Contractor, but are not guaranteed. The Contractor must satisfy himself regarding the character or amount of peat, clay, sand, quicksand, gravel, glacial drift, rock, and all other material to be encountered and work to be performed.

It certainly is impracticable for Contractors to secure this information. It is doubtful whether permits would be granted to ten or twenty Contractors to repeat the borings in a business street of a large city or on private land traversed. The information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the City, and the courts might properly rule that the Contractor had a right to rely on it. In the United States case, cited above, the Engineer knew that the borings shown were incomplete and misleading, but that probably was not a controlling consideration in the decision. Another Specification for important work states:

Wash borings and diamond drill borings have been made at the site of the work. These borings were made in the usual manner and with reasonable care substantially at the places and to the depths shown on the plans. Samples of material obtained from the borings and cores obtained by drilling have been preserved and labelled and can be seen at the office of the Directors. From the results of the borings and samples of material obtained therefrom, lines of material and elevations of rock have been delineated on the plans, but there is no expressed or implied agreement that the surface of the rock or the character of the material is even approximately correct. Bidders should take into account the possibility that the location of the surface of the ledge rock and the character of the overlying material, or other conditions affecting the cost or quantities of work may differ from the indications on the plans.

This clause is so strong that it probably would be sustained by the courts. But in a case like this, only the facts found by the borings should have been shown, and the "lines" should have been omitted.

The evident intent of the Directors was that the Contractors should rely upon this information in making their bids, and the disclaiming of all responsibility for the facts shown might fairly be interpreted as a notice to the bidders that every technicality would be availed of by the Directors during the execution of the Contract.

An additional clause in the same Specifications reads:

For the purpose of obtaining as much information as possible in regard to the meaning of the borings, the Directors have employed an experienced geologist to interpret the results. The report of the geologist is on file at the office of the Directors where it may be consulted by intending bidders, but there is no expressed or implied agreement that the interpretation given by him is even approximately correct.

As to the clause above, there is no reason why the Directors should assume any responsibility for the opinions or interpretation of the geologist and the clause above seems proper. It is to be hoped, however, that the

geologist was not notified that there was no agreement that the facts on which he based his opinions and interpretation were even approximately correct.

In general, Specifications should cover qualities of materials and resulting construction, leaving the Contractor as free as possible as to methods of handling the work. Nevertheless, methods are at times and in cases of the very essence of the work, and must be specified. A commission of engineers formulated a method for constructing the Detroit River Tunnel. Contractors' bids were invited upon that method, and also on any alternate methods suggested. The method already formulated received the lowest bids and that method became of the essence of the Contract. Excavation in bad materials such as quicksand or muck, or under heavy buildings must be handled, in many cases, in specified ways to avoid risk of damage. The Engineer, however, should specify methods only so far as necessary to secure proper results. He should understand further that the Company will be responsible for any resulting damage which results from the method rather than from any lack of skill or care in carrying it out.

It is sometimes specified:

All materials of whatever nature required in the construction of the work shall be new and of the best quality and of the best fitted for the special use intended.

This is easy to write and doubtless legal, but for most Contracts not economical. A former Chief of Engineers of the United States Army felt at one time that his most useful occupation was writing Specifications. Possibly he was wrong to the extent that, as a matter of organization, he should have selected one of his higher subordinates for this duty. The function of the Engineer, both in making the design and in writing the Specifications, is to use the materials which are adapted to the purpose, and to specify the best when essential, but other than the best where satisfactory results will be obtained at less cost, maintenance and operation being given due consideration. A high order of ability is necessary to do this, but modern economic engineering requires it.

The Specifications should be clear, exact, and sufficient, having in mind that they must serve as a guide not only to the Contractor, but also to the Resident Engineer and to the inspectors. If inexact, and the Chief Engineer afterwards specifies further requirements to secure exactness, a question may arise as to whether this amounts to reading into the Contract a provision not originally contained therein, and a lawsuit may result. The Chief Engineer cannot add to or take away from the Contract, and the court will interpret the Contract. A question has arisen, in specifying the proportions, such as 1:2:4, by volume for concrete, whether this state

ment is sufficiently explicit as it fails to fix the method of measurement. If a later requirement be made by the Chief Engineer as to method, it may be found that this is contrary to common custom and lead to suit and an award of damages.

The proper course is to demand a rigid interpretation of the Specifications, which ought to be drawn as a standard for the work to be done, and not as an ideal from which to let down. Specifications, well drawn and impartially enforced, leave no room for suspicion of favoritism. In a Contract required by statute or ordinance to be advertised and let to the lowest bidder, the law, properly interpreted, demands that the work shall be performed according to the terms of the Specifications. A competent Engineer, however, will seldom go out of his way to measure the dimensions of stone better fitted than the average used and required, to see whether every measurement is fully up to standard. If directly appealed to by a workman, however, he can do no otherwise than to insist upon any measurement or other requirement specified.

The terms or as otherwise directed " and " unless otherwise directed " which occur in some Specifications may be necessary in some cases, or may be quite harmless in others. It may happen, however, that such a qualification, if put in force, will mean materially increased cost to the Contractor, who presumably will make his price higher to correspond when such a term exists. Where conditions allow, the Engineer in drafting Specifications should determine what will be needed and fairly and clearly state it. The Contractor has a legal right to know what his work is to be, so far as this is possible.

It is not intended that the subject of Specifications shall be extensively treated here or treated aside from its legal features; this is a matter of technical engineering. There are standard Specifications for very many classes of construction, and these may be found in the records of various associations or societies. The subject of Specifications has also received attention in various other places. An extensive treatment of the subject may be found in a book published in 1916 on "Contracts, Specifications, and Engineering Relations," by Daniel W. Mead, where about 260 pages are devoted to Specifications, including an extensive bibliography.