Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1919-05-09
OBJECT TO ROAD LETTING.
John Herbert 4 Sons Complain Ne
aardine Action Of Board.

Complaining regarding the action OF
the board of supervisors in letting the
contract for the grading OF the Le-
Grand Gilman road. because as theS
allegc, IL was not let TO the lowest bid
der and tina, their bid was lower ina"
the bid OF y. r. Shugart, to whom the
contract was let, John Herbert ana
Sons have addressed communication
TO the editor Of the Times Republican.
In It they set out their claim. list their
bids and point out their ability to ful-
MI the contract and that the work
should have been awarded TO them.
The communication Is as follows:
There was news item in your paper
few nights ago. which made the
statement that the LeGrand cutof, DO
ing an Improvement ON the highway
to Gilman. had been let by Marshall
county to Pete Shugart at Al cents per
cubic yard, and that he was the lowest
bidder.
The undersigned desires to take OK
ception To the statement that Shugart
was the lowest bidder, and desires the
taxpayers of Marshall county to know
that there were six bids received FOR
the work which covered an estimated
quantity of 1o2, Gal. cubic yards, making
Total in yardage on the proposed
change and regra ding, of s42,1S2.Sl, at
II cents per cubic yard.
The bid of John Herbert & Sons,
which was accompanied by certified
check as provided by the proposal,
was at q price OF 1913 cents on item /.
a yardagc of 1889; bid of 1913 cents
on item ., a yardage of 25,l and
bid of 1919 cents on item 3. a yardage
of $3.50. making the total bid OF John
Herbert e Sons s41,031.26. saving to
the county and to the taxpayers of
sl.l51.55. This, being much the low
est bid. was rejected by the board OF
supervisors.
After the bids were opened. the bid
ders Of course were excluded from the
room. and after celebrating. the board
called in Mr.. Shugart. and it seems
that the contract was let to him at Al
cents, altho his bid on item 8 was
44.25 cents.
John Herbert & Sons claim to be
competent contractors. They bid in
open competition with all others on
railway work. and have never before
and they We're fully equipped. thor
oughly competent, and qualified to do
this work. and they insist that they
have not been given square deal. and
If the board of supervisors are to ex-
crcise this sort of favoritism, it is time
the taxpayers knew it,
John Herbert & Sons are a local
concern. John Herbert. now deceased,
was for many years a contractor In
this city, and John Herbert & Sons
were ready to furnish any security in
the way Of bonds for the strict and
faithful performance of it's work. that
would be required OF any other con-
tractor, and Sey feel that the board in
rejecting them and preferruC a higher
bidder, who is nonresident, was not
only exceeding its legal right, but do
ing a local concern a very grave in
justice.
! feel that John Herbert & Sons
are entitled to this explanation. and
that the public is entitled to know the
facts. No possible reason could exist
for the rejection of their bid on the
ground that they were not competent
or that they were incapable of per-
forming the work, as any necessary
equipment which they may have need
ed would have been easily procurable
and they Rad all Of the financial back
ing necessary to successfully and prop
erly carry the work on to completion
in accordance with the specifications
and proposal of the county. John
Herbert 4 Sons, by John Herbert.
County Auditor George Enderly said
today that all bids submitted by the
contractors were rejected by the board
and that an agreement then was en-
tered into with Shugart to 10 the work
at Al cents per cubic yard.
Chairman w. II. Jones, OF the board,
said the board took the only course
open to it, as it did not care to con-
slider the Herbert bid because of
trouble with the firm over work done
six years ago. He said the Herberts
had contracted to do certain county
work and had quit before the job was
completed. Since that time, he added
the firm has done no work for the
county. 1t was the unsatisfactory
business methods of the firm. he said,
which led to the boards rejection of
its bid.
It was feared, Mr.. Jones said. that
had the bid been let to the Herberts
the work would not have been COM
pleted before winter, as the board did
not feel the firm was Suitably equipped
r. hr ,ry-ly tn h~ ha,l