CHAPTER IX.

COMPETITIONS.

Dangers of competitive work.-Cautions to be observed.

The tendency to seek architectural advice and service under competitive conditions is on the increase in recent years. When the architect enters a competition he should do so with an understanding of the uncertainties and difficulties with which he may be confronted in this class of work.

In the usual competition there is no contract between the parties, in the sense of a written agreement signed by each of them-the sense in which in the main I have employed the word contract heretofore. There is an understanding, but it is based, ordinarily, upon the terms of the competition under which the sketches and plans are submitted.

In many instances, the published terms of the competition are none too carefully drawn, and are both ambiguous and dangerous from the point of view of the interests of the architect. Before entering any competition, the architect will do well to analyze the conditions under which it is to be held and to assure himself that the provisions, with respect to his compensation and the services to be required of him, are proper and clearly stated. If he is chosen, there should be no question of the validity of his appointment, or of the availability of funds from which his commission may be paid.

If the competition announcement is so phrased that the amount of the fee is not clearly fixed, and if

this question and other terms of the architect's employment are left open for future decision or adjustment, following the decision of the judges, the architect is running a serious risk. He is placing himself in a position where he may, at considerable expense in time and money, participate in the competition and be selected as the winner, only to find that an equitable arrangement is not possible when it comes to a final decision on the terms of his employment.

It is important, also, that it be made clear in the beginning by whom the successful architect is to be employed. The amount of his fee may be set forth in such terms that it cannot be questioned and yet this will not avail him greatly, unless the terms of the competition are such that, if selected, he is placed in the position of dealing with a responsible principal.

Not long ago, a widely advertised competition was held and participated in by many architects. Those who were successful found, when it came to receiving the compensation due them, that they could secure no satisfaction of their proper requests for payment. Those to whom they looked for payment took the position that it had not been contemplated under the conditions that they were to be responsible-that they were acting merely as advisers or committees-and that the architects must look to others for their compensation. The terms of the competition were sufficiently ambiguous so that this issue might be raised. In endeavoring to collect the fees due to a number of the successful contestants, I found it exceedingly difficult to fasten the responsibility upon those who had been the real parties in interest in conducting the competition. It was only after repeated conferences, and long continued efforts, that we were able to force those who had benefited by the

work of the architects to adjust the claims of the latter on an equitable basis.

In many instances, the competitions causing the greatest amount of confusion and difficulty are those of less importance, where the plans are desired for publication and distribution in book form, in furtherance of the work of some association or of those interested in promoting construction.

In other instances, the competitions have to do with public work of importance-work undertaken by the Federal or state governments or by municipalities. In these competitions the work and amounts involved are necessarily greater. Where the employment is to be by some department of the Federal government, or by a state or a municipality, the architect should exercise special care.

The unsatisfactory nature of work for any governmental body, state or Federal, is proverbial. Governmental contracts are hedged about with a mass of red tape and regulations which render them dangerous to the uninitiated and in many cases dangerous, also, to one experienced in dealing with them. The difficulty is not so much a technical attitude, on the part of the official representing the governmental body, as the statutory limitations placed upon his authority. The execution of contracts in behalf of the Federal government and its agencies, especially, are subject to provisions of many Federal statutes, many of them of venerable age and unknown to the ordinary layman. In dealing with the case of municipal corporations, the requirements are perhaps less technical, but more care must be exercised than in dealing with an ordinary business corporation. The architect must satisfy himself that his contract has been approved by the proper municipal body authorized to pass and act upon it, and that he is in

such a position that he has a good and valid agreement with the municipality.

I shall have occasion, in the next chapter, to discuss more fully the dangers which characterize municipal and Federal contracts and the precautions and formalities which must be observed with respect to them.

Assuming that a government or municipal contract is correct and properly authorized and executed in the first instance, the troubles of the architect are nevertheless not at an end. It remains for him to secure payment for his services, and there is always additional red tape and technical procedure involved in securing the approval of the bill and the issuance of the voucher in payment of it. He will be confronted in many cases with irritating and sometimes serious difficulties, such as the fact that the fund from which the payment must be made has been exhausted and cannot be drawn upon until a new appropriation is effected. He must also remember, in all of his dealings with governmental bodies, that it is much more difficult to force a legal recovery from them than from individuals or ordinary business corporations.

Work for the Federal Government or states or municipalities may in many instances be desirable and attractive to the architect. Where he undertakes it however, he will do well to proceed with much more than ordinary caution and to secure competent advice, from one who is conversant with dealings with the Government and with the requirements of governmental work and contracts, before committing himself to the work proposed or incurring any expense in connection with it.

CHAPTER X.

DEALINGS WITH CORPORATIONS AND WITH THE

GOVERNMENT.

Dangers of unauthorized acts by corporate officers.-Steps necessary to insure proper execution of contract and protection of architect.-Technicalities and dangers of governmental and corporate contracts.

So large a proportion of the business of today is carried on by corporations that a word of caution, in addition to what has been said in the last chapter, is in order with regard to the making of contracts with business and municipal corporations or other governmental agencies. The modern business corporation is managed by its directors. The policies of the directors are put into effect and carried out by the officers but, in the last analysis, it is the directors or stockholders who must pass upon matters involving corporate obligations, if the corporation is to be bound thereby. Where a contract is to be made with the corporation, whether the other party to the agreement be the architect or the owner or the contractor, he should, if the contract involves a substantial amount, satisfy himself that the officers executing the contract in behalf of the corporation are duly authorized to do so. It is not necessarily a question of any bad faith on the part of the officers. It may be, that they will execute a contract, believing firmly that their powers are broad enough to give them the right to do so. Yet, it may develop later that they have been erroneous in this belief and that the execution