a Bids for dredging not in accordance with advertisement. For all materials rehandled in dikes, 15 cents extra per yard. b Wants explanation of measurement in embankment. c If the earth is measured in scows, deduct 2 cents per yard. Too many conditions in bid for dredging. d Will only furnish 1,000 piles. This condition vitiates bids for piles. Spikes. B 6. UNITED STATES ENGINEER Office, GENERAL: In justice to the engineer department I admit that the abstract of bids sent with my letter of May 7th last recommended the award for all materials and work to John Brown. Bid No. 12 was made out in this office, in a manner which, with an omission of facts not then known, but since discovered, may have misled, and been the cause of the engineer department letter, May 21, being sent to me, to the end of awarding contracts for the canal to seven (7) different persons. The letter seems to take it for granted that the seven named will take the respective contracts for the several items specified. We shall see how far such a supposition may be realized. I have made out a corrected abstract, and classified the work and materials in accordance with what I regard a proper construction of the law in reference to this particular work. This abstract I desire to replace the one I before sent, and to have that returned to my office. I transmit the corrected one as my final official return herewith. As to awarding the iron to bid No. 1, (H. M. Mixer,) bid No. 12 (John Brown) is as low as Mixer's, and, besides, Mixer declines upon the honest ground that he bid for the "whole or none.' As to awarding the nut and screw washer bolts and bar iron (round) to Detroit Bridge and Iron Works Company, (bid No. 15,) it will be seen that Brown's bid for these is as low as bid No. 15, and as that company expresses indifference to receiving the contract, on the ground of risk and inconvenience of delivering, I see good reasons for awarding it to John Brown. As to awarding the contract for spikes to Buhl, Ducharme & Co., (bid No. 14,) it will be seen that Brown's bid, No. 12, is as low as Buhl, Ducharme & Co.'s bid for these spikes; and as Buhl, Ducharme & Co. express indifference to the contract, on account of risk in sending (to a place where they or the government have no storehouse) kegs of the articles, there seems good reason to award the contract to Brown for the spikes. The iron bolts and spikes constitute one "class" of material, and by making a contract for it with Brown we comply with the law in awarding this class of material to him, who is the lowest bidder for all in the class. As to awarding the contract to R. A. Conolly, (bid No. 19,) his bid was for the whole or none, so understood; besides, though he might be a responsible bidder for the whole straight through, he is not a responsible contractor for driving these piles, as would be required, at $2 each, under an isolated job, apart from the rest of the work he bid for. Such a price is unreasonable, nor would he take the contract for driving alone. On account of unreasonableness, article 1046 Army Regulations, Revised, tells us that part of the bid which refers to driving the piles should be rejected; and, besides, there is another reason: much dredging will have to be done to facilitate the driving. Who does this, if an independent contract be made for the driving alone? The truth is, we can't separate the dredging from the rest of the work of putting in the woodwork of the dikes, and afterwards securing them. This is a reason for putting the driving of the piles and all other work, including the dredging, under one class, designated Class A in the abstract. Each and every reason just assigned would apply to every bid below $5 per pile for driving, if we award for driving alone, independently of the other work to be done. Hence, we can only regard Brown's bid as the lowest we can take to make a contract upon, and we can do that only upon the ground of his having the award of all other work. Brown's bid is the lowest-I may say, the only-bid for driving the round piles that we can hope to contract for. In regard to driving sheet-piling, precisely the same reasons, each and every, apply to them as for the round piles, and more besides. These cannot be driven and spiked in a job disconnected with sawed timber-work of the dikes. No person could be induced to take a contract for doing it (unless he has the contract for the whole work) at any reasonable price. Brown's is the lowest reasonable, responsible bid that the preparing, driving, and spiking can be done for, and that, too, in connection with other work. What does the preparing mean? Brown was the only one of the contractors who examined the model and could take in all the measuring; who had the wit to discover that the sheetpiles would have to be jointed with a plane on both edges. Now, to joint an oak stick on both edges, eighteen feet long, twelve inches wide, and four inches thick, is no small job. Williams bid for the award of all he bid for, or none, (bid No. 16.) He therefore declines the contract, virtually, for driving sheetpiles, and the same is the case with every other bidder unless he can have the whole he bid for awarded to him. We now come to the question of awarding the dredging to George P. Sanborn, Milwaukee, (bid No. 32.) In relation to this bid there is considerable to be said. Some days after sending my letter of May 7, with the abstract of bids, I discovered that this was a fraud, which had I known when I opened the bids I would have rejected in toto, and it should never have appeared on an abstract of mine. The evidence of this piece of sharp practice became conclusive some days since. Conro (who bid No. 21) drew up bid 32, signed Sanborn's name, and put it in, not for Sanborn to get the contract, but for Hasbrouck & Conro to get the dredging, provided their bid (No. 21) should fail to be the lowest. It proves that Sanborn was a "straw," used by Conro to obtain for Hasbrouck & Conro the advantage of two bids to each of their fellow bidders having one; and this was all unknown to me until since the abstract was made out and my letter of 7th May was sent. I find that Sanborn used to be a bookkeeper to Conro, and knows no more about constructions than the most inexperienced. Conro has seen me twice since, and acknowledged, when I charged him with perpetrating the trick, that he did it so as to secure to himself the dredging in case his bid (No. 21) should fail to secure the whole. There never has been a word, verbally or in writing, from Sanborn to me, claiming the contract or acknowledging the bid, or conferring any authority for Conro to use his (Sanborn's) name in a manner which, without such written authority, is tantamount to a forgery. I stamp this "straw" bid (No. 32) as a transaction worthy of a trickster. Conro, first, on seeing that Brown, for the entirety was the lowest, went and proposed to Brown to take him (Conro) in as partner on Brown's bid. Brown's reply was that "the contract had not yet been awarded, consequently he could give no definite reply to such a proposition." Conro has since been active to secure for himself the dredging on the fraudulent bid in the name of Sanborn, and the pertinacity of his acts show a desire more for a haul upon the public crib than for the interest of this important public work. I regard his use of a "straw" bidder as an unfair attempt to overreach those who put in their bids honestly, according to the understanding. Conro has had the barefacedness recently to call on me a third time, claiming that I should award the dredging to Sanborn, in order that he (Conro) might get the contract. Never presenting any authority, written or verbal, from Sanborn for anything concerning bid No. 32, or anything else. It is needless to say I have treated this claim of Conro with silence; and now, in making up my final abstract herewith sent, I mark upon the abstract a rejection of the whole bid, (No. 21,) for reasons herein stated and thereon assigned, under the head of remarks. As to awarding the items specified in engineer department letter, May 21, to John Brown: The letter arrived at my office during my absence at Buffalo, and was opened under the instructions I left, for opening all official letters by my clerk. Brown called to see about the award, and the letter was shown to him. He replied: "I can't take such a contract; my bid was for the whole or none, |