The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1921-02-17
Wednesday Meeting of the
County Board Brought Sew
eral DenOuements But
No Positive Results
BODY DECLINES
N SUPPLEMENTAL AID
Nancy BROTHERS, CONTRACTORS,
PRESENT ESTIMATE CLAIMED
. TO HAVE BEEN FILED BUT
WAS OVERLOOKED

At special all-day session Of the
board Of county commissioners, We'd
nesday, an agreement was reached
whereby it is believed that the muddle
relative to the Lone Grove-Healdton
highway will be finally disposed OF,
and IL such proves TO be the case, the
whole proposition will be re-submitted
and new bids asked.
The entire matter centered around
Oklahoma City, and Baker and Ellis
Of Humboldt, Kansas, and Ardmore,
and the matter has been hanging fire
ever since the bids were made public.
The bids were opened on December
81, and according to the tabuated
statement, the Baker and Ellis bid for
doing this work on the four sections,
taeclfed in the contract was $685.
3fc.75, while the bid Of Nancy Broth
ers was $Ss9.3lS.4i, difference Of
$47. .0O1.6s.
The bids call for "fifty-fifty" gravel
basis, or half domestic and half i'm
Ated.
~ The Baker and Ellis bid D the orl.
glnal tabulation, submitted for an all
Imported gravel road. was s36S, 1874,
while Nancy Brothers did not submit
bid on this class of construction,
according TO information given out at
the courthouse. For some reason 1t
Is alleged there was a disposition
shown not 10 recognize the bid of
Baker and Ellis, but TO award the
contract to Nancy Brothers. The
bodrd Of county commissions declined
TO sign the contract. and the matter
has been in statu quo ever since.
At Wednesdays meeting Of the COM
mssioncrs J. Il. Alley, a member oil
the firm OF Nancy Brothers. appeared
before the board and submitted sup.
Elemental bid. which he said had beer
filed at the time Of filing Of the orig
inal bids. but which had, he said, been
overlooked by the state highway de
partment, when the bids were opened
In December. In this bids on botf
clnsses OF work. the fifly-fifty basis
and all imported gravel. were botf
lower than the Baker and Ellis bids
Tor the same work.
This bid aroused a storm OF pro
test from the Baker and Ellis Com
pany who contended that II wa
strange that several weeks after th'
bids were opened by the state high
way department, the department should
find n supplemental bid that ha'
been overlooked. which had II bccI
read Mt the time Of tho original let
Ting would have awarded the contrac
- Nancy Brothers. as the lowest am
best bidders.
Mr.. Ellis, OF the Bakcr-Ellis Com
nany. was present at the meeting. AM
served notice on the board that II tn
supplemental bid was accepted by tn
highway department and the contrac
signed by the county commissioner
litigation would follow and the en'ir
matter tied up in the courts.
Tho supplemental bid submitted b
|. Nancy Brothers. follows:
For doing the work on a flfty-fift
iasls. s323.77S4s. For doing the wor
with all imported gravel, sSi2. .S6o.2s.
Which would make che diffcrenc
DCtwetn inc Nlauey bT'NH'is an
Baker and Ellis bid as follows:
For the flfty.fifty basis. ,l2,b3S.2'
ana for the all imported gravel, !2s
\ 1915.
i II is alleged that Nancy Brother
admitted this bid nj the time IN
other one was presented. and throug
no fault of theirs II was overlooke'
On the other hand, the commissioners
contend that 81 one contractor has
rirht TO submit supplementary biz
after the original ones had been opci
"a, all others had the same right an
were agreed that the whole matte
should be resubmitied, new bids az
vertised for. and the entire natt'
DO gone over again in detail. IN
would entail delay OF approximate
rs days, but under present condition
"A 10 believed that the work could
done Tor at least $4,000 less, this col
dition being brought about by u
CONTINUED on Page Two)