The Mena weekly star., 1921-02-24
ENGINEERS CLAIM
 ERRORS IN AUDIT
J. F. Haley Offers Explanations in Matters Pertaining to Alleged Oyerpayment of Fees in Jeffer-
 son Highway Work.

The Southwestern Engineering Company, by J. F. Haley, submits to The Star a statement that has to do with the recent audit of the affairs of the Jefferson Highway, as pub lished.
 Mir. Haley's statement follows;
 "Mena, Ark, Feb. 16, 1921. ''The Mena Star.
 Gentlemen: We wish to correct some statements made in your last nights issue under the article giving the report on the audit of the Polk county highway records.
 This is not in any way a criticism of the work done by the auditors, as we feel that the work done by them was, together with their conclusions, eminently fair, as seen by them, but that in the particular part of the re- port dealing with the money paid to this company, the terms of our con tract with the district were not in- terpreted correctly.
 Under paragraph three of the re- port, the sum total of the contracts let were quoted as $574,742.70. Un- der paragraph ten, it says that our contract reads that 40 per cent of our fee shall be paid when the contracts are let. According to this our fee would be, that is our proportion of said fee at the time the contracts were let, $11,494S4, instead of the even $11 100000 stated under this par agraph There is in this particular connection a seeming contradiction in this report In the same paragraph the auditors state that our contract reads that we shall receive 40 per cent of the actual price of the con- tracts let, which was $574,742.70, and In the next sentences states that we should only receive 40 per cent of our fee based on an estimated cost of S550, 100000. This mistake is for $494.S4 In further paragraph the report quotes a gravel contract which will total, with freight, $64,00000. 1 This amount is not included in the above price, and we are entitled to $1, ,180.00, making a total credit to us against the debit claimed by the audi tors of $1,674.84. The balance of this debit is evidently the difference between the net paid to us and the gross claimed by the auditors on es- inmates. In this regard we wish to state only that in the contractors contract it specifically states that the district shall retain l5To of each es- innate, but there is positively noth- 1 ing in our contract which says that 15@o of our fee shall be held back. | Further than this, in the twenty odd years of experience on engineers contracts, the writer has never seen or heard of an engineers contract where a part of his fee was retained, especially when under surety bond, like we are in this district.
 "As a matter of strict interpreta- tion of our contract, and such inter- pretation has been legally upheld, the district owes this company a matter of $300.00 per month for the seven months lapsing between the time the contracts were let and the time the 1 district received their money from the bond company.
 Nothing is said in this report re- garding the twenty-one trips mem- bers of this company made to Little | Rock, and did not charge for our time. These trips were not the en- gineers' work in the strict sense of the contract. but owing to our long experience in the work, we believe we were of valuable assistance
 Nothing either has been said of the fact that by playing one contractor against another, we reduced the origi- nal bid price for this job over $100,- 900, and that at time when contrac- tors had plenty of work.
 "The auditors had no way of know ing the facts of the last two state ments and we are embodying same here simply to place all the facts in print.
 Tn conclusion we wish to thank the auditors for the courtesies extended this company during this audit. "The Southwestern Engineering Co.
 By J. F. Haley"