Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-18
LOW BIDDERS,
REJECTED, FAIL
TO BID AGAIN
Sewage Disposal Plant Case
Opens Question of Value of
Second Letting.
COMPARISONS ARE MADE

Study Of the bids for the second unit
Of the city sewage disposal plant re-
ceived by the board of sanitary commits
sioners wednesday shows that the firm
which on July T. submitted a low pro-
posal for the biggest part of the project
but was not awarded a contract because
Of an error In the offer for which
Charles H. Hurd. consulting engineer 20
the board was said to have been respOn
sible, did not submit a second set of
figures The firm is Fruln & ColnOn of
st. Louis
Failure OF the company TO come into the
bidding a second time bears out the
statement Of persons well informed in
the contracting business that rejection
Of bids and second advertising by public
boards often results in reputable con-
tracing firms refusing 10 submit further
proposals.
On the surface it appears that the
board has obtained cheaper bids in the
second set. but this is difficult to de-
termine for the reason that some ad-
ditions 10 and subtrsctiOus from the
specifications have been made since the
first proposals were received COntrac-
tors say that while a public board may
he able to get cheaper prices by re-
JectinG bids and readvertising. because
all of these who bid the first time know
the price of each one. the process Is
costly in the long run because the best
firms often refuse to submit estimates
upon future work.
BID THROWN OUT
On TECHNICAL POINT.
Upon receipt OF the first set Of bids
July y rhe sanitary board a few days
later announced the award of a contract
for the construction Of the pump and
screen house building the main part of
the second unit. to Fruin & Colnon for
$4,000 and the contract for conduits to
connect the second unit with other parts
Of the plant 70 the Bunting Construction
Company Of Indianapolis for So. 800. One
OF the unsuccessful bidders upon the
main building objected 10 the award to
Fruin & ColnOn because that firms low
bid was accompanied by 4 bond for the
legal percentage Of the price instead Of
a certified check as required BY law. It
was said that Mr. Hurd had advised the
firm that the bond was accepta BILE. The
question was submitted tn the city legal
department which ruled that the obtector
was correct All bids then were rejected
and new proposals ordered advertised.
Upon the first bidding those who sub
mitted proposals were the Bunting Con
structiOn Company. J. ". & ". C. Mar
tin. karstedt Construction Company.
William P Jungclaus Company and
Fruin & C0lnOn- Bids were received
Wednesday from J. ". & ". C. Martin
and the Bunting Construction Company
Of Indianapolis; L. ". Hancock OF Louis
Vile and Henry W Horst Company Of
Rock Island. III.
The first bids were upon the building
and conduits alone Those received
Wednesday we're upon the building. con
duits. thickener tanks, cast iron pipe and
conduit gates.
BUILDING AND CONDUITS
BIDS COMPARED.
The only basis Of comparison between
the first and the second bids is upon the
figures submitted for the building and
conduits. Even this viii be more or
less inaccurate because specifications for
the building have been changed so as TO
provide fsr materials estimated at AIr.
Hurds Dsfice 70 make the structure ap
pFoXimately 5000 cheaper and specifica-
lions for the conduits changed so as u
provide for additions Of 225 feet Of eight
By twelve-foot conduit and 29O feet Of
conduit four and one half feet IN diam
eter. the estimated cost of which is ap-
proXimateIy twenty seven thousand dol
lars. Thus. the estimate upon the build
ing IS 5000 cheaDer than st first and
upon the c0nduits 81 200 more expensive.
The low bid upon the building sub
mitted Wednesday was S121.4S7 by the
Henry " Horst Company. This appears
To be about $4,000 cheaper than the
SI31 600 proposal Of Fruin & Colnon on
the first bidding. but. taking into con
sideration the 5000 cheaper new speci-