Opinion ID: 1387535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Do the Arbitration Provisions of the Wyoming Public Works Standard Specifications Apply?

Text: The primary argument advanced by the School District throughout the various stages of its dispute with Strube is that Strube failed to file its demand for arbitration within 30 days from the date the architect/engineer rendered his decision denying Strube's claim for additional compensation as required by the Wyoming Public Works Standard Specifications. The School District argues that its contract with Strube incorporated these specifications as part of its terms. The district court found that the agreement between the parties did not incorporate the specifications relied upon by the School District. We agree. The contract between the parties was signed on or about May 10, 1982. The only reference to the Wyoming Public Works Standard Specifications in the contract documents provides: All material and methods shall conform to the applicable portion of the Standard Specifications for Public Works, latest edition, (referred to as Standard Specifications hereinafter) unless otherwise specified or directed. (Emphasis added.) This language does not purport to adopt the standard specifications in toto; rather, only the applicable portion dealing with material and methods is referenced. An examination of the specifications reveals that they are divided into 26 sections, ranging from General Conditions to Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. The majority of these sections describe the composition of materials and the manner of installation of such materials. By the language of the contract, the parties recite that they intended that [a]ll material and methods shall conform to the applicable portion of the specifications. This phrase is descriptive of the quality and manner of installation of materials, not the general conditions which contain the provision relied upon by the School District. [3] The parties to an agreement are free to incorporate by reference other documents as part of their contract, the terms of which are equally binding upon the parties. Busch Development, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, Wyo., 645 P.2d 65 (1982). In the present case, the contract between the parties did not incorporate the provision of the specifications the School District relies on. For this reason the School District's argument that Strube's demand for arbitration was untimely is not well taken. See also Annot., 25 A.L.R.3d 1171 (1969).