The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-04-06
$4,000 SUIT FILED AGAINST CITY
OF BISMARCK BY THE COMPANY WHICH
BUILT MUNICIPAL WATERWORKS PLANT
Case Expected to Come Up
For Trial at May Term Of
United States District
Court Here-COmplaint Re-
quircs II Pages-City At
tcrney Young Answers
Charges

Suit for more than $4,000 alleged
due as payment for work done on
the city filtration plant, has been
filed in U. s. District Court against
the City of Bismarck and 7. II. Al
kinson by the Woodrich Construction
company Of Minneapolis. The cas-.
is expected to come up at the May
term here
The Woodrich company, which was
employed as general contractor when
the filtration plant was built in 1928
alleges in a 7l-page complaint that
the city engineer, after the original
contract had been signed, made
changes in the specifications of tn,
plant which cost $43,233.42 and tina.
the city has not yet paid this sum.
Young Replies
At the same time, c. l.. Young, city
attorney. replied to the construction
company's complaint concerning
changes alleged to have been made
in the site Of the plant and intake
pipes, declaring that "the plans and
specifications conta ined the usual
stipulations permitting the making
of necessary changes. Every change
was made without objection from the
contractor and no delays resulted
because of such changes, nor did they
increase the difficulty of performing
the contract"
Young further declared that under
the final estimate of the city cngi.
neer the contractor was entitled 10
So, ,783 and that since that time ccr-
tain sums have been paid by the city
on account of the estimate.
1.-THE city at all times has been,
and now is ready to compensate the
contractor for services actually and
necessarily performed in completing
the contract, but it refuses to pay
for services which were not perform
ed or to compensate the contractor
for mistakes in methods Of perform
ancs," Young declared.
Allege Numerous Changes
When the construction company
sent workmen here to locate the site
of the plant, they first prepared one
site, after which they claim City
Engineer 7. H. Atkinson changed the
location Of the site twice before
definitely locating it. Protesting at
the change, the cOmplainants alleged
they were told by Atkinson they
would be reimbursed for any extra
cost.
~ 10 luIlucT dJCkcU Ill Iuc COIn-
plaint that when the work of excava-
tion was done Atkinson established
the amount of dirt excavated for the
erection of the building at 1850
cubic yards, whereas the construction
company alleged that over 2O,5OO
cubic yards was taken out by them.
When construction was first start
ed on the building, the contractors
allege they were not provided with
plans and did not receive them from
Atkinson until September, 1923, and
then for only a part of the building.
These final plans differed from
those on. which the contractors bid
and called for more expensive con-
struction, the cOmplainants allege
Claim Plans Not Furnished
When bids were being made on the
work covering installation Of intake
pipe. lines and suction we'll, no plans
were available, the plaintiffs allege.
They further allege that the city
commissioners and Atkinson changed
the site Of the suction well three
times before locating it permanently.
When concrete had been poured for
the we'll, the plaintiffs allege, At
kinson. and the city comm issioners
decided on q new elevation and grade
for the we'll and agreed to pay the
contractors on cost plus" basis.
Continued on page two.)