The Mena weekly star., 1921-02-24
AUDITORS REPLY
 DIRECTION Continued From Page Two.)

iayed beyond 90 days from the com
 p.etion of the fnal plans. then the eun.alsslonefs sAan 4aNe arr~nse- aieats UO secure Aun0s tO pay the en- 1 slneers aC the rae O. 9oOO.OJ a ln00Ln rom the uate Oi this cOneraet | to the tnne the construction contract IS let, and when sucn coneraet or con ! 0racls are let then the engineers will ! be paid 405t of entire fee that date, .ess all amounts pald to the engineers 1 so that date 0l sucn settlement. The commissioners agree to pay said com pensatiOn as herein set forth.
 We understand from the above that | the entire compensation of the en- gineers is to be "an amount equal to ] , per cent of the actual construction cost of the entire road project for the district.
 We understand that "4Olt of the entire fee" was to be paid when the contract or contracts were let.
 We found that when contracts were let" the amount thereof aggre- gated. according to plans then in force. S574,742.70 and that there was then due the engineers per cent of this estimated aggregate, or $ll ,494.- S4.
 But since all contracts let were subject to modification in amount by reason of changes in the plans, we did not construe the payment re- qnired to be made under this 40lo pro- vision to be final and fixed deter mnation as to the exact amount that 40fs of the whole fee to be paid the engineers would be, based upon the actual construction cost of all im- provements to be made by the com mssioners, but rather in nature of tentative settlement of that propor- tion of the fee, subject to be increased or diminished in the event of changes in the plans increasing or diminish ing the total actual construction cost of the road, and subject accordingly to future adjustment.
 We found by interrogating MT. Haley, that the plans had been chang ed after the contracts were let so as to reduce the estimated actual con- struction cost to S550000.00, and we further found that the actual amount of cash paid on estimates Go contrac- tors up to the last date covered by the report of the commissioners which we had under consideration was SS2,- 1 lS7764. According to our calcula- ton 2gt of the first amount and 39c of the last represents the amount of the compensation to which the en- gineers were entitled to that date, being S13,4S6.33, as against $15,- | 941 .01, which had been paid them, and that the engineers had hereto fore been overpaid the difference be- tween these amounts, or S2,454.68. We did not see, and do not now see, that the 90-day delay clause in the contract has anything to do with the calculation of the amount due the en- gineers at this time, for whatever
 may have been done with respect to payments made hereunder, such pay ments are denominated under the contract itself as partial payments" and provision is made for deducting such payments from the 4Gao which was to be paid when the contracts were let As we see the matter, this provision neither increases nor de- creases the total compensation to be paid the engineers under their con- tract. which is to be , per cent of the actual construction cost.
 The contract with the Independent
 Rock Company we construed to be contract for material and not a con struction contract. To be sure, what ever is paid for such material would be a part of the actual construction cost. but we hardly think that if the commissioners never do more than pay for that material that it can ever be denominated a construction con- tract so as to entitle the engineers to fee of 2fo on such contract before such payment is made Therefore We did not include that matter in our calculation further than to the extent If the $15 100000 which has been paid 'hereon. We were perhaps in error however, in calculating the amount tue the engineers on that payment a only per cent instead of per cent which would diminish the overpaymen4 cautioned above and in our report
 he extent of 2 per cent of $15 000. 0C
 S30000.
 We found from the esti~1ates sub
 nitted to us by Mir Halo that ir
 most cases when the contractors were
 aid, the payment to the contractor
 n each case being S59s of the esti-
 nate, that the engineers were paid NftAA * Nt%HAo VI INV ftA NtilA Ol llE estimate. such payment not being confined to the same proportion that ash was paid on estimates to the Hontractors," as provided in the con 'ract This is admitted by MT. Haley n his published correction" of our ~eport relating to the matter of com
 'ensation of the engineers.
 The above statements are made.
 not for the purpose of engaging in a
 controversy with Mir. Haley or any body else. nor yet as an argument to sustain the findings made in our re- port of our audit of the commission 1 ors' accounts, but merely that the public may understand by what pro- cesses we arrived at our conclusions
 as set forth in that report with re- speet to the particular matter of the compensation of the engineers.
 Naturally. we do not believe that We have misinterpreted the contract
 in any respect; but whether we have
 or not. is matter for the considera-
 ton of the Commissioners, the Coun- 1 tv Judge being the final arbiter, with
 the taxpayers of the district as ip- | ts1ks neN . .k..4.