Richland Bridge Contract Nullified by State Oversight
A procedural shortcut taken by county commissioners to build a bridge has backfired, with the state declaring their contract void for lack of competitive bidding.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
County Auditor J. C. Sylord was notified this morning by the attorney general's office that the action of the county commissioners in letting a contract for the Richland bridge is irregular and consequently the contract will be considered null and void. It is understood that the attorney general holds that the contract is invalid because no bids were called for before the contract was let. The commissioners called for bids on specifications which called for a steel bridge. When these bids were opened, they were all rejected because the cost of a steel bridge was considered too great. The following day the board entered into a contract with the Coast Construction company for a wooden bridge. Evidently the attorney general is of the opinion that the rejection of the bids and the letting of the contract were not a part of the same transaction, but that before the contract could be legally let, new bids would have to have been called for on the changed specifications.
“The action of the county commissioners in letting a contract for the Richland bridge is irregular and consequently the contract will be considered null and void.”
The tension between fiscal expediency and legal compliance in public works projects persists. Much like this 1916 bridge dispute, modern local governments in Washington still face state-level scrutiny when trying to cut corners on project procurement processes.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.