The $8,000 Schoolyard Fight

Considerable dissatisfaction was expressed by unsuccessful bidders over the letting of the contract for improving the South School grounds to John Parke. The matter drew forth the following communication from W. W. Eldred, one of the bidders:

To the Editor: At a time when economy in expenditures is the watchword of every public man, when such eagerness for work exists among contractors and laborers that public work for city, county and state is being done for half former prices, it is strange to find a public body with such utter disregard for economy that it awards contracts for public work to the highest rather than the lowest bidders. I refer to the board of education of this city, and particularly to its action in awarding the contract for the improvement of the South School grounds to the next-to-highest bidder among nine competitors, thereby saddling an unnecessary expense of about $8,000 upon the taxpayers of this city.

Nine bids were delivered to the secretary of the board by 11 a.m. on August 6 and read before the board that evening, most of the competing contractors being present. Immediately before the tenders were read, the contractors were notified that the successful bidder would be required to furnish an additional bond of $25,000. The job was not awarded that evening.

The next day letters were sent to the nine bidders asking for a detailed statement of their bids by 8 p.m. on the 8th; seven responded. When the secretary was about to open the bids, one board member remarked, “What’s the use of opening these? We won’t know any more after we do, and can’t act until our engineer, U. S. Grant White, arrives.”

At a special meeting on August 13 the job was awarded to us, Heath & Eldred, at our price, and we were given until noon on August 18 to submit our bondsmen. We asked for instructions and were told to prepare a list of names and the amounts for which they would qualify. At 11:30 I arrived with the list and found the board in session. Attorney White said the bond must be signed by the sureties, each for the full amount of the $25,000 liability. Fifteen minutes before noon the board had passed on to the next bidder. The characters and financial standing of the bondsmen for the next three bidders were condemned; one member in particular measured everybody’s financial standing by his own.

When bondsmen for the bid of $5,650 were named, one member moved to award the job at that price. Another moved to amend that the wives of the three sureties be required to sign with them. The amendment was lost, and the contract was awarded at that price.

At the board meeting on August 20 the then-successful bidder informed the board that one of his three sureties had dropped out at the last moment. The two others were present and had been pronounced by the board separately worth three times the amount of the bond. He asked for a few hours to strengthen his bond, offering a $100 check as evidence of good faith. His request was ignored. The job was then voted to the next higher man—the party it was intended for. The next day his bond was accepted after a short private meeting, and after a resolution to declare all previous action off and call for new bids had been defeated.

After the first hitch it was common talk among city contractors and material men that the board was seeking to give the contract to the party who now has it, although his bid was so high that he was almost out of the race. It is clear to me that the board never intended the job to go to anyone but the party who now has it, who is a rich man, and that the high joint bond was one of the schemes to down the other bidders, who are comparatively poor men. Nevertheless, the bondsmen offered and rejected are usually good, and in some cases better than those that have been accepted.

Four bondsmen were worth three times the amount of the bond required, and their names were submitted according to instructions and could have been before the expiration of the time required, but our bid was never considered. The other bidders were all turned down for a favorite, and the taxpayer will have to pay twice as much for this work as good, responsible contractors offered to do it for. In addition, the whole transaction having an ugly look, there is reason for the opinion that it is possibly illegal and that further expense will be incurred thereby.

W. W. ELDRED.

The communication was shown to members of the board of school directors. An informal meeting was held, and the following reply was made:

Before the bids were opened on August 6, the attention of all bidders present was called to the fact that they would be required to furnish bonds, and the bond was read and explained by W. H. White, attorney for the board. There was considerable talk among the bidders as to whether the bids should be opened at that time, as some desired to amend after hearing the bond read. Others objected, saying it would be unjust to allow amendments, as they had revealed to one another what they had bid. Finally the board said anyone who desired could withdraw his bid; if not, the bids would all be opened. The man who made the most fuss, who did not want any time, who said he could furnish all the bonds and everything, was Mr. Eldred.

The bids were then opened. The variations were so great—they ran from $3,600 to $7,000—that the board did not wish to act that night. The board consulted its engineer, U. S. G. White, and he could not understand why there was such a difference. He stated that the highest bid was entirely too low for the work if done properly, and that the board should be careful to have the work done right, considering the great risk of the South School building failing if the task was done in a slovenly or careless manner.

At Engineer White’s suggestion the bidders were asked to itemize their bids—how much for stone work, piling, fascines, etc. When the itemized bills were in, and all but two contractors had itemized, the board awarded the contract to J. C. Spurr, the lowest bidder, provided he gave a good bond. Mr. Spurr failed to give a good bond, and the contract was awarded to Cawsey & Bromley. They asked for five days to file the $25,000 bond, and that time was given. Cawsey & Bromley failed to qualify, and the contract was let to Eldred & Heath. They were given a day to secure bonds. They failed to furnish the necessary bonds, and the contract was let to Contractor Garretty. He failed to give a satisfactory bond, though given a day to do so. The board accepted three names submitted by Mr. Garretty, and only two signed.

Then the board let the contract to John Parke, who gave a good, sufficient and satisfactory bond. If Parke had not given a satisfactory bond, Flynn & Rockmark would have been awarded the contract.

The fact is that a $25,000 schoolhouse is in danger of falling unless the work embodied in this contract is carefully done, and the large bond is required so that the contractor may do the work in a satisfactory manner. No favoritism was shown, and the only desire of the board was to protect the interests of the people in the premises.

Attorney W. H. White added: It has been the universal rule of the board to require joint and several obligations from all contractors. Mr. Eldred came to the board and presented a paper signed by his proposed bondsmen, with several names, whereby they agreed to be bound to the district in the sums set opposite their names, and no more, some limiting their liability as low as $500, the whole amount tendered being about $10,000. Mr. Eldred was informed that this was not the bond provided for and required by the board; that his sureties must be jointly and severally held in the sum of $25,000, no matter what they were willing to justify they were worth. He stated he did not know this was the kind of bond required. The bonds were prepared when the contract was, and had been open for inspection at all times since the opening of the bids. The board told Mr. Eldred they could not give him further time to get bonds, as the rainy season was coming on, and proceeded to consider the next bid.