The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1925-12-01
COMMISSIONERS PROCEEDINGS

MIils.tDbII-. VI -. - h. >
North. IN CONSTRUCTION CO..
tMr E"rI:r. It IA, Grand
ForksD Observation-Disclosures. ll1sG"9,
Ia, ,,.., ,. ,., ,,,,
a.. I'm ''"'" '''7' "'' ~"
" ''i. .,,,o
"nH' ~ '''i 80 -
-: 'ii'', 1" ,"nn 80 -" 20 o.,
RAJ r"'ii u, .'h w. -
NOT, n'rn ' "i'S' ION a.
'N'' '''' X - a. '' "'"'
6-iu"h courrrt. has" with 2-inch
Warr"uit. top.
II:i"cart Construction co. Sl:i.S49J2
= Birch 4 Sons ........... ia, 1851
General CONSTRUCTION co.. l4l,s5J.j8
North.rn cuust ruriiou co.
tMr E.rg-, It al. NO hidD
--'-
,., .a ..;.,.
81" ''''H "'i' "''9' WIZ" "
', arr"n,'" ,"p. go g.,
ia" 49, 80 'u.,.i W Wv" - ,,'"c.." "
=. f'r'h ~ ."il9 - -. !.
az ~ ~ ''' '--'
nor, h'rh '"hS! f"''I"h o.
'Nf. ''''S'' 81 A. "' "'''
1h" 'id@EHft '"'Strn''I"h com
ranE hid Tor ""nrr"t" pavement was
SI.l go" lower IMAM th' NEXT low
"St hld -. Eir"h N sons. ana ~
800 lower 'hah "" hih "i thr
Northern CONSTRUCTION company
'Mr. Berg" ana "th"rS.)
Tn" lihgGa constructor COM
pany bids for the different warren
II" TOP paNrm"nts ""r" from So,
~ i."" I" S1'.686'' lower than Az
other bidders.
Alter 'af"Iu III lnN'St1ea'i"i'. ana
from past "Np-ri"nrr ana "Xamina-
tons ia" l'"arh OF County 'onii'iS-
sion"rs determined that tn" hest
black base win 2-inch Warrrn't"
top. Tn" bid OF tn" liagGart con
strurti"n company for that was So
1ii."" less than its nearest comn"ti-
Tor tn" '."h.r:t tnnstrn't'on com
pany. ana SI.163.Ih less th:tn :.
Birch Sons 'Th" Northern con,
stru"iinn company, Mr.. Hergr ana
others. making no bid on that class
Of pavement
u is generally "on""d"d that the
ana pr"i'rahl" I" concrete pave
m"mi. especially III In" matter OF iu-
tur" maintenance As the liaG"art
CONSTRUCTION company bih Tor i-1nrh
black has" with Inch Warr"nitc
Tor, was S'..il i" less nan any cthtr
bidder IN" Hoard OF county COM
missi"ncrS entered INTO contract
with TIA" fiaEeart tonStrurtlon
company To pay" with f-inrh BLACK
has" with Inch Warrenlte top. and
~" Board believed and SUI believes
that thcyb hav" made an excellent
contract.
Later on tn" t:"ard OF county
commissioners were asked TO confer
with IN" state Highway tomhi1s,
sion and a conference" was mad, ana
then for III" first time the highway
Commission. or rather some men,
h"rs thereof. stated that Il concrete
pavement was preferred. and state
m"nts were made that the ROAD
could b" paved for many thousands
of dollars less than the l1aESart
work were done on plus and per-
crntage basis. No objections to
Warrenite top pavement was in tr-
idence until after the contract was
mad" with tn" liaGEari tonStruc-
tion company. Mr.. H"rGe. VIII" con-
! company, and whose bid for con-
crete pavement was S2.23i.i2 NOR"
than the bid of IN" ltaggart con-
stru"ti"n company. was present and
was asked if he could d" the work
on a concrete pavement on cost
and percentage basis and what could
! be saved. IL" stated that n" would
; put down Il concrete pavement tnot
IA Warrenite top pavement pro-
vidcd he was given theS contract
while his "auirmrnt was in Bis
| marrk, which il is not now. and
| could probably do the work on con
! crete pavement for $5.oo".u0" nnt
| Si0.o"o.oo) less than tn" liagEart
! Construction bid owe should re-
! member right here that Mr. BerSe'S
hid for concrete pavement had been
s2.%3i.i ~ more than that of the iiaS-
| CART Construction company bid Tor
| concrete pavement)
4, Under such facts and conditions
| the County Commissioners decided
il was good Judgment to insist upon
| fulfllmrnt Of the contract made
with the lIaGEart Construction COM
pany.
The statement that SI0,"0o.00
could be saved provided concrete
pavement is put down on plus
and percentage basis is absurd and
not made, in our opinion. in good
| faith.
Now n word regarding this cost
and percentage plan. The County
Commissioners have had some eN-
perience with those kind Of con-
tracts and have found out that same
should be avoided if possible. To