Evening star., 1953-01-01
Meeting Called
Tomorrow on
Impasse
Alexandra Facing
Loss Of U. S. Funds
On Bid Withdrawal


On Bid Withdrawal
The Alexandria Redevelopment
nd Housing Authority is prepar-
ng to meet tomorrow to decide
What should be done about award
ng contract for the city's pro-
'osed new 148-unit low-rent pub
ic housing project.
Yesterday, the authority re-
'eived word that Attorney Gen.
;ral j. Lindsay Almond, jr.. will
lot intervene in the controversy
,ver award of the housing con-
ract. .e.
The low bidder. Victor r. Beau
,hamp. Inc, of Washington. also
iotified the Housing Authority
that he was withdraw
ng his offer at noon tomorrow.
Glenn y. Richard, chairman of
he Housin ing Authority. said he
lid not care to comment on the
Two new developments until the
meets. He said he
hoped the meeting could be held
tomorrow morning. before Beau
champs bid expires.
Risks Loss of Aid.
If the Alexandria agency fails
to act on the Beauchamp bid, the
city apparently will lose its chance
of obtaining Federal money for
the project. This is because the
Public Housing Administration,
which must approve any contract
award. has insisted that the low
bid be accepted. ..
A PHA spokesman said yester-
day that agency would not set
aside any money for Alexandria
while new bids are invited because
this would be unfair to other COM
waiting for permission to
request bids.
The Alexandria Authority de-
cided to reject the Beauchamp
bid of $1.157,840 because it came
from a union shop contractor.
Members of the Authority claimed
Of such contractor
would violate Virginia's right to
work law and secondary boycott
provisions of the Taft-Hartley
Act.
PHA Rules Out Next Bid.
The second lowest bid, sub
mitted by Eugene Simpson and
Brother of Alexandria, which was
$62, 500 above the Beauchamp bid.
was the choice of the Alexandria
Authority. But PHA refused to 90
along with this.
PHA yesterday said it still would
not approve the Simpson bid even
ii Beauchamp's bid is withdrawn.
The controversy over possible
award of the contract to q Union
contractor was prompted by ! q
protest from Southern Iron
Works, Inc, which is a non-union
steel fabricator. This protest was
read as bids were about to be
opened November 6.
Mr.. Almond said yesterday his
Office is permitted to render opin-
ions to commemorative attorneys
only when the request is directly
related to the discharge Of their
duties.
He said he did not feel Com
monwealth's Attorney Howard w.
Smith, jr., had any duty to dis
charge in the housing dispute.
The attorney general had been
asked whether the housing au-
thority acted properly in rejecting
a low bid on the sole ground 1t
cd me from a union shop contrac-
tor.
Southern Iron Works yesterday
issued the following statement to
clarity its position:
"It remains for Southern IRON
Works. Inc, to explain the cir
cumstances leading up to our for
NAL protest. entered before the
bid opening on the aforementioned
project. Due. to our failure to
negotiate an agreement with Local
No. 5 of the international Union
of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Ironworkers within the
limits of State and Federal laws,
Local No. S sought to exert pres
sure on our company through the
Washington Building and Con-
struction Trades Council and GER
tain contractors having an agree
ment with that council.
Contractors Restrained.
This action took the form Of
a secondary boycott directed
against the use Of our products
or services. Certain contractors
were restrained from purchasing
our products under threat that
Local No. 5 would refuse to erect
materials furnished by our COM
pany.
I'VE are not the only company
involved. All open shop contrac-
tors are involved under a system
that. in our opinion. is in direct
violation Of the Virginia right-to-
work bill and the Taft-Hartley
Act regulating secondary boycotts.
ITO avoid labor problems on the
project under consideration, cer-
tain contractors having an agree
ment with the Washington Build
ing and Construction Trades
Council have adhered to their
agreement even though same is in
violation Of the aforementioned
State statutes and national laws.
Felt Obliged to Protest.
In order to protect our own
interests and the interests Of
other Virginia taxpayers and en-
ployers, we felt obliged to protest
against the award Of any contract
involving public funds to any con-
tractor who was a party to an
agreement which requires that
contractor to operate in defiance
Of the Virginia right-to-work bill
and engage in secondary boycetts
in violation Of the Taft-Hartley
Act.
"Ina srn1ch az the Alevan,3rio