The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-04-06
ting TO the matter.

| ting TO the matter.
When the contract was awarded to
the Woodrich Construction company
its manager knew the general site
of the filtration plant and the intake
and knew the construction problems
to be encountered in performing the
contract. Young said in answer to
the construction company's COM
paint.
THE plans and specifications CON
tanned the usual stipulations permit
ting the making Of necessary
changes" he said. There was no
change in the general site of the
building and it's specific location was
fixed with the consent and approval
of the contractor.
Changes Made Minus Objection
Some changes were made in the
plans for the filtration plant as
u ual in any construction or building
plans, and the contractor was direct
ed to place the intake one and one
tenth feet lower than the original
plans required Every change was
made without objection from the
contractor and no delays resulted
because of such changes. nor did
they increase the difficulty in per-
forming the contract. The contract
provided that extra work other than
that required in the plans and speci-
fications should be done on cost
plus basis. Construction contracts
universally have such provisions"
The local contract was the first
taken by this contractor for the
construction Of an intake of the
character required under the condi-
tons existing at the site of the fill
tration plant, Young said, alleging
that the contractor was not familiar
with the methods requisite to per-
form this part of his contract, and
that the methods which it adopted
were not suited to the problems pre-
sented
Worked "Inefficiently"
The construction company pro
ceeded to construct the intake in an
understandable manner, had ineffi-
cient supervision, and ignored sug-
gestions of the city engineer and Of
others experienced. in such construc-
|. ton as to the methods by which the
icontract might be efficiently, eX
! peditiously and economically per-
formed the city attorney claims.
The contract required that the fill
tration plant be built and the intake
pipes laid not later than December
/, 1923, but because Of the ineffi-
cheney of the contractor in construct
ing the intake, and through its own
| fault. it did not commence work on
=, the intake until January II, 1924"
Young alleged.
Did Not Follow Suggestions
! 1t was suggested to the company
| that the contract be performed be-
! fore the ice in the Missouri river
should break up in the spring Of
| 1924. It's manager was repeatedly
urged by City Engineer Atkinson.
through the months of February and
March, 1924, to heed this advice /.
| THE suggestion was disregarded
and on March -. 1924. the river be-
gan to rise so that the performance
of the work was made more diff
cult. The contractor failed to make
progress in constructing the intake
and finally its manager suggested
that he be permitted to construct a
temporary intake to the filtration
plant so that the new system could
! be used"
Though the contractor was re-
sponsible for failure to complete the
intake, it asked extra compensation
for building the temporary intake it
had suggested, Young said. In May,
1924, the commissioners extended the
time for completing the contract to
October /, 1924, upon condition that
the contractor should construct the
Temporary intake at his own ex-
ipense. and should keep the city pro-
tected with an adequate bond, he
.averred.
Did Needless Work
''The contractor. in its efforts to
build the intake, performed a great
Ideal of useless work and incurred /:
large amount of needless expense
and claimed allowance for this on a
cost plus basis" Young said. up
on its failure to complete the intake
during the early months Of 1924, the
city engineer was directed to con
struct temporary intake so that the
new pumping station could be CON
nected with the old intake. b,
means of this connection, it was
made possible to use the new water
works system, but the cost Of pump
ing the water through the old in
take was about $500 month more
than il would have been had the new
intake been completed. 1t is claim
ed by the city that this extra cost
should be borne by the contractor
and it was in fact deducted by the
city engineer when his final esti-
mate was made"
For several months the contractor
made no effort to complete the in
take, it is alleged. The company