Beverly banner. [volume] (Beverly, N.J.) 1877-1964, 1925-06-26
Mr.. ANDERSON TAKES EXCEPTION TO BEING RATED
AS INCOMPETENT TO HANDLE SIDEWALK JOB
Hot Fight Predicted In Council AS big Four"
Moves To Award Contract For Engineering
Services On $3.50, 100000 Improvement

was charged with conducting a pri-
vate meeting of several Councilmen
at his home for the purpose of dis
cussing the sidewalk situation Mr.
Donaldson severely scored Mr.. Par
sons for highly unethical act.
That the meeting did exist has
been admitted and those reported to
have been present are Messrs. Par
sons, Stevenson, Allen, Brown and
Woertz. 1t has been limited that the
real object of the meeting was to en-
able the SO called "Big Four" to elm
CHI majority for an outside engineer
through the addition of Mr.. Woertz
to their ranks. This, however, is open
to conjecture and could not be. YER
flied.
The Bids for Engineering Services
were opened and read at this meet
ing. The Bids as listed below were
obtained from one of the bidders,
Edgar and Allen, by The Banner and
are believed to be accurate
Conard & lBuzby-refused to bid.
Sleeper & Sherman bid.
Day and Zimmerman-$l $4,000 or
$50 of the contract.
Clement M. Anderson-$1 $4,000 or
40 of the contract.
Edgar & Allen $4,25O and SO of
the contract.
Remington & Bosbury -$1,95O and
SO of the contract
TX superhclai survey or TIzv 49,
bids would indicate that Edgar and
Allen of Collingswood were low,
but upon more critical examinat-
ion an interesting problem arises.
The bid of Clement Anderson
asks for $4,000 for Articles G. 2
OR AZ of the contract price. The
other bids state, as in the case of
Edgar and Allen, $4250 AND $1,000
This leads to the presumption that
the terms of the Proposal of
Council were interpreted differently
by the several bidders.
The bid of Mr.. Anderson was made
under protest as he believes the work
rightfully is his without the necess-
ity of his bid as follows:
Denying the legality of proceed
ings of the Common Council of the
City of Beverly in asking for the Bids
for Engineering Services in connect
ion with an Ordinance entitled, IAN
Ordinance etc. for construction of
sidewalks ETC." under protest, / here
with submit my bid for said work
as follows:- Ten thousand ($10,000)
Dollars for the work under Articles
and 2 of said specifications or a fee
of 49o on the total lump sum of the
contract to be awarded"
Mr.. Anderson, on being interview
ed explained the word OR, stating
his intention to take the entire job
regardless of the amount of the con-
tract for the sum of $4,000 which
would cover all preliminary engin-
eering work as well as the actual
work; or an alternative bid of 49o
which would likewise cover every
and all forms of work in connection
with the proposition. In placing the
figure at AZ it would exactly equal
the $4,000 if the cost of the con-
tract for work amounted to $250,0OO
as provided in the ordinance. IL the
contract should prove lower than this
bid of Az he would be cheaper than
his alternative bid of 100000.
The bid of Edgar and Allen was
for $4,25O for articles ] and 2 and
lin addition 31a9o on the construction
contract.
In comparing this bid with Mr.. An
derson's bid of $4,000 the amount Of
$4,25O would be deducted from the
$4,000 leaving $3.50 to represent
31hGo on the contract. This means
that the construction contract woult
have to be as low as s164,2s in or
der for the Edgar and Allen bid tt
equal Mr.. Anderson's.
Upon totaling the volume Of con
crete work to be put in and usinl
the current contractors prices on thi
j continued on sth page