Suppose the specification had read in this way: "The dry sand and cement shall be mixed and turned by shovels not less than six times, a spreading motion being given in turning before the water is added; and, upon addition of the water, the mix shall be turned until every parti cle of the mass is thoroughly wet. The stone, after having been wetted, shall be added to the mixed mortar, and the whole mass turned with shovels until every particle of stone is complete ly enveloped with mortar—or not less than four times." There would then be no chance for misunder standing and subsequent heartburnings.
The second part of the specification is also one which leads to a gamble on the part of the contractor—"to the satisfaction of the archi tect." Unless he wants to take chances, the con tractor should make up his mind that the archi tect is bent on the strictest interpretation of the specification, and should be governed accord ingly in his bid. He will then be on the safe side, and any easement of the specification by the architect will be in his favor. This prudent course, unfortunately, is more than likely to re sult in some more venturesome bidder "landing the job." The Architect's Power. The powers of the architect are often far-reaching, and it is en tirely right that they should be so, for he has no such interest in the work as the owner and the contractor have, with the result that in most cases he will be found very fair, his sympathy generally being with the contractor so long as he thinks that the contractor is making consci entious efforts to do right; but he will still in sist—and rightly—that the best service be given his client, the owner, whose interest he is es pecially employed to look after.
Here is a clause, however, which seems to carry to extremes the power of the architect, and there are but few who would use it. Of those who do use it, but few would care to take full advantage of it: "To prevent all suits and litigations, it is further agreed by and between the parties to this contract, that the Architect shall in all cases determine the amounts of work done which are to be paid for under this contract; that he shall have the sole charge of the manner of construc tion, of the quantities of materials, and of the interpretation of the specifications; that he shall decide all questions which may arise relative to the carrying out of the contract; and that his estimates, figures, measurements, directions. and decisions shall be final and conclusive, neither party to this contract having recourse to the opinion of other experts."
The first part of this specification is what is commonly found in these instruments—the sim ple statement that the architect is judge of the quality of the work, the fitness of the materials, and the amount of work done. There is no ques tion as to his position in these matters. Making the architect the sole and final judge of the amount of work done, is in a way entirely proper; but if carried to extremes, such as the latter part of the clause would permit, it would be very improper.
For the architect to set up the contention that his opinion and decision are of such a nature that they must not be disputed by outsiders or by ex perts, is of very rare occurrence. In fact, hardly any architect would care to establish the reputa tion of having taken advantage of such a clause as this; and, in case of controversy, if no amica ble arrangement could be made by the parties to the contract, most men would be only too glad to appeal to expert opinion in the form of arbi tration, not only to keep their own reputations, but to keep the good opinion of their clients and of the contractors who may at some future time again do work for them.
The Inspector's Power. When the inspector is given too much power by the specification, or where he is inclined to consider himself an au thority as the representative of the architect, trouble may result. If he be given full authority by the architect, and is at the same time a capa ble man—perhaps an engineer of some ability— he will give a fair interpretation of difficult clauses. It often happens, however, that the in spector is young and comparatively inexperi enced. He will make a ruling which Seems in keeping with the letter of the specification, but which is not quite what it should be in the light of ordinary practice. The ruling having been made, the architect, upon being appealed to by the contractor, will sustain his inspector for effect," unless the ruling is extremely unfair. The suspicion at once enters the con tractor's mind, that he is not getting a "square deal." This suspicion having once been aroused, it will take but little to cause an outburst upon the contractor's part—perhaps upon some really trivial matter—and trouble ensues that is against the best interest of all parties on the work. If the contractor thinks that he is getting the worst of the deal, he will likely start a line of action that he thinks will "even up," and some portion of the work is bound to suffer.