Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1894 [PAGE 33]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

34

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.

Aug. 16th the contracts for boiler and for plumbing were awarded t o the lowest bidders, Messrs. Robinson & Burr, by direction and advice of your chairman, who was not present at the opening of the bids, but was informed of their amounts. In regard to the contract for steam heating, I regret to say t h a t considerable feeling has been manifested. Robinson & Burr, after the opening of the bids, made the following additional propositions on the same day: 1. To substitute boxed wrought iron returns for the specified cast iron returns, not boxed but buried in the ground and at same price. 2. To use indirect radiators in two sections with separate valves, so t h a t either section may be shut off in mild weather. 3. To put in risers and returns up to third floor, so t h a t radiators might be put in on t h a t floor at small cost, when required. August 17th Mr. Wallace submitted a proposition, protesting against t h e award of this contract to Robinson & Burr, for the following reasons: 1. T h a t the offer to substitute boxed wrought iron returns for unboxed cast iron returns was, in effect, a reduction of the amount of their bid by $180. 2. T h a t pin radiators are much less expensive than box coils for indirect heaters. 3. That I permitted Robinson & Burr to use pin radiators after refusing to allow Maltby & Wallace to use them. [Mr. Wallace is certainly in error on this point, or misunderstood me, for I have no recollection of having made any such decision, and I have tried to treat all bidders with perfect fairness and justice.] 4. If allowed to use pin radiators, Mr. Wallace proposed to reduce the amount of his bid by (I think) $500. These supplementary proposals were immediately communicated to your chairman, who directed me to make the award of the contract for steam heating, in order to save time, as a meeting of the committee could not be had for some two weeks. I accordingly awarded the contract on t h e following basis: 1. All bids and proposals received after the time fixed for opening bids* were rejected. 2. The contract was then awarded to the lowest bidders, Robinson & Burr, without entering into a discussion of the relative merits of t h e different systems proposed. Mr. Wallace has expressed considerable dissatisfaction with my action y claiming t h a t box coils cost considerably more than pin radiators, and were more efficient in indirect heating. I have no doubt t h a t box coils do cost more than pin radiators, b u t still, I consider t h a t the system proposed by Robinson & Burr, is preferable to t h a t presented by Maltby & Wallace, if their relative merits are examined. 1. By experiment, pin radiators emit more heat per square foot t h a n box coils, 8£ square feet being equal to 10 of pipe surface. 2. All required heating surfaces in the principal rooms can be packed as pin radiators into the indirect heaters, thus avoiding any need of direct steam radiators set against the internal or external walls of therooms, where they would be in the way and interfere with t h e arrangement of the furniture. 3. If Robinson & Burr choose to change cast iron returns to wrought iron and box them, it is my duty to accept the proposition, as being to the manifest advantage of the University. Contracts for heating, plumbing and boiler, have accordingly been drawn and executed.