Newspaper Page Text
THE PENS AC OLA JOURNAL, SUNDAY MORNING, MARCH 17, 1912.
17 UNTY CO REPORT ON. JAIL CONTRACT TO CO MMISSIONE What County Attorney Expert Assistants Found; CLAIM THAT PLANS WERE CHANGED WITH ! OUT KNOWLEDGE OF BOARD, THAT EX j TRAS WERE ORDERED WITHOUT AU ! THORITY, THAT MANY EXTRAS WERE IN j CLUDED IN ORIGINAL CONTRACT, THAT THE COUNTY GOT NO CREDIT FOR CHANGE OF PLANS WHEN LIGHTER CON STRUCTION WAS SUBSTITUTED, AND 1 THAT INSTEAD OF COUNTY OWING CON i 1 TRACTOR, THE LATTER WILL OWE ' COUNTY WHEN FINAL SETTLEMENT IS MADE. ! Below is published the report of County Attorney R. P.eese and his expert assistants on the county jail con trct with the Blount Construction Company. The re pot, among other things, recites: i 1 That original competitive bid for concrete cell blck wall reconstruction, after acceptance of bid and avird of contract, was increased by Blount Construction Cmpany $589.30. 2 That the county was overcharged by Blount Con stuction Company on work of lowering foundations, ap pjximately $4,283.73. . r 3 That item of $477.60 for cornice work in court rpm was charged for three times. It was included (1st) if the original building contract. It was included (2nd) i bid of March 2, 1911, to install "fixtures, railings, cor ce and balustrades." It was included (3rd) in order of larch 7, 1911, by L. R. Benz as an extra. In addition to fese three charges, another charge was also made, on enz's order, of $105.90 for "iron brackets and metal !ths" on which to hang the cornice. In a later report enz says that this order and charge were improper. 4 That many such charges for extra work, amount ig to thousands of dollars, were issued by L. R. Benz, le architect employed by the county as an expert to ifeguard its interest, when these extras were included in le Blount Construction Company's original contract. 5 That the roof provided for in the contract was hanged by order of L. R. Benz, without knowledge of he County Commissioners, for an inferior roof which is iefective and leaks badly, and which will have to be re laced. j 6 That when cell block walls were changed from frick to rc-inforced concrete, a change for lighter concrete Construction was substituted throughout the building, h eluding the concrete foundations. Concrete beams were ilso substituted for steel "I" beams with concrete fire proofing. All of this substitution and elimination saved the Blount Construction Company, approximately, 14,000.00, of which saving the county had no knowledge and for which it received no credit from the contractor. . 7 That instead of $13,589.14 claimed by the Blount Construction Company to be owing to it by the county, the contractor will be indebted to the county, when full settlement is made. The Report. Pensacola, Fla., Feb. 86, 1912. .' The Honorable Board of County Com- ) missioners. Escambia County, Fla. Gentlemen: In accordance with the ' resolution of your board of January 25th, 1912, reading as follows: "It appearing from the report of the i Blount Construction Company of Its claim of balance of Indebtedness owing bv the county to it, upon the county jail contract, and also from the Blount Construction Company's estimate oi deductions and allowances due by it to the county on this contract, that it will require a legal examination and construction of the contract between the Blount Construction Company and the county, as well as expert knowl edge of the architect to determine the correctness and accuracy of the con tractor's report. "Therefore, be it resolved, that the contractors' report be referred to the county attorney to consult with the architect and obtain such other assist ance as may be necessary to examine the said report, and make report of name to this board at the earliest pos sible time, consistent with a full and complete examination." We. the undersigned, were employed by the county attorney to check up and to examine the report of the Blount Construction Company of its claim of balance of indebtedness owing by the county to It upon county Jail contract, and also Blount Construction Company's estimate of deductions and allowances due by it to the county on this contract, herewith submit our re port upon the Blount Construction Company's claim of balance of Indebt edness owing by county to It upon county jail contract, and also that com pany s estimate of deductions and ai lowances due by it to the county, on this contract "We obtained from the clerk of the circuit court the original plans and specifications ss made by Rudolph Benz Sons, architects of Mobile. Ala., also several detailed drawings relative to the building, also the contract be tween the county and the Blount Con struction Co., also renort of George M Hopklnson and L. R. Bens, architects, to the board of county commissioners, on uncompleted work of the county jail, and letter of the Blount Construc tion Company to the board in reply to letter or tne Doard. the itemized state ment of Blount Construction Company of credits ana indebtedness between county and contractor, the report of I ti. tsenz on same to the board, dated January. 31st, 1912, and in addition to these original plans and specifications we secured, by authority of the board of county commissioners, who eave re celpt for same, from the office of the building Inspector of the city of pen and sacoU, Florida, the plans for concrete construction of th. cn hinrk i. south wing of the bulldinar. which con- crete plans and specifications were aupplied by the Southern Ferro Con- crete Company. With the contract, these plans and specifications, we have made a thorough and complete examination of the matter referred to us, and submit herewith the following report: Th. c.ntrw. Taklna- un the .tttmnt f t?io Construction Company In order In which statement debits against the county are made, we find: The Statement Of original contract pnue lur ja Dunaing amounting to tu,3w!.uu is correct. Original Bid for Concrete Cell Block Walls Raised. The next item. No. B. contract, for change of concrete construction en - tered into May 24th. 1910. $3900.00. we report the following. Inasmuch as it Is contended by the Blount Construe- tion Company in their letter of Jan- uary 11th, 1912. discussinar Item 74. and also by Architect L. R. Benz. in nis report that the plans of more than one half of the building was changed, and that a large part of the structure was converted from brick to concrete, and that the footings were cnanged throughout the whole build- Vi. J: ?s P,ew Taking the specifications, above fit tJSLl? work-f nclalnS quoted, the minutes of board, the let in thf Jlf!' i 3,5lae- and the change ter of Blount Construction Co. and fin Jtl toot8? w" in" from our examination of the plans as SLued ln tnf Pric. so that no allow- orIginally submitted by Rudolph Ben "ue couniy. We have - examined the minutes of tne ooara or county commissioners, and the contract, plans and specifica- tions, already adverted to in this re- port, relative to this matter, and re- port the following: The original sped- ncations or xtuaoiph Benz Sons undor which bids were originally called for, ana contract let. and we find on page 28 of general specifications the follow- ing: Bids to Be for Both Brick and Con crete for Walls Cell Blocks. "Concrete Cell Blocks. The cell block buildings, or the walls enclosing the ceils oi tne wmte ana colored men snail do ngurea on Dy tne contractor as being as shown on the plans and drawings, of brick with cement mor- tar, ana aiso as ceing or concrete re- inforced with steel. It Is required that he stipulate In his proposal fori the entire cost or tne Dunaing with the amount stated, ir the walls of the cell diock Dunaing are oi remrorcea con- crete. and also what the amount will tie ir tne wans are or oricK wita ce- ment mortar, as 6hown on plans. The contractor will take the precaution not to omit this statement from his pro posal. 'It 'the walls are to be of concrete, the contractor will be allowed to use any system of reinforced concrete that will safely support the loads Imposed, and which will be in direct accordance with the requirements of the building laws of Pensacola, Fla., governing re inforced concrete work. The contrac tor must submit to the architect full description plans and detailed draw ings, showing the size of members of both concrete and steel, the mixture of concrete, and how the work will be executed. He must prove that the plans for same have been designed by an engineer of at least three years ex perience in this line of work. If the contractor fails to stipulate the difference in the amounts of the cost of the two separate materials, that Is, brick work and concrete work. It shall be considered as reasonable cause for a rejection of his bid." Bid of Keynton Construction Co. (subsequently changed to Blount Con struction Co. ) shown by minute book 8, page 479, following out this provision in the specifications, was $120,992.00 for brick construction, with $3,310.70 additional If reinforced concrete cell block walla were substituted for brick. This bid- was in competition with Stewart Jail Works Co., Van Dorn Iron Worka Ccn, Jett Bros. Construction Co., T. S. Moudy & Co. and F. M. Dobson & Co., who submitted bids at the same time on both classes of construc tion except F. M. Dobson & Co. and Van Dorn Iron Works Co. The min utes show on page 626 of book 3, meet ing of May 24th, 1910, as follows: Mr. Blount submitted two estimates of Keynton Construction Company, of additional costs for making changes in building as required by building in spector and laws of city of Pensacola. Making the two cell blocks of concrete and using system of Southern Ferro Concrete Co. in all reinforced concrete work, the additional cost would be $3,- 900.00 and should be added to the con tract price. Making the changes in brick, the additional costs would be $6,- 101.44." The board of county commissioners accepted the bid for $3,900.00 for the change, making the two cell blocks of concrete. It will be noticed that $589.30 was added to the original $3,310.70 bid for the change from brick to concrete. The letter of Blount Construction Com pany of May 24th, 1910, addressed to the board of county commissioners on this subject, is as follows: May 24th, 1910. "To the Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Escambia County, Fla. "Gentlemen: We hereby propose to erect county Jail building as per plans prepared by the Southern Ferro Con crete Co., of Atlanta, Ga., making two cell blocks of concrete throughout and using system of above firm in all rein forced concrete work for the additional sum of three thousand nine hundred ($3,900.00) dollars, added to the con tract price of $120,992.00. very truly yours. "KEYNTON CONSTRUCTION CO., By F. M. Blount. 'Approved, Rudolph Benz Sons, I R. Bens." Concrete Plans Never Filed With Clerk Board. We are Informed that no plans or specifications were submitted to the board, nor did the architect, I R. Benz, or the construction company ever file such plans and specifications with the board of county commissioners or its clerk, although the contract between the board of county commissioners and the Keynton Construction Company for this work provides as follows: "Jt is further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that any and all drawings and specifications prepared for the purpose of this contract by the said architects are made and remain their property except that the said architects shall furnish, in addition to those required by the specifications, to the county, one copy of said drawings and specifications In addition thereto to the copy to be supplied by said architects, and filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Es cambia county, Florida, for the use of said county." , We, by the authority of the board of county commissioners, procured a copy of the Pan3 and specifications for this change of concrete cell block wall work from the building Inspector's office of tne aty ot Pensacola. Prior to the date of acceptance of proposal of Keynton Construction Co. for th change from brick to concrete ,n the 0611 bIock waJ8' w flnd the meeting of board on April 5, 1910, book pagre J VW,n tn,a attw waa '" u 7"' ton Construction Co., the following: Blount Quotes Specifications, Allowing Concrete Construction Cell Block Walls. "MV TMnnnt. of Ivevnton ConsrrncMon I Cnmnnnv. was railed on and he stated I in re of the extra cost required amount of changes made in the plans.' 1 He- said that "the extra cost would be I approximately ?s,uuo.uu He stated, I however, that by making the cell 1 blocks of concrete instead of brick, I which was allowed by the speciflca- I tlons, the cost would be $2,500 cheaper than-above figure.- bald "plans were I now being prepared on this basis and 1 Presented to Architect Benz for his I approval, then to the building Inspec I tor for ms u. k- ana ne thought they I would be complete and ready for the board to consider by Tuesday, The subsequent action of board and statement of Mr. Blount has been I quoted above. I .nil th r,i,. I cell block walls, as procured from the I building Inspector of the city of Pen j sacola, made by Southern Ferro Con I crete Co., we find that the only chanere in the construction from brick to con- I crete had sole reference to the walls of I the white and negro men's cell block I and had nothing to do with the ln- I terior construction of jail buildine J either in the cell blocks or any other portion of the building throughout, in cluding the footings alluded to by the Blount Construction Company in their report of Jan. 11, 1912, item No. 74 which we hereafter discuss. The next Item, No. C. in this state- ment, "Contract- for Extra Founda- I tions, $13,801.80. I This item should read $13,343.80. and there should be a deduction of $458.C0 I from this item, there beinsr a discren- I sure as nassed bv the hnnH at it meeting on November 1st. 1910, book 1 a, rae 5S8. a deduction in cost of I brick from $20.00 to $18.00 per M and elimination of interest. j with this preliminary statement as I to this Item, and our findings, we sub mit the following statement: The J Blount Construction Company for this work rendered the following detailed statement: Excavation 1675 yds. at 90c. .$ 1,507.00 Hardware 150.00 Insurance .................. Kent Hauling sand Office expense Erick work. 191 M at $20.... Stucco 3908 sq. ft. at 2 1-2c. Concrete 90 yds. at $18 Sheet piling: Labor $1,652.00 Carpenters 675.55 Materials 675.00 Pumping: Engineer 217.00 Coal 105.00 Material ... 327.00 76.00 96.00 740.00 723.00 3.S20.00 97.00 1,620.00 3,000.00 649.00 Total Plus 10 per cent ... $12,478.00 1.247.S0 $13,725.80 76.00 Plus Interest Grand total $13,801.80 The contractor ln his letter to the board Jan. 11, 1912, declined to make a detailed and Itemized statement of the cost of carrying footings to lower depth, as set forth in the above state ment. For the board's information we have figured ln detail the cost of this w(rk. according to the depth given by Mr. Benz, the architect, at the meeting of the board December 26th. 1911, as shown by minute book 4, page 79: Benz Says Foundation Put Down Average 9. "Mr. Bens reported that footings com piled with contract and measurements were all right, and are an average -if 9 feet all around, as agreed upon, and were put down to proper depth." We find from the statement as con tained ln the above, that the statement rendered by the Blount Construction Co., "concrete 90 yards," corresponds exactly with an extra six (6) feet of depth, which, added to the original 3 feet of depth for the foundation, makes total of nine (9) feet average, and verifies the statement of Mr. Benz, as- above made. Basing the calculation for average depth of nine (9) feet for foundations we have figured the cost of this work and submit the following detailed statement of what would have been required to have reached an average depth of nine (9) feet for all footings. Report Shows Great Discrepancy Be tween Contractor's and Ex ports' Statement. The first item "Excavation 1675 yards at 90c, $1,507.00," on a basis of nine feet of depth, three feet of which was in the original contract, leaves the average depth of excavation 6 feet. We find that the contractor exca vated 876 yards, which, figured at his prico of 90 cents per yard, would amount to $788.40, an overcharge of $718.60. Item No. 2, hardware $150.00. The contractor does not specify what kind of hardware was used and we know of no necessity for hardware, other than nails, and $150.00 for this Item is, in our judgment, excessive. Item No. 3, insurance $76.00. There should -be an itemized statement with reference to this also as to the char acter of Insurance for which this charge was made. Item No. 4, rent $96.00. The same remarks apply to this Item as for Item No. 3. Item No. 6. hauling sand $740.00. As stated under Item No. 1, "Excavations," there was six feet of foundation trench opened by contractor for this extra depth; the other three feet was in his original contract when the foundation was laid and the walls placed on same. The six feet of walls figures 304 cubic yards, leaving the 572 cubic yards that had to go back to fill up the opening. It will be seen that 804 yards, or ln other words that part of the excavation taken up by footings and walla was all the earth that had to be hauled away. Allowing 50 cents per cubio yard for hauling, this item would amount to $152.00 Instead of $740.00. As stated before we find this item correct. The price, however, is wrong. It should be $10.00 per cubic yard, as we hereafter show from the letter of the Blount Construction Company, for merly Keynton Construction Co. This would make this Item $720.00 less, or $900.00 total. Item No. 6, office expens $ 23.00. Detailed Information should be given, and the county Is entitled to state ment showing of what this office ex pense consists. Item NO. 7, DHCK WOTK 13X Al. 3.- 820.00. This price of $20.00 per thousand for brick was reduced to $18.00 as we find from resolution of the board at meet ing of November 1st. 1910, already re ferred to In this report. We have figured the number of brick that would have been required to have obtained the average 6 feet of depth of walls, and find that, figuring od basis of twenty-seven (27) brick to cubic foot, 149,000 brick were used. This basis, of 27 brick to cubic foot we consider more than ample. Al lowing $16.00 per thousand, this Item would be $2,384.00. Item No. 8, stucco 3,908 sq. ft. at 21-2C, $97.00. Computing the surface of 6 feet ex tra foundations we find that same is 3,023 sq. ft. at 2 l-2c, $68.02. Item No. 9. concrete 90 yards at $18.00. $1,620.00. As stated before we find this Item correct. The price, however. Is wrong. It should be $10.00 per cubic yard as we hereafter show from the letter of the Blount Construc tion Co.. formerly Keynton Construc tion Co. Thi3 would make this item $720.00 less or $900.00. Item No. 10, sheet piling labor, $1, 652.00. Item No. 11, sheet piling, carpenters, $675.55. These two Items cover labor. The county Is entitled to detailed statement of, and time sheets covering these two items, and same should be furnished bv the contractor. Item No. 12, sheet piling, materials, $675.00. The materials, though not specified we find lumber for sheet piling figures up, assuming that all trenches were excavated at same time and that no lumber was used second time, 22,388 feet at $15.00 equals j33S.iS2. Items No. 13, 14 and Id, pumping. ene1ner. coal and material, $649.00. This item. In our Judgment, like the other mentioned, the county is entitle-! to an itemized statement for same, as any other business man would require under like circumstances. The item of 10 per cent, $1,247.80. The contractor from the deductions made would necessarily be entitled to less than $1,247.80. but without the itemized statements for the vario'.?- Items that are mentioned, the total amount which should be deducted we are unable to state, as this would b the basis for the allowance of th s claim. However, 10 per cent on the total of the items arrived at and including the amounts not itemized, would be $865.2 The Item, Interest $76.00. We axe CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF COUNTY JAIL. After-considerable discussion exterding over a period of nearly two year the Board of County Commissioners decided to build a new County jail. September 7, 1909 Board decided to build a new Jail to oest 175,000.00 complete, and advertisement for plane was ordered. October 15, 1909 Several architects presented plans In response to adver tisements. October 16, 1909 The plane of Rudolrh Bent Sons, of Mobile, Ala, for jail building, to cost complete $85,000.00, were adopted. November 16, 1909 Plans and specifications were accepted In which the County agreed to pay 5 per cent for the plans and this Included the services of an expert architect to superintend the erection and con struction of the building. Louis R. Benz was, under the agreement, to furnish tha expert knowledge for the County in the construction of the work. - February 9, 1910 Contract, which had been advertised, was awarded to the Keynton Construction Company for the sum of $120,992.00. February 19, 1910 Contract was executed between the County and the Keynton Construction Company (afterwards, June 10, 1910, changing Its name to the Blount Construction Company). Public sentiment was so much opposed to the building of ao expensive a jail that only on member" of the Board of County Commissioners which had made the contract for the Jail was reelected. This was George H. Davis, who had fought and voted against the proposition. January 3, 1911 Tha new Board of County Commissionera went into ofica finding tha jail about one-half or two- third completed. The orders by Architect Benz for extras to the, Blount Construction Company soon became a aource of great annoyance to the board. April and May, 1911 Contra tcor F. M. Blount, of the Blount Construction Company, being absent, the work waa practically stopped for about two months. September 5, 1911 -Architect Benx and the Contractor were both notified that no more orders by Benz for extras would be allowed. November 21, 1911 The Blount Construction Company notified tha Board by letter that tha building was complete and requested inspection by the Board and acceptance. Architect Benz reported tha building as complete except in some few minor details and recommended the Board's acceptance of and payment for the building, and that the Board hold back enough to' cover these insignificant details until fin ished, and then pay over the small balance held back to the Con tractor. November 22, 1911 Architect Benz was called upon by the Board for a complete detailed report on the jail, showing whether tha Blount Construction Company's claim that the building waa complete was correct. Mr. Benz stated that ha would not make a detailed report, that he never heard of auch action before, that it was not expected that an architect ahould make luch a report, and that In all hia ex perience this waa tha first time he had ever heard of such a thing. Dccembr 5, 1911 The Board called upon Mr. Geo. M. Hopkinson, of New York, Supervising Architect for Stoddart & Company, Architects for the San Carlos Hotel, to come to Pensacola and make a report aa to whether tha jail was complete. December 26, 1911 Geo. M. Hopkinson made report to the Board showing in detail a great amount of unfinished work to be dona on the building by both the Blount Construction Company and also by the plumbing and heating contractors. Architect Benz then also made a report showing practically tha same state of incompletion of the building aa Hopkinson had shown. On receipt of these two reports the Commissioners inspected the building. Then the Blount Construction Company waa written a lat ter by the Board and furniahed with an itemized statement of un finished work aa shown by Hopkinson'a and Bern's reports, and de mand was made that tha contractor finish tha building, as shown by these reports. January 11, 1912 Blount Construction Company replied to the Board'a lat ter and to tha Hopkinson and Benz reports, and again tendered tha building as complete, and demanded payment of balance elaimed. Jsn uary 22, 1912 Board aakad Blount Construction Company for a full de tailed statement of account showing unpaid balance claimed to be due on contract. January 25, 1912 Blount Construction Company furnished detail-itemized statement of account showing: i Warrants issued and payments made on account of contract And balance due Total January 25, 1912 Board by resolution referred the whole matter to County Attorney R. P. Reese, with instructions to employ experts and make a full and complete examination to determine the correctness and ac curacy of the Contractor's report. February 28, 1912 The report of County Attorney Reese, Civil Engineer Geo. M. Rommel, former City Building Inspector Jamas M. Johnson and Deputy Clerk Thos. A. Johnson was filed. March 1, 1912 Blount Construction ? A AAA W ' i J fu,wu.uv luumsn images, unable to see why the Blount Con struction Co. should claim interest on this particular bilL when we take his remarks at the meeting of November 1st, 1910, on the subject, aa follows: Blount stated that ln the natural course of events the extra would go over until the completion of the Job, but the amount was greater than he could afford to carry, together with the 20 per cent which he Is now car rying, and asked that they consider that clause of the specifications which gave them the authority to order the matter paid at once." We have taken as a basis of ou- calculatlors the letter of the Keynton Construction Company to the county commissioners, as follows: May 24. 1110. To the Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Escambia County, Fla, City. Gentlemen: "We hereby propose to make changes ln county Jail plans as plans now stand, as passed by the city building inspector, for the following amounts, ln addition to our present contract of $120,992.00i isricK : 1,040,000 brick, as per present plans 740,000 brick as per origi nal plans N 800,000 extra brick at $16.00 per thousand $4,800.00 Concrete: Roof slabs.. 8yds. Concrete beams ...lTrds. Concrete footings .loyda. 40yds. at $10.. RtMl: 4f0.0 14,160 lbs. floor beams 864 lbs cell beams 15,024 at 6 cents ......... 901.1 $6401.1 Very truly yours, KETTNTON CONSTRUCTION CO.. By F. M. Blount. Approved, Rudolph Benz Sons. I I Benz. Item D. Contract for vault, fir floor partitions, entered Into Janua' 11. 1911, $950.00. Item E. Contract for second flo partitions, $657.00. These items and the cause occ sioned for same was brought about 1 board of county commissioners, at tl suggestion of Judee E. D. Beggs, bor 3, page 595, desiring to change tr arrangement of the office rooms first and second floors of court roc building, providing vault for court record, records, etc With reference to this item, t: minutes of board, book 3, page 5 shows the following: Judge Bet addressed the board In regard to sot. chanees in the arrangement of d ferent offices in the new jail buildir understood that they would not amou to more than $200.00 or $300.00. McQuarrie made motion that matt be referred to Architect Benz Judge Beggs to confer and estinm the exact costs of making the desi'. changes. Motion was seconded ,p 1 assed. Meeting of board Feb. 7, 1911, bo 3, page 619, the following appear Architect Benz submitted report of ex tra costs pertaining to new arrange $109,188.22 43,589.14 $152,777.36 Company filed ault against countv for J ment of offices ln Jail building. Stated tnat cost of Wiring 182.00 jiumDing 891.40 Blount Construction Co. 1.607.00 Total ..$2,130.40 ana tne minutes show the following record book 8. mire 615. Januarv 11 1911: Matter of accommodations for omce rooms in new Jail building as taken un and poUmatc, tmm Construction Company was read a iouows: Vault door unnr. Extra work 657"oc feeeona noor goo.00 Total $1,807.00 At meetln of hoard mn ihmrn (. record book 3, pages 618 and 619. the proposaj was accepted and work or dered done. Item F. Con tract fnr ASeniHto 4 dows entered into Feh. U nil us? nn This change of windows was brought io tne attention of tha board and sug gested as being necessary because o cell corridor floor reaching to an against the walls, nittino- th. twTA. ia nesro ana wmte men's cell block in two. ine minutes of board COUntV eommlo!)lnnira r. v,,.l. ol - . - v. uvua page 624, shows as follows: Architect U R. Bens brought ui :uiier or cnangmg 22 foot windows ir v.-aii diocks to o root opening 4 feet nches by 6 feet, extra amounting t 5625.00. Matter was ordered consid ered. At night session on same date, pagt ot "ook a, tne loiiowlng appears. Jxtra for changing windows at new an Dunaing amounting to $625.00 vai jn motion ordered a.dontri onri n...., nd the following order wss approved y uiB uoara at tne same meeting: lount Construction Company: You are herebv Instructed tn -Vor,o-, J foot windows ln cell blocks to 6 foot - enmgs, 4 reet 5 inches by 6 feet, an n extra amount or $625.00 is here) aowea ror same. Extra order Issued br w Ran ichitect, reads differently for this orK, as iouows: :ie Blount Construction Company: C n account of the changing of win jW guards from one guard to flv j.arate guards, you are hereby al wea an extra amounting to $625.00 er worn on same. This item is correct and was prop Iv allowed. Item O. Contract for extra stucco rerea into Feb. 14. 1911, $975.00. This matter la envsred aa chnnn -nutes of board, meeting of February . un, uuos $, page as lollows: Architect L. R. Benz brought up th tter of stucco of entire exterior o ;;ding with white atlas rmenr . amounting to $975.00 was ordered .sldered. At meeting of board that night, page oi minute look s, shows the fol wing: Matter of stucco of entire exterior ounaing witn white cement amount to $975.00 was conpidf-rd and ri t.on it was ordered that the extra t :.ite atias cement outside linish : tted. and order was innrnvKi ird at this meeting, rading as fol- ,vs: mnt Construction Comrmnv You are hereby instructed to stucco :tire exterior of building with white ement, and an extra amounting to $975.00 Is hereby allowed for same. This stucco for tha exterior of the building waa a change from that pro vided for In the general specifications page 25 reading aa follows: All the exterior walls on Jefferson and Zarragossa streets and on Main street and the alley on tha north side of the building, where indicated on plan to be covered with stucco cement and laid off ln Joints according to the design shown on the elevation and sections." The original stucco as proposed wss to be of same block design as present DnlFh, but plain cement. Item H. Contract for cornice sei oid floor entered Into March 7, 1011, $477. CO. We find order for this item as fol lows: i The Blount Constru-tlon Companyt ou are hereby Instructed to do ex tra Interior cornice work at Jail on second floor, and an extra amounting to $477.00 Is hereby allowed for same. This item was improperly allowed as the original plans and specifications call for the cornice to be constructed as shown on detail at section N-N, sheet No. 1 of original plans, detail of second floor and third floor. Bee also detail on sheet 7, court room, first and second floor. This cornfee was also Included ln bid of Blount Construction Company In their letter of March 2nd, 1911. for $1,489.00, letter aa follows: Board of County Commissioners: We hereby propose to Install fix tures, railings, cornice and baluatrade as shown on large detail of Rudolph. Benz Sons ln the first and second story of court room new county Jail build ing, for the sum of fourteen hundred and eighty-nine dollars ($1,489.00). Item I. Contract for Interior court room entered into March 8th, 1911, II,- 489.00. The letter quoted above covers thia Item and proposal for woodwork, etc., ln court room, which woodwork Is marked on plan to be furnished by owner. However as the cornice work is specified to be done by the contrac tor ($477.60) as shown by detail sheet No. 1, section N-N, and discussed by us under Item II, the abova cost of cornice. $477.60, should be deducted and balance, $1,011.40, allowed. Item J. Contract for brick trench entered Into June 14. 1911, $661.70. We and the following: June 8th, 1911. Furnishing all labor and material for building 271 lineal feet 9 Inch brick wall 6 feet high, Including footing, also 6 manhole cover and rings, all for the sum of $561.70. Specifications. Specifications provide on page t3. last clause: "The Contractor for the brick work must build all tha neces sary trenches to receive the drainage, sewers and plumbing pipes that paan !elow the surface of the ground as directed by the architect." And on page 18. of same specifications: The 'ontractor is to do all the necessary excavating required to receive all foun dations, piers, drains, sewer pipes, ele- itors and boiler pits, etc, to bring '.hern to proper grade, etc." All tranches are not shown upon the lans, but page 3 of the specifications -rovides that the plans and specinca '.ions are intended to be co-operative nd what Is called for by either shall ie as binding as If called for by both. The contractor will understand that the work herein described shall be "omplete In every detail, notwlthstand 'ng every Item necessarily involved la not particularly mentioned, and the contractor will be held to provide all "abor and materials necessary for the entire completion of the work Intended to be described, and shall not avail himself of any manifestly unintentional error or omission should auch exist. " The specifications as stated on page 18 require flit the excavation necessary to receive the plpea. draina, etc., and on page 23 of speclflcatlona we find that the contractor for the brick work is required to build all the necessary trenches. Therefore tha extra allowed tor thia Item should be paid back to the county. Item K. Extra work approved by board and architect, $8,434.39, see de tailed report below covering the dif ferent Items Included In this amount. List of extras authorized by board md architect: Item 1. Ftalnlng doors, $75.00. The staining of these doors wni necessary because on page 41, para -Traph 1, of ger.aral specifications all Interior wood work such aa - casing, sash, bases, etc, to be stained to rep resent hardwood, etc. These being pine wood, after staining would not conform with color of birch door specified In psragrsph 6, page 41, of reneral specifications which provide for the birch doors of the Interior of the building to be well prepared and sandpapered to receive two coats of the best floor varnish of approved manufacture, which varnish finish would only bring out the natural color of the wood and leave them out of har mony with other finish for tha rasing, -ash, bases, eta, therefore In our opinion the provision for staining hav ing been left out of the specifications, this Item Is proper and ahould be al lowed. Specification Take Preoedenoe Over Drawing. Item 4. Increase thicknesa of doors, "75.00. We find order from architect o the general contractor as follows: "You are Instructed to Increase thickness of doors throughout building from 1 8-i Inches to 1 8-4 Inches, and an extra amounting to $75.00 Is hereby rliowed for same." This ordr Is improper and ahonld not have been made, for the spedflca ions provide that except the four loors ln the entrance all tba other vooden doors In the main building ;hall be 13-4 inches thick. Fee 8th a ra graph on page 37 of general aped catlons, as well aa schedule on sheet :"o. 2 of the original drawings. This "chedule is ln ctnfllct with spt-clflca-.ions, and provides for 1 8-8 Inch thick ness. However, we find the following, r age S, specifications: Specifications and drawings to be o-operatlve. Thene specifications and the accompanying drawings are ln ended to describe and provide for a 'nished piece of work. They are In--ended to be co-operative, and what la called for by either shall be aa blnd 'ng as If called for by both. The con tactor will understand that the work TerIn described shall be completed In very detail notwithstanding every :tem necessarily Involved Is not par ticularly mentioned, and th contractor will be held to provide all labor and -material recesssry for the entire com -! letion of the work Intended to be de scribed and shall not avail himself f ny manifestly unintentional error or omission should such exist. This Item should be disallowed. 6. Chance window guard In guard room, $25.00. It appears that order No. 13 from the architect to tha gen eral contractor reads aa followa: You are Instructed to change win dow guard ln guard room, so that Continued on Foil owing Fata.