Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1930 [PAGE 513]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

510

B O A R D o f trustees

[February 5

2. The agreement provides that the Institute shall have the right of publication simultaneously with the University. A similar provision was authorized by the Board at its meeting on January 7 in the contract with the Bureau of Public Roads for the investigation of concrete arches. O n motion of M r . Barr, the execution of this agreement w a s approved.

CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC WIRING OF CHEMISTRY ANNEX

(16) The following schedule of bids received by the Supervising Architect on the electric wiring for the Chemistry Annex: BID SCHEDULE Bidders Bids 1. Hatfield Electric Co., Indianapolis $6 497 00 1. Sanborn Electric Co., Indianapolis 7 000 00 3. Harrington Electric Co., Cleveland 7 700 00 4. Cento, C. R., Decatur 7 879 00 5. Marrs-Tanner Electric Co., Danville 8 n o 00 6. Koeneman Electric Co., St. Louis 8 770 00 7. Hughes-Krabbe, Champaign 10 475 00 8. Mound City Electric Co., St. Louis 10 748 00 9. Conklin, R. E., Urbana . 10 785 00 He recommends that the contract be awarded to the Hatfield Electric Company, the low bidder, at their bid of 56,497. I concur. O n motion of M r . Barr, this contract w a s awarded to the lowest bidder as r e c o m m e n d e d .

CONTRACT FOR SASH FOR CHEMISTRY ANNEX

(17) The following recommendation from the Supervising Architect for the award of the contract for the sash for the Chemistry Annex to the Kawneer Company of Niles, Michigan, on the basis of their quotation of $15,000. CHEMISTRY ANNEX President David Kinley, jtf Administration Bldg. (W) February 4, 1930 M y dear President Kinley: In taking bids on the Chemistry Annex, we did not include the sash in the general contract. W e desired to obtain a rustless,fire-proofsash with rather large glass areas, and we designed the building on the basis of such sash. The usual type of metal sash with the divided panes would not harmonize with the windows in the Old Agricultural Building and would cause continual expense in the way of painting to avoid rusting. A window which seems to meet all these requirements is manufactured by the Kawneer Company of Niles, Michigan, and is made of an aluminum alloy. As all window manufacturers make their own types of sash, i is difficult to write a specit fication which would bring them all on to a competitive basis. W e therefore let the differentfirmswho manufacture metal windows make their own proposals i they f desired to do so, but we asked no one forfiguresexcepting the Kawneer Company, and therefore we are not under any obligations to the otherfirmsbidding. The prices on steel sash vary from $3,601 to $11,346, with other quotations all the way between. The only rustless metal which can be obtained at a price which we could consider is an aluminum alloy. The Lupton Company bid $20,373 on a combination projected aluminum window. The Kawneer Company'sfigureon an aluminum alloy window which seems to meet our requirements fully, is $15,000. Their window combines the rustless andfireprooffeatures, also gives the necessary facilities for washing from the inside and gives glass of sizes which will keep the Addition reasonably in scale with the Old Agricultural Building. After carefully studying the situation, I have come to the conclusion that we ought not to consider the steel windows for this job at all, and that we ought to use eitherstop between these other two buildings. are justified in making this structurethe fire wood Oldaluminum. This new is we is subject is also thefirstunit of because theBuilding, therefore I feel thatnon-fireproof, asto an outsidefirehazarda Chemistry or Agricultural Building building