In such cases the wisest course to follow is to confine the precise specifications to the general or standard parts of the work, while stipulating only the results to be attained with regard to those features of the work that are proprietary or questionable, thus placing upon the promoter or his contractors full responsibility for such results as are promised or guaranteed. This applies to new or comparatively untried materials or processes, whether patented or not.
A proposed form of general specifications to cover such cases is offered herein.
It is usually unwise to adopt or to incorporate in the municipal specifications those prepared or offered by the promoter or patentee, which are often brief, incomplete, and indefinite, and are sometimes carefully, and even cunningly, drawn to evade final responsibility.
No attempt has been made to submit specifications for proprietary or patented pavements, or those composed wholly or in part of materials which are patented or protected by trade-marks. The owners or contractors engaged in constructing these pavements, often, if not usually, claim the right to dictate the material parts of the specifications under which such work shall be done, and the municipal engineer who is called upon to construct such pavements, must, in each case, determine whether the specifications offered are adequate and satisfactory, and the extent to which he feels justified in accepting responsibility for the results. Naturally, the contractor or promoter, even if competent to prepare specifications, cannot be expected to bind himself within closer limits than he thinks necessary to secure the work. In many such cases the form of general specifications for “untried or experimental pavements” given herein might appropriately be used.
The engineer is, in common with all men, fallible, and he can hardly hope, in the preparation of specifications, to make them perfect; to cover every item and particular; or to escape some ambiguities of expression, and some degree of indefiniteness. The writer can only claim that he has aimed, in the light of a considerable experience, to set out as fully and definitely as practicable the requirements for the proper construction of high-class street pavements, and has endeavored to avoid loose or obscure terms and expressions. The ideal specification is one that furnishes a wholly sufficient guide to the accomplishment of the desired purpose; that provides for every possible contingency which may arise, and is couched in language which not only means exactly what it was intended to mean, but is incapable of any other interpretation. It is needless to say that no example of such a perfect specification can be instanced as a model.
It has been the aim to make these specifications fair and just to the contractor; that is, to require of him no impracticable or indefinite service, or the assumption by him of risks other than those fairly involved in the business conduct of the work.
If the plans and specifications for any work which a contractor bids upon are so full, specific, and clear, that he may know exactly what he will be expected to do, and if they do not require him to assume unusual chances and risks, he may intelligently name prices which he believes will compensate him for the service. Having done so, his proposal having been accepted, and a contract entered into accordingly, the engineer and the municipality have a right both in law and equity to demand that he will do exactly and fully what he has contracted to do. No excuses on his part can be valid and none should be accepted. He may in all fairness and justness be required to “toe the mark” strictly. To the neglect to recognize and enforce these principles is chargeable the greater part of the poor and unsatisfactory work so common in street pavement work in our cities. Unexpected contingencies may, of course, arise where some changes and concessions may be proper and just, but these should be, and usually are, very rare. On the other hand, sweeping general clauses in contracts and specifications intended to catch the contractor “goin’ or comin’,” unnecessarily stringent stipulations which were never intended to be strictly enforced, but were put into the specifications with the idea that they would help hold the contractor up to a high standard, and “one-sided” contracts intended to give the municipality an unfair advantage over the contractor, are as inadvisable in policy as they are wrong in principle. Nothing should be put in a specification that is not clearly essential to secure the results aimed at, and, this having been done, every requirement should be enforced. The existence in specifications of requirements that are not intended to be enforced, gives the contractor a pretext for neglecting others that may be important.
In these specifications will be found a number of details that are often not regarded as important and which, when found in paving specifications, the contractor is frequently allowed to ignore. In the writer’s opinion, based upon his experience in street paving, every one of these requirements is essential to the production of high-class work, which, it is hardly necessary to argue, is, in the end, the most economical work from the standpoint of the municipality.
It may be argued that the adoption and enforcement of these specifications would have the effect of raising prices. In many cases this would doubtless prove true. Contractors are entitled to a fair and reasonable compensation for their services. It is admitted that in some cities the prevailing prices for some kinds of pavements are below the actual cost of the work if it were done in a proper manner, conforming strictly to the specifications. Illogical as it undoubtedly is, the low price at which work is taken is sometimes considered a sufficient reason for accepting work below standard. The consequence is that bidders not only count upon concessions and lax enforcement of the specifications, but bid lower and lower, expecting that further concessions will enable them to get out with an undeserved profit. This is one of the most serious evils in the paving business to-day, and the highest public interests demand a thorough reform. Low first cost, desirable as it may be, is the poorest economy if it be secured at the sacrifice of the quality of the work. If one pavement costs twenty per cent. more than another, but renders forty per cent. more service, it is obviously the cheaper of the two.
Contractors are prone to contend that this or that provision in a specification is unusual, unnecessary or unfair. In dealing with them the engineer should bear in mind that no requirement of a specification that is clearly and definitely stated, so that the bidder may understand exactly what it means and what he will be expected to do, and may frame his prices accordingly, can be unreasonable or unfair to the contractor. Unusual or unnecessary requirements may result in unwarrantably increasing the cost of the work, and this may raise a question between the engineer and the municipality employing him, but it can furnish no occasion for questions of fairness or unfairness between the contractor and the engineer.