative ,
excess OF previous dsts Of construction. ?
1t is generally felt 9at the cost Of ma
terals will not bs9educed during the
next few years Ia fact it is generally y
that tHsI Irice OF raw mater
ials win advance BE to the great de-
mand that viii bsinade for these ma
terials I'm the ne4 Future !
Good roads nf$bnly serve the com I
economict T. but have been the u
means Of exte1 fe development and n
great savings ighile the cost OF road
has creased, the saving by =
good roads has ) so increased I'm other
words. the econ0tfc saving resulting from
good roads has bt pace with the stand
ard Of ,roa9 COTS =
r - -, -vyo coItacts where the contrac- Z
~ proposals slightly exceed the en- g
lol 's estimfe are numbers and s. S
glneSl ,be pres submitted for either 5
" ny 80 cont cts cannot be called eX- /,
oi ~ they Ie. however. a little higher u
cess nose sdnitted In the proposals for =
ina" .bar cdracts a
the oell'v-d.ns contract No. .. It is very N
5Ie auessential that it be COM W
desLS tbis Ear To readvertise this ci
pie1oN aching 20 our law would re- OF
cohll'eb ebo,tt-e weeks from the date of . IN
Qune 4 would mean that the con- Il
oeels .,-,rlk thrown into the late fall [ ,1
traG' rosity Of its not being COM hI
anu thiear. This would probably IN
ple.e-t.sn iaccount by a contractor in 10
ne 80, MS new proposals an con- 81
in'-N.9 contingency that would add rit
siue afe Of completion. Another n.
10 ser objection TO readvertising fo
). W. ,ori for new proposals might -
can thai -sne travelling public Of the oi
ate Of Delaware would be deprived OF In
hard surfaced road during the next W
inter, or be obliged 20 use an unim- tit
owed road for another year. -
THE contractors proposal exceeded
e engineers estimate on Contract No. al
s9. 600 ne
The above are practically all the facts m,
at are necessary in your decision on Po
ntract No. 2. he
Concerning Contract No. s. and under Of
e present conditions It will be practic- an
y impossible TO complete the roadway uu
rface this year on account Of the large
lount Of clearing and grubbing and the aw
ge quantity Of grading; the contractors the
lposal on this section exceeded the on,
yineer's estimate by approximately for
.,upV. tail
with the above in consideration, I sf7
uld recommend that the bids on this Mr.
ltract be rejected and new proposals an,
led for. 9th
'On Contracts Nos. l. 3, 4. 5. and Z. 10
prices are consistent and very close to Ch,
engineers estimate. Poi
The Council Of national Defense tax
ough the Highways Transport Com aft
-tee, has recommended that we put Mr.
essential roads In good condition and 7
table for heavy traffic. Especially is 81
5 true Of the Phia0s4phia Pike and the viii
yer-Smyrna road. This fact is very pay
)ortant and significant when we con- II
ar that National authorities are dis gra
raging public construction and inn be
vement. While this fact may not be LaJ
isive is should be given consideration"
T. c. DUPONT viii Pay and Build.
ather than run the gauntlet Of un-
.ainty Of new bids, and IN order TO
id delay. the State Highway Commis-
faa fr,eAa rina nf Tfn1nrranu nw- ! nnn