for overhead may be either an assumed percentage, or the actually computed amount in complete detail, the former being generally the less objectionable. Even if the contractor is perfectly honest and has the best will in the world to keep down the cost for the benefit of the client, his employees will not have that desire. In effect, they say to themselves and to each other, "What is the use in my exerting myself unduly? The more the work costs, the more money the 'old man' makes." The author knows this to be the case, for some years ago he had to let a large contract for foreign work at cost plus a percentage; and although the contractors themselves tried to do the honest thing at all times, their men "loafed" to such an extent that the final cost of the construction was atrociously high; and he had occasionally, on his own responsibility, to discharge some of the contractor's employees, including once the field superintendent. This method of letting work involves asking too much of frail human nature.

Method D involves less labor in cost-keeping than Method C; but, otherwise, it is open to the same general objection.

Method E is almost as unsatisfactory to the client as Methods C and D, except that the contractor's reward for his own iniquity is a fixed quantity and not in direct proportion to the extent of that iniquity.

Method F involves a slight improvement on Method E, but only to the extent of a little simplification in bookkeeping and perhaps a reduced opportunity for "squeezing" the client.

The author readily acknowledges that during war times, when the trend of the market for both materials and labor was rapidly upward, no contractor could have afforded to take work either for a lump sum or by unit prices. Unfortunately, in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion, a vast amount of public work had to be done with the utmost despatch, irrespective of what the cost might be; hence the Government had no choice at all in the matter, and, consequently, it let many millions of dollars, worth of contracts at "cost plus a percentage" or "cost plus a lump sum." If the true history of all such contracts was ever written and made public, the nation would stand aghast at the extravagance they involved; and those two methods of contract-letting would receive the universal condemnation of all intelligent, disinterested persons.

As was stated in the oral discussion of Mr. Clarke's paper, when a contractor has simultaneously two or more contracts, one of which is on the "cost plus" basis and the other or others on either the "lump-sum" or the "unit-price" basis, he will naturally put his best and most energetic men on the latter, and will shift the lazy and incompetent ones to the former. This practice has become so well established by custom that the "cost plus" contracts have been dubbed "hospital jobs"; and it appears that the nickname has stuck.

Is it not obvious that anyone who lets a contract on the "cost plus" basis places himself absolutely at the mercy of the contractor and the contractor's employees? It is true that the specifications often contain