Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-02-18


til after payment is made.
The money is thus taken out of the
depository, paid to the railroad compa-
mes and thus becomes a payment 20 the
contract--< before it is known that the
material is suitable or has been PASSED
upon by the superintendent in charge.
1t is that much of an advantage 10 the
contractor partially financing him in the
work, but II IL is not part of the con-
tract-so advertised when the letting was
made and the contract entered into-it is
giving an unfair advantage to the sue
cessful bidder and contractor, and one
not enjoyed by the unsuccessful bidders.
Section 10 of the highway act pro-
vides that on new construction work there
shall not be paid to exceed so per cent
of the chief engineers estimated cost of
the completed work.
GARAGE CONTRACT
NOT FATHOMED.
Perhaps the nest startling revelation
oS tie entire report IS that of the man
ner in which the contract for the com.
missions garage IN indianapolis was let
Tie examiners admit they cannot fathom
It but they give everything they can find
on the subject as follows:
Minute RecOrd-The record of the
minutes OF the commission does not show
in every instance all the bids In cases
OF letting contracts, but only the sue
cessful bidder, with a very few excep-
lions. We recommend that the record
be made to show in every case the name
of each and every bidder and the price
bid. a detailed description of whC+ is
being let and the name of the successful
bidder and the amount Of the bid price
and contract all clearly set out
The public has the right to know and
the minute record Of the commission
should show all these things. We be-
lieve that it is not sufficient to show
only the successful bid and bidder and
then leave 1t for the public to find other
bids, thus making 1t more difficult to
obtain the Information desired Besides
these detached papers may be easily lost
or misplaced.
An illustration is cited herewith:
On Nov. %, 1919. bids were opened for
the construction of a garage at State 90
and Market streets. Minute record is
The following bids were received:
Frank Maid, $50 1913; William II. Har-
rison, S59,410; George w. Bunting, S54,-
600.
THE director, L. H. Wright, was au-
thOrized by the board to let the contract
to the lowest and best bidder, to pre-
pare in detail the plans and specifca
tons IN order that there win be no mis-
understanding as TO the work to be
done"
No further record Of any kind con-
corning this contract is found until July
81, 1920, where the following is found:
"MoveF by Mr.. Oliphant, seconded by
Mr.. Crawford. that error in the minutes
Of Nov. %, 1919, in failing to record for
the approval by the commission of the
contract for garage TO Charles J. Wacker
Tor $6I,foO be corrected by recording the
same. Also that an additional con-
Tract Of $l.lOO to Dir. Wacker for ex-
ira on garage be approved by the com
mission. Motion carried"
DOES NOT SHOW
WACKER CONNECTION.
This record is one OF the exceptions
mentioned in our comment on the pre-
ceding page, in that it does give on the
face all the bids. The record apparently
does not show any of the bids men
toned that were received on Nov. %,
1919. The record seems to indicate that
the low bidder was George w Bunting.
He, apparently, did not get the contract,
but It was awarded to Nacker at a price
higher by S13,1SO and no explanation
made. According to the record of July
Is, 1920, it would seem that the garage.
so far as the record Of the commits
sion is concerned, was to cost SIS. $50.
As a matter of fact, the State paid for
the record is incomplete and insufficient
The report then sets out the three bids,
showing that Bunting was bidding in
behalf Of Wacker, but that the bid is
more than $4,000 less than the price at
which it was let.
The report continues:
Harrison's bid is not a bid at all, but
an estimate Of cost. Harrison is the
architect who prepared the plans and
specifications for which he received, IS
he says in his bid" in the general con
struction Of Charles J. Wacker, 1850.
The final conclusion is that there were
but two bids, Maids and Walkers. But
the minute record not only shows three
bids, but shows them in such way that
IL is impossible to reconcile the contract
with Wacker with the low bid Of Bunt-
ing. Further, Harrison's letter shows
that he submitted the bid Of Wacker
along with his letter to the commission,
which was mistaken by the commission
and entered by the commission in its
minutes as a bid. It seems most
unusual proceeding for an architect to
send in a letter and enclose along with
II bid from a general contractor, which
bid includes the fee for the architects
commission. o
The minute record OF Nov. p. 1919
shows that the director was instructed
to let the contract, but be was also in
structed "to prepare plans and specifca-
lions in order that there may be no mis-
understanding as to the work to be
done"