iar manner of its presentation herein is such as to render its use merely a matter of following step by step certain clearly written instructions. Moreover, as before indicated, this method of settlement of accounts is used only once, viz., after the completion of the job.

C. It has been stated that uneducated contractors would have difficulty in understanding the method; but the man who made this claim did the average American contractor a grave injustice. The construction contractors in this country are as bright a body of men as one can find anywhere; and certainly they may be trusted to understand anything in reason that affects their interests.

D. It has been claimed that most contractors have a general inherent objection to sharing profits with the owner; but a little consideration will show that there is no sharing of the requested profit until after the estimated cost of the work (under the assumption of unchanged quantities of materials) has been exceeded. It was to clarify this situation that the writer changed his ori- ginal idea of having each bidder name a lump-sum (corresponding to "Sum C") as a provisional limit of the owner's total expenditure, and a list of unit prices (corresponding to "Schedule B") which, when applied to the estimated quantities of the specifications, would make the sum of the products exactly equal to the said lump-sum, and substituted therefor the method herein described, viz., that of having each bidder submit in detail his estimate of cost and his desired profit, and arranging the method of determining the limiting cost to the owner by two additions to the bidder's tender. This change is simply a concession to prejudice, and does not modify the method proposed by the writer in his letter published in Contracting in its issue of September 15th, 1919. The only fundamental change between that presentation of the matter and this one is the inclusion herein of a bonus for the employees.

E. It has been claimed that this method would tend to deceive the owner. He would certainly be stupid if he could not see clearly how its tendency is to cut down the amount that he will pay for the entire work, and that it will set a just limit beyond which, under the worst possible conditions, he cannot be compelled to pay any more.

F. It has been stated, as a reason for favoring the "cost-plus" system, that bonding companies favor it and oppose all other methods of contract-letting. Naturally, they would do so; because, with the "cost-plus" method, their obligation reduces almost to zero, the risk being placed solely on the owner. In truth, with that method adopted, there does not appear to be any valid reason for having a bond at all. When the contractor runs no risk of loss whatsoever, why a surety company bond? Possibly, if the surety companies would consider it from this point of view, they would not oppose the writer's suggested method of contract-letting; for, while it reduces very greatly the possibility of loss to the surety company, it does not destroy that organization's function by removing entirely its raison d'être.