Imperial Valley press., 1921-06-01
/ GH " 4 ! {
COST LESS
B ! D 4 !
LABOR
Chairman of State Board
Refutes Statements Issued
BY Automobile Club on
Road Building Expense.

Statements made by the California
State Automobile association that the
day labor operations Of the California
highway commission have resulted in
heavy losses to California are exactly
the reverse of the facts in the case,
says Chairman N. O. Darlington in
a statement to The Press.
The truth Of the matter is that the
ability Of California to construct its
highways when bids are excessive has
saved many millions of dollars to the
taxpayers of the state.
While the state, like all contractors,
has IN the past, and will in the future,
show a locs on some OF the work that
it undertakes, such loss has been and
he small as compared with the large
saving that has been and Will be eff
fected by the known ability Of Cali
fornia to undertake the construction
Of its highways owing to the fact that
1t is equipped for and experienced in
such construction and the further facis
that the state is always q potential
competitor with contractors in high
way construction
Further contradiction Of the charge
of waste made by the Automobile club
is found in the report of the L. S. bu-
eeau Of public roads, which recently
study Of the highway sys-
tenn of California and the operations
of the California highway commission.
Discussing costs Of state highways
tor the various years since the work
began, the report says:
"All of these costs seem very reas-
enable when compared with costs dur
ing the same period in other states"
1t Is true that the report Of the L.
s. bureau of public roads shows day
labor costs Of 208G per cent over esti.
mates for the same work. 1t must be
borne in mind, however, that large
proportion of the day labor operations
OF the California highway commission
were carried or during Il period of adj
vancing costs when it was difficult to
get any bids and almost impossible to
get satisfactory bids. How great This
increase in cost was is shown DV the
report of the bureau of public roads,
to which reference has been previously
made.
This report says:
1T should be borne in mind that
while this work was in progress the
cost of both labor and material was
increasing throughout the United
States at the rate of approximately
70 per cent year"
1t is the opinion of the California
highway commission that public policy
requires that the state continue as in
the past, potential competitor in this
work. The attitude of the California
highway commission toward day labor
Is very completely set forth in the BIZ
ennial report of the commission to
Governor stephens, written under
date of December 81, 1920. This re-
port says:
''In reestablishing active highway
construction, the California highway
commission will pursue its definite
policy OF. doing work by contract
rather than by day labor, wherever
possible. The reason for this policy is
obvious. The state highway organiza-
tion is capable of doing twice the vol
ume of work by contract that it could
do under day labor because of the en-
ormous detail imposed by the latter
method of operating. Therefore, the
commission never undertakes by day
labor a job large enough to warrant
advertising for contract, except under
exceptional circumstances or where a
fair bid is not obtained.
During the early period of highway
construction fully 80 per cent of all
work was done by contract. As war
conditions developed. the uncertainty
in contracting influenced contractors
to play safe, and bids were found to
be excessively high. The result was
that the percentage of day labor work
automatically increased until recently
the percentage volume of contract to
day labor work reached about a $3.50
basis. With resumption of active con-
struction under the more normal con-
ditions that seem to be returning, the