Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-08-28

| Sheehan Construction Company, as COM
pensation to said county, for that part
of the contract, the performance OF
which, the said Sheehsn Construction
Company. had been released from, or
was to be released from. which said re-
| port was approved by said board Of
commissioners
DOnaldson's report shows that 49,
61333 square yards of pavement was
deducted from the Sheehan contract by
the action of the commissioners in mod
| flying the contract
The total length of the road is 400
feet, less 500 feet Of bridges, making the
net length 1860 feet,
The estimated cost of paving that net
/ length is sos. 1876, according to the re-
port. and the estimated cost per square
yard equals $276547, according TO Don
aldson.
Donaldson's report shows that that to-
/ tai of S46,S449S was estimated by the
engineer and the viewers as the value of
the work deducted.
That figure included an estimated pave
ment cost of $34 1249S, Donaldson re-
ports
1T will be seen from the foregoing
statement that the estimated cost OF
the concrete pavement is S2.705 AZ per
square yard, and that the contractors
bid equals 1886 per cent . the esti-
mated cost, therefore. 270547 times
1856 equals 226576, equals contract
price," Donaldson reports.
Donaldson's report shows that the to-
tai value of the work deducted at the
contract price equals S43,42o.36 and with
the $4,000 which was deducted by the
county, the excess allowed the contractor
amounts 20 SIS .42O36.
UNABLE TO FIND
LAW FOR ACTION.
in addition to the loss of SIS 0.36
the excess amount allowed the con
tractor, Marion county will sustain
further and greater loss by reason #
the fact that when the contract for the
12,61333 square yards OF pavement is
relet, 1t will cost at least 81 per square
yard more than the amount deducted
from said Sheehan Construction Cont
panys contract adm 12,61322 square
yards at 81 viii amount TO the sum q
S25. 226. which sum added to sum of
S1S.42O36 will make the total sum Of
S43. 1886 and is. therefore, a fair repre-
sentation of the loss which the said
county will sustain by reason Of tho acts
OF the said board OF commissioners as
hereinbefore set out Donaldson stated
in his report.
He further stated: Il find no law under
which the board of commissioners had
any authority whatever 10 let the second
contract to said Price, receiver, until the
contract previously entered Into with the
Sheehan Construction Company had in
some manner been disposed Of, and rec
ommend that unless the proper amount
is deducted from the Sheehan Construc-
ton Companys contract as herein set
out that necessary proceedings be insti-
tuted in the circuit court, to set aside
and annul the entire proceedings Of saio
board Of commissioners, insofar as they
relate 10 the contract entered into with
the said Price. receiver, and to the can
collation. Of the part OF the cOntrac ten
tered into with the said Sheehan Con-
struction Company" concludes Donaldson
in his report.
The naive explanation offered by coun-
ty officials for this release Of the con
struction company when 1t was made is
Of particular interest now that the cost
to the county has been divulged.
Il was asserted that the commission
ers had overlooked the fact that the
bridge now in position on the Michigan
road would not be suitable for the road
when 1t was reconstructed.
Subsequently, It was planned to build
a new bridge and insomuch as new
bridge would make 1t unnecessary to
raise the old bridge, 1t was announced
that part of the contract calling for the
raising of the old bridge had been abro
gated.
No statement was made then as to the
estimated cost OF the part Of the con-
tract that was abandoned
The lowest bid for the construction Of
the bridge that was Overlooked" by the
couutv ofFfcioTs Co-4 oQQ
Just who constitutes the Sheehan Con
struction Company is not matter Of
public record owing to the fact that the
company has not complied with the law
Of Indiana requiring It TO file an annual
report with the secretary Of state since
1s1.
In that year the officers were reported
to be Eugene Sheehan, president and
secretary; John Sheehan, vice presl-
dent, and Nellie Sheehan, treasurer.
Laxity in conducting the affairs Of the
secretary OF states office, together with
the well known comfy OF interests be-
tween those interested In county aud
state affairs therefore prevent a rublic
disclosure Of who viii profit most by
the release of the contractor.
Commissioner Carlin Shank suggested
that Mr. Donaldson and County Gn-
gineer Griffith be called to appear be-
fore the commissioners iu an effort TO
determine the differences in the estl-
mated cost of the improvement
81 am in favor of calling into this
controversy a third man who is an ex-
pert and who has no feeling in tina mat
ter" said Commissioner Joseph Hayes,
/ because Donaldson has based bis state
ments on estimates only
Commissioner Shank first desires to
call the two engineers before the board.