the same as all who bid for the entirety. Nobody can expect that such a work can be carried on by several contractors. One can do the work well, according to the general's plan; two would be in each other's way, and would inevitably clash." I have not seen Mr. Brown since, but he left this message as his official reply to the proposition of awarding him parts of his bid instead of the whole. I have now reported in full upon the proposition in engineer department letter of May 21, to assign the work to seven contractors, and the conclusion is clear that we cannot expect to accomplish the object by assigning contracts for different "kinds" of material or different "kinds" of work, but that we could have secured a highly favorable contractor for the interest of the work by assigning the contract by classifying the labor or work, and by "classifying" material, as contemplated in the law, according to my construction, and as I have done in my final abstract, after a careful reperusal of all the bids. The law says, "no contract shall be made except after public advertisement for proposals, &c., and the same shall only be made for the work, (work meaning in this case ship canal, St. Clair flats,) with the lowest responsible bidder therefor, upon security deemed sufficient in the judgment of the Secretary [of War."] Now, this don't oblige contracts to be made for different kinds of labor or work, nor for different kinds of material. Now, in regard to section three, "there shall be separate proposals, and separate contracts for each work, and also for each class (not kind) of labor, and also for each class (not kind) of material for each work." Now, I do not infer this to mean there shall be separate contractors even for each class of labor or material. Much less do I infer that it means separate contractors for each kind of labor or each kind of material, but that it does mean that in drawing up the instrument called contract there shall be stated in it separate classes of labor and of material specified and contracted for, so that kinds, quantities of measure or weight, and prices, &c., may be clearly understood, and thus avoiding the former system of lumping, so liable to frauds, and injustice to the public interest, and whereupon many of the piers were so slightingly constructed. I hold this to be a sound interpretation applicable to every work coming under that law generally. Now, in regard to the particular work (ship canal, St. Clair flats) under consideration, there is another feature of the law, which says the money shall be applied to carrying out a certain plan. The plan, to be properly executed, must be done by putting all work of whatsoever kind in it under one contractor; it is for this reason that I classify in the abstract all work to be done in one class, A. The materials are classified into three. The propriety of giving all three of these classes to the same contractor, who has class A, may have not been so obvious to the engineer department as I will now make it. We have no storehouse, no dock, no boom, at the place where the work is to commence. Suppose we contract with three different contractors for the materials to be delivered. Each delivers ; we are bound to receive and pay. Who is, after delivery to the United States, to have the care, or to store, or to guard, so much valuable property at that point, where there is not a house, dock, or inhabitant within several miles? You must see the risk to the United States would be very great. Put all the materials and work under one responsible contractor: he makes his own dock, storehouses, shop, and boom, and relieves the government from all risk, and expense of custodianship for materials. I should take care to draw the contract with a clause to this end; also, with a clause to fill the condition in the last paragraph but one of your May 21 letter. It will be seen by the abstract that Brown (bid No. 12) is as low and lower than anybody else's bid upon class one, class two, class three, and for class A; he is lower than any other honest, bona fide, responsible bidder. I hold that under the law he is entitled to the contract for the work, as a whole. I also hold that under the law he is entitled to the award for each class, not only of materials, 1, 2, 3, but likewise for the class of labor, A, since the bid 32 is rejected in toto, and utterly discarded. Even if it were admitted among honest bids, Brown, under the law, would be entitled to the award, upon the ground, "and the same (contract) shall only be made for the work with the lowest responsible bidder therefor." Now as to security. Before writing my recommendation of 7th May, Brown presented satisfactory names to me, and I doubt not they will be perfectly satisfactory to the Secretary of War, as his bondsmen. He went so far as to say, "I will, if required, put in deposit in gold, in the government bank at Detroit, funds to any amount you may require, to the credit of the work, as additional security." I cannot say that Brown will, now it has become so late, accept the contract; but I think he would if awarded to him in the same good faith in which he bid. For reasons and facts herein given, I submit the matter and recommend that the award of all be made to John Brown (bidder No. 12) for the whole work, and that I be authorized to draw up the contract as soon as possible, or we shall consume another season in preliminaries to another annual detriment to the commerce to the amount of half a million of dollars, more than enough to construct the whole work. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Colonel Engineers, Brevet Major General. P. S. The letter to which this is in reply came while I was absent in Buffalo. I returned, and next day but two had to go to Cleveland on duty. It has been' impossible to put all the facts in shape before. Every day is precious, and we should, in my opinion, get this work under contract immediately, on account of getting materials to begin with this season, and for the general interest of the work. Major Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. T. J. CRAM. Number of bid. Names of bidders B 7.-Abstract of bids for furnishing materials and 3 Loud, Priest & Gay, Ausable, Michigan.. 6 Harvey P. Platt, Toledo, Ohio.. W. W. Williams & Smith, materials; and W. W. & E. Hasbrouck & Conro, Milwaukee, Wis.. 25 Farquhar McRae, Wallaceburg, C. W. John C. Valentine, E. Saginaw, Mich. L. M. Mason, Detroit, Mich. Seth P. Cushman, Detroit, Mich. 32 33 35 36 A. A. McDonnell, Hamilton, C. W. Pr.pile. Pr. M.b.m. $22.00 Per lb. Per lb. Per lb. $0.071 doing work at St. Clair flats, Michigan. Classification of work to be done. All the different kinds of work or labor here below have such dependence on each other that they must be put in one class of labor-class A. For framing and putting in per running foot of timber. a Bids for the whole or none; declines the award for iron. b All material rehandled in dikes, 15 cents extra per yard. Bid for dredging not in accordance with adver c Wants explanation of measurement in embankment. Explanation never been given. Bid for entirety or d On examination of the original bid, it is discovered that a note accompanied the bid to the effect that as the prices in his bid should be reduced as low as any other bidder. Hence the corrections in class 3. This is separately. e Declines the award on account of risk in sending kegs of spikes to a place where it would not be safe to f Declines the award of bolts for the same reasons as above given by Buhl, Ducharme & Co. If the earth is measured in scows, deduct $2 per cubic yard. Bid for the whole or none. Too many con h Bid for whole or none. Piles separate from the other work could not be driven for this price. Bid for the i Bid for the whole or none. j Bid for the whole or none; so understood at engineer's office, Detroit. k Bid for driving not accepted on account of containing a condition. Bid for the whole or none. Will only furnish 1,000 piles. This condition vitiates the bid for piles. m All to be delivered in rafts. This condition vitiates the bid. The piles n In my first draft of abstract, I supposed this to be an honest bid from Sanborn himself, like other bids, and of May 7, to the engineer department, I discovered that it was a "shyster" bid. Sanborn was a man of 21, (Hasbrouck & Conro.) I now reject the whole of this bid. No. 32, as a bid none but a trickster would palm nying this abstract to the engineer department, June 11, 1867. I regret that such a bid should have disgraced I certify this paper to be a correct abstract of the original bids. |