Practical Talks with Home-builders 
BUILDING A HOME UNDER A SINGLE CONTRACT OR UNDER A DOZEN OF 
THEM—THE ADVANTAGES OF EACH METHOD AND THE COMPARATIVE COSTS 
by Alexander Buel Trowbridge 
\This is the sixth of a series of intimate helpful talks with those who are about to build. The aim is to offer untechnical suggestions to prospective 
home-makers in the hope that many of the common mistakes and difficulties may be avoided through foreknowledge. The talks are written for those of 
moderate means rather than for those to whom economy is no object. —Editor.] 
^ONTRACTS are usually written by the 
architect, who follows well known cus¬ 
toms regarding payments, etc., unless 
requested by builder and owner to sub¬ 
stitute special agreements. The wording 
of an ordinary building contract was 
determined several years ago at a con¬ 
vention of builders and architects and is 
now issued in printed form with blank 
portions reserved for filling in with 
names, amounts, dates, etc. This form, 
called “ Uniform Contract,” may be pur¬ 
chased at any well supplied stationer’s 
carrying architectural materials. As in the case of specifica¬ 
tions, it is not necessary for the owner to read the contract with 
the intention of criticising its phraseology, but rather to acquaint 
himself with the obligations he assumes. 
Contracts for a house may be let in two or three different ways. 
A contract may be signed with a carpenter who agrees to complete 
the entire work; that is he stands responsible for the installation 
of heating, plumbing and lighting as well as for those branches 
more nearly allied to his own trade, such as masonry, plastering 
and painting. The advantage in this method is secured through 
placing the responsibility for everything in the hands of one man 
or firm, thus reducing the possibility of complications which might 
arise if each tradesman worked independently. The disadvantage 
becomes apparent when it develops that the general contractor is 
carrying on his business with little or no capital. He is then apt 
to make his sub-contractors wait for their pay while he applies 
what he receives to settle the debts of some previous building 
operation. In this way liens are filed against the work and the 
owner finds himself in an embarrassing position. 
Again, a separate contract may be signed with each tradesman. 
This has a decided advantage, as the owner saves whatever profit 
a general contractor would receive if the first mode of procedure 
were followed. That is, the owner lets contracts on a competitive 
basis with mason, carpenter, plasterer, painter, steam fitter, 
plumber and electrician. In large operations the number of sub¬ 
contractors will be three times as many as those mentioned. It 
must be noted, however, that this mode of procedure requires 
“canny” specifications. The architect is obliged to describe in 
words that will not admit of two meanings the duties of each 
contractor,so as effectually to prevent any tradesman from evading 
his obligations by shifting to another what is really his own work 
to perform. The separate contracts must receive the same kind 
of care in writing. Whatever points are not covered by the 
specifications must be cared for in the contracts. 
This method of building requires the services of a “clerk of the 
works”—a man who spends his entire time on the job. He not 
only acts as a superintendent in assisting the contractors to inter¬ 
pret the drawings, but he keeps the architect in daily touch with 
the progress of the work and gives preliminary notice to the con¬ 
tractors as to the dates for commencing work and when to ship 
their materials. A clerk of the works is employed by the archi¬ 
tects at the expense of the owner. Good men may be secured at 
salaries varying from $25 to $50 per week. For complicated 
operations involving the supervision of many trades and many 
men, a high-priced man is a necessity. Whether the work is done 
under a general contractor or through many sub-contractors, a 
clerk of the works is an assistant of value. The architect’s 
ordinary fee, covering superintendence, does not include constant 
supervision. It generally is interpreted to mean visiting the work 
several times a week in order to explain drawings, pass upon the 
appearance of completed work, etc. He does not agree to stand 
over the concrete workers, for instance, and watch with minute 
care the proportions of cement, sand and stones that are being 
mixed together. A clerk of the works, however, is able to give 
this kind of careful scrutiny and is often the means of securing 
dependable, honest construction. 
A third mode of procedure is a compromise between the two 
foregoing. An owner may let the masonry, carpentry, plastering 
and painting in one contract and let heating, plumbing and wiring 
or gas piping separately. The chief advantage in this is the saving 
of the general contractor’s profits on such contracts. 
It is customary to insert in a contract a date for the completion 
of the work. As this clause is hedged about by counter agree¬ 
ments relieving the contractor from personal obligation in case of 
strikes or other unforeseen calamities, it is almost impossible to 
enforce the usual “time clause.” If, however, a separate clause 
is written calling for a forfeit for each day of delay after the pro¬ 
posed date of completion and a bonus for each day gained through 
rapid work, the courts have a definite agreement upon which to 
argue and a decision may be reached. 
In the question of city contractors versus country contractors, 
the writer’s experience leads him to state that if the owner is not 
in a hurry and is not expecting the highest grade of finish in the 
work, he can profitably engage a country builder. Their prices 
are generally much lower than those of city builders and their 
work is good enough for all ordinary house construction. If speed 
is important, the country builder must be eliminated. One reason 
why they are compelled to work slowly is because the mills favor 
the bigger contractors in turning out mill-work, and the country 
carpenters are obliged to wait the pleasure of the millmen. 
The saving through using a country builder is large enough 
sometimes to warrant the custom. For example, a house which 
came to $12,000 in city estimates was built for $9000 through 
five different contracts with country contractors. It would have 
been possible to employ a clerk of the works for even this small 
job at a salary of, say, $30 per week; to have used up twelve 
months in building the house, and to have been a gainer by approx¬ 
imately $1500. In this small operation the architect increased 
his fee as follows: The regular fee for the work was 7^ per cent 
of the cost. By dividing the work into five contracts the architect 
increased his own office work and his supervision, but he saved 
the owner, it was estimated, at least 10 per cent on the amounts 
paid to the heating contractor, the plumber, the painter and the 
electrician. The architect therefore added to his regular fee an 
amount equal to one-half of this saving, an arrangement which 
is well worth the careful consideration of every owner. It can 
be just as profitably undertaken with city contractors. In fact, 
■ as general contractors often obtain more than 10 per cent on the 
sub-contracts, the saving would be proportionately greater. 
(142) 
