That here presented is intended for use in connection with the specifications in Part I of this book. Different specifications might make necessary many changes in the instructions that follow. The local or special conditions in any city might also make them inapplicable without material modifications and additions.
The author believes that in every city where considerable street pavement work is prosecuted and a number of inspectors employed on such work, some such code of instructions to inspectors should be formulated and used. Even where the inspectors are of high character and fully competent, the adoption of a system of rules and regulations relating to their work will tend to unify procedure, prevent misunderstandings and promote good discipline.
The preparation of such a code of instructions requires no little time and thought, especially where there are no precedents to suggest what is needed, or to be used as rough patterns. It is with the hope that the code here presented may be found useful in this way, even though it may be not appropriate for adoption in any given city, that it is offered to municipal engineers.
GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT INSPECTION AND INSPECTORS
The necessity of having competent and honest inspectors upon any public work during its construction need not be here argued. It is generally understood and recognized in the case of work carried out by contract. Where the contractor is incompetent, careless or unreliable, inspection is absolutely necessary if good work is to be secured. Even where the contractor thoroughly understands his business and intends to faithfully comply with the specifications and to do all his work in a proper manner, the inspector cannot safely be dispensed with. The contractor cannot at all times be on the work; whatever may be his intention and instructions, foremen and laborers cannot be depended upon to exercise the proper care and judgment, even where they have no inclination, motive or interest to do otherwise, which is not always the case. It seems to be deeply and almost irradicably fixed in the mind of the average foreman on municipal work that he is expected to show his ability and skill by evading or circumventing the strict requirements of the specifications and the watchfulness of the municipal agents, whatever his employer may say to the contrary. Even when fairly careful, honest and conscientious he may need friendly oversight. He is naturally and properly anxious to save all the money he can for his employer, whether from a desire to loyally serve that employer’s interest, or to enhance his reputation for doing work cheaply. He may not appreciate the importance of minor requirements of the specifications and may believe they can be ignored without real detriment to the utility of the completed work. Like other men he may sometimes be careless or forgetful, however good his intentions.
These human qualities are not confined to foremen on contract work. They are liable if not likely to be found in the foremen on work done for the municipality by the direct, or day’s work system. They may be encouraged by the impression or belief that they will not be held by the municipal authorities to as strict an observance or accountability as they would be if the work were being done by a contractor—which is too often true. The absence of some of the motives of foremen employed by contractors is, therefore, not a sufficient reason for dispensing with inspectors on work done by the city direct.
It should be trite to say that inspectors should be chosen with some regard to their qualifications for the work they are expected to do. One cannot, of course, expect to secure experts for such positions at the rate of compensation usually paid; but it is reasonable to require that an appointee to such positions shall possess the following qualifications:
That he shall be honest, trustworthy and loyal.
That he shall be a man of at least average intelligence and common sense.
That he shall have some practical knowledge of or experience in the work he is employed to inspect.