Arizona republican., 1920-05-04

Bringing to an end further argument as to the type of road for Maricopa county and carrying out the wishes or large majority of taxpayers to the let ter, the county highway commission yesterday awarded the contract for the building of the entire 27S-mile county road program to the Twohy Construc- tion company of Seattle, which bid on cement-concrete construction.
 As a result of the announcement last week that the bids received on April 22 would be considered by the commits sion at 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon, the little offices of the commission were packed so that the commissioners themselves had difficulty in finding seats. The commission had given no hint as to their plans.
 Many believed the bid of the Warren Brothers company would be accepted. It was recognized as a clean bid and was much lower than had been ex- pected. There were many, moreover, who favored the bitulithic type of road, passing their opinion of it on the streets of Phoenix, where pavement was laid by the Warren company and which had shone in comparison with other types with which the city had since expert mented, after which the city returned to bitulithic.
 F. Hackett, chairman of the commits sion, called the meeting to order and asked the bidders, or their counsel, if they had any remarks to make before the commission proceeded to the con- sideration of bids. Bidders and their counsel remained silent. Then F. IT. Hurley of the commission introduced a motion that the bid of the Twohy Con- Struction company be accepted for the construction of roadways. This was submitted to a vote and carried unani- mously, the five members of the com mission being present
 Warren Company Enters Protest
 Judge Ernest W. Lewis, counsel for the Warren Brothers, the only other firm which bid on the entire project, rose to protest the award in behalf of his clients. He protested, he said, on the ground that the proposal of the Twohy company was illegal, and therefore utterly void.'
 As special grounds for his protest he wished the commission to note that the Twohy bid was conditioned upon ss freight rate on cement, that 1t was not signed by the proper official of the company, and further. that it was un- accompanied by the certified check specified by the commission in it's call for bids.
 He added that it was impossible to tabulate the bid of the Twohy com pany, declaring that item involving s10,0oo had been omitted. Tn addition
 
 the lowest bid, he said.
 In reply. George Purdy Bullard. coun- sel for the Twohy company said MT Twohy was present. that the matter of the freight rate had "been taken care of" the bondsmen were present. and his clients were ready to sign the con- tract.
 Walter Bennett of Kibbey & Bennett, counsel for the highway commission, declared he had given careful consider ation to the various legal points in volved. He explained Mir. Bullard s statement that the freight rates had been taken care of' by pointing out that the bid of the Twohy Brothers was not conditional, but legal, in view of the fact that the expenditure involved was increased or reduced on the basis Of the freight rate. That is, the county receives the benefit of all reductions in the rate below a s4 per ton freight rate and pays the difference between s4 and s6-4o, the present rate.
 Technicalities Waived
 Mir Bennett said it was true that the highway commission specified that a certified check or cash accompany each bid as a deposit, but nowhere, said he did the statutes require the commits sion to reject the proposals of bidders who failed in this regard. Conse- uuently it was a question which the commission might waive. if desirable. It was at this point in the discussion
 (Continued on page 9