THESE ARE APPEALS FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO CONFIRM AND THE GRANTING OF A MOTION TO VACATE AN ARBITRATION AWARD HANDED DOWN IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS G. FALZARANO A CONTRACTOR DOING BUSINESS AS FALZARANO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND CERTAIN SUBCONTRACTORS.

THE CASE ARISES OUT OF A CONTRACT FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION OF THE BESSIE M. BURKE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL OPERATED BY THE CITY OF LAWRENCE (CITY). THE Court OF THE SUPERIOR COURT WHO RULED ON THE MOTIONS FOUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS. THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BY FALZARANO AND THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 23 1971. ON THE NEXT DAY THE CITY LEARNED THAT A NEW LAW HAD BEEN PASSED ST. 1971 C. 1080 WHICH HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 15 1971 AND WHICH REQUIRED THAT A DETERMINATION OF NEED BE MADE BY THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (DPH) BEFORE ANY MAJOR RENOVATION WORK COULD BE COMMENCED ON A HEALTH CARE FACILITY. THE CITY INFORMED FALZARANO OF THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS AND SUBSTANTIALLY NO WORK WAS PERFORMED UNDER THE CONTRACT ALTHOUGH ON NOVEMBER 30 1971 FALZARANO SIGNED CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS SUBCONTRACTORS TO PERFORM WORK ON THE PROPOSED RENOVATION OF THE HOSPITAL AND CERTAIN EQUIPMENT WAS MOVED TO THE HOSPITAL SITE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CITY ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FROM THE DPH BUT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. *FN4 IN MARCH AND APRIL 1972 FALZARANO WROTE TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY CONCERNING THE DELAY. ON MAY 26 1972 THE CONTRACT BETWEEN FALZARANO AND THE CITY WAS TERMINATED BY AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES BUT FALZARANO RESERVED HIS RIGHT TO CLAIM RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES INCURRED BEFORE THAT DATE.

ON JUNE 11 1975 IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES THEREUNDER *FN5 FALZARANO FILED A DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION WITH THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CLAIMING DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. HEARINGS WERE COMMENCED BEFORE A PANEL OF ARBITRATORS ON JANUARY 29 1976 AT WHICH TIME THE CITY MOVED TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACT INCLUDING ITS ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE. THE ARBITRATORS DENIED THIS MOTION AND PROCEEDED TO HEAR EVIDENCE. ON MARCH 19 1976 THEY MADE AN AWARD IN FAVOR OF FALZARANO AND HIS SEVERAL SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $74 225.00 OF WHICH SOME $58 500.00 WAS TO GO TO FALZARANO HIMSELF. *FN6

THE CITY THEN FILED AN APPLICATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT SEEKING TO VACATE THE AWARD ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS NO VALID CONTRACT AND THEREFORE NO VALID AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE AND THAT THE ARBITRATORS EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY IN MAKING THE AWARD. G. L. C. 251 sec. 12 (A) (3) AND (A) (5). FALZARANO FILED A SEPARATE APPLICATION IN THE SAME COURT TO CONFIRM THE AWARD. G. L. C. 251 sec. 11. THE TWO APPLICATIONS WERE CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD TOGETHER ON STATEMENTS OF Counsel AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

AFTER THE HEARING THE Court ALLOWED THE APPLICATION TO VACATE AND DENIED THE APPLICATION TO CONFIRM THE AWARD. IN HIS ACCOMPANYING ORDER THE Court HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS LEGAL PERFORMANCE UNDER IT WAS ILLEGAL WHICH ILLEGALITY WAS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE CONTRACT. HE HELD THEREFORE THAT THERE WAS NO VALID CONTRACT AND NO AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE AND THAT THE ARBITRATORS EXCEEDED THEIR POWERS IN CONCLUDING OTHERWISE.

FROM THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE TWO ACTIONS FALZARANO APPEALED TO THE APPEALS COURT WHICH UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE Court ALTHOUGH ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS.LAWRENCE V. FALZARANO 7 MASS. APP. CT. 591 (1979). WE GRANTED FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW.

THE ISSUES RAISED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) WAS THE CONTRACT AND THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE CONTAINED IN IT VALID DESPITE THE FACT THAT ST. 1971 C. 1080 PROHIBITED PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CONTRACT ABSENT A CERTIFICATE OF NEED? *FN7 2) WAS THE CONTRACT VALID DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT DID NOT CONTAIN A CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY AUDITOR THAT SUFFICIENT MONEY HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR IT AS REQUIRED BY G. L. C. 44 sec. 31C? 3) IF THE CONTRACT WAS VALID DOES THE ILLEGALITY OF PERFORMING UNDER THE CONTRACT NONETHELESS REQUIRE VACATING THE ARBITRATION AWARD? 4) WERE THE ARBITRATORS WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY IN GRANTING AN AWARD WHICH INCLUDED DAMAGES BOTH FOR DELAY AND FOR LOST PROFITS?

WE ANSWER THE FIRST SECOND AND FOURTH ISSUES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THE THIRD IN THE NEGATIVE AND THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE AWARD WAS PROPERLY MADE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. 1. VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT IN LIGHT OF ST. 1971 C. 1080.

STATUTE 1971 C. 1080 *FN8 REQUIRES THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITY BE COMMENCED UNLESS A CERTIFICATE OF NEED HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DPH. ITS PURPOSE IS '[T]O PREVENT UNNECESSARY EXPANSION OF HEALTH CARE FACILITIES . . . AND ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR HEALTH CARE PURPOSES.' COMMISSIONER OF PUB. HEALTH V. BESSIE M. BURKE MEMORIAL HOSP. 366 MASS. 734 735 (1975). THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY STATE AS IT MIGHT HAVE THAT CONTRACTS FOR SUCH WORK MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF NEED WERE TO BE VOID. SEE BROUSSARD V. MELONG 322 MASS. 560 561 (1948). 'IF THE STATUTE DOES NOT DECLARE A CONTRACT MADE IN VIOLATION OF IT TO BE VOID AND IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HOLD THE CONTRACT VOID IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE THE INFERENCE IS THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE DIRECTORY AND NOT PROHIBITORY OF THE CONTRACT. . . .' ID. QUOTING BOWDITCH V. NEW ENGLAND MUT. LIFE INS. CO. 141 MASS. 292 295 (1886).

THE STATUTE DID MAKE ILLEGAL AND SUBJECT TO INJUNCTION THE PERFORMANCE CALLED FOR BY THIS CONTRACT SO LONG AS NO CERTIFICATE OF NEED HAD ISSUED. HOWEVER '[M]ANY CONTRACTS CANNOT LAWFULLY BE PERFORMED WITHOUT SECURING A PERMIT LICENSE OR APPROVAL FROM SOME GOVERNMENTAL OFFICER OR BOARD AND YET THE CONTRACTS ARE NOT DEEMED ILLEGAL.' NUSSENBAUM V. CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS INC. 322 MASS. 419 423 (1948). SEE 15 S. WILLISTON CONTRACTS SEC. 1767 (3D ED. 1972). IF A CERTIFICATE OF NEED HAD BEEN SECURED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT FALZARANO WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD PUT TO CONTEND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS VOID BECAUSE ILLEGAL AB INITIO.

FURTHER THE STATUTE PROHIBITS THE 'COMMENC[ING OF] CONSTRUCTION.' IN THE PRESENT CASE NO ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION WAS COMMENCED AND NO RECOVERY IS SOUGHT FOR THE VALUE OF GOODS OR SERVICES ILLEGALLY PROVIDED. IN THIS RESPECT IT CAN BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CASES CITED BY THE CITY IN WHICH RECOVERY FOR SUCH PERFORMANCE WAS DENIED. HAWES ELEC. CO. V. ANGELL 332 MASS. 190 (1955). TOCCI V. LEMBO 325 MASS. 707 (1950). THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT APART FROM THE LACK OF CERTIFICATION OF NEED THE RENOVATION CONTRACTED FOR WAS AN ILLEGAL PURPOSE OR ONE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY. UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO INSTITUTE CENTRALIZED CONTROL OVER THE ALLOCATION OF HEALTH CARE RESOURCES TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY AND COSTLY DUPLICATION OF SERVICES. SEE COMMISSIONER OF PUB. HEALTH SUPRA. 'COURTS DO NOT GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DISCOVER SOME ILLEGAL ELEMENT IN A CONTRACT OR TO IMPOSE HARDSHIP UPON THE PARTIES BEYOND THAT WHICH IS NECESSARY TO UPHOLD THE POLICY OF THE LAW.' NUSSENBAUM V. CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS INC. SUPRA AT 422. SEE TOWN PLANNING & ENG'R ASSOCS. V. AMESBURY SPECIALITY CO. 369 MASS. 737 745-747 (1976). THE PRESENT CASE RAISES NO SUCH NECESSITY AND THE CONTRACT NEED NOT BE HELD INVALID ON THIS GROUND. VALLEY STREAM TEACHERS FED. CREDIT UNION V. COMMISSIONER OF BANKS 376 MASS. 845 852 (1978).

2. VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT IN LIGHT OF G. L. C. 44 sec. 31C.

GENERAL LAWS C. 44 sec. 31C (ST. 1964 C. 693 sec. 1) *FN9 REQUIRES THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY AUDITOR OR OTHER OFFICIAL STATING THAT AN APPROPRIATION COVERING THE AMOUNT OF A MUNICIPAL BUILDING CONTRACT IS AVAILABLE THEREFOR MUST APPEAR ON THE CONTRACT BEFORE IT 'SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE.' NO SUCH CERTIFICATION APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE CONTRACT. HOWEVER THERE WAS IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE Court A CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ORDER ADOPTED BY THE LAWRENCE CITY COUNCIL DULY APPROPRIATING $1 500 000 FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE HOSPITAL AN AMOUNT WELL OVER FALZARANO'S TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE OF $969 610.

WE HAVE STATED GENERALLY THAT '[P]ERSONS DEALING WITH A MUNICIPALITY MUST TAKE NOTICE OF LIMITATIONS . . . UPON THE CONTRACTING POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND ARE BOUND BY THEM AND CANNOT RECOVER UPON CONTRACTS ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE IN VIOLATION OF THEM.' MARLBOROUGH V. CYBULSKI OHNEMUS & ASSOCS. 370 MASS. 157 160-161 (1976). SANCTA MARIA HOSP. V. CAMBRIDGE 369 MASS. 586 595 (1976). IN A SERIES OF CASES WE HAVE REQUIRED STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISION OF G. L. C. 44 sec. 31 THE PURPOSE OF WHICH SECTION IS TO PROVIDE CENTRAL MUNICIPAL CONTROL OVER IRRESPONSIBLE MUNICIPAL SPENDING AMHERST-PELHAM REGIONAL SCHOOL COMM. V. DEPARTMENT OF EDUC. 376 MASS. 480 494 (1978) AND 'TO SET RIGID BARRIERS AGAINST EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF APPROPRIATIONS.' RICH & SON CONSTR. CO. V. SAUGUS 355 MASS. 304 307 (1969) QUOTING FROM FLOOD V. HODGES 231 MASS. 252 256 (1918).

WE BELIEVE AS DID THE APPEALS COURT THAT C. 44 sec. 31C ENTITLED 'AN ACT PROVIDING THAT PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS SHALL NOT BE BARRED BY REASON OF BEING IN EXCESS OF APPROPRIATIONS ' DISCLOSES A VERY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE FROM THAT OF C. 44 sec. 31. WE CONCUR IN THE APPEALS COURT'S STATEMENT OF THIS PURPOSE THAT BEING 'TO PROVIDE CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION WORK WITH A READY AND RELIABLE MEANS OF ASCERTAINING THAT THERE IS AN APPROPRIATION SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE PROPOSED WORK AND TO PROTECT THEM WHERE THE CONTRACT CARRIES A CERTIFICATION THAT THERE EXISTS A SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATION ' BUT NO SUCH APPROPRIATION EXISTS. LAWRENCE V. FALZARANO SUPRA AT 596-597. THE STATUTE WAS THUS ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE IN FALZARANO'S POSITION. BROUSSARD V. MELONG 322 MASS. 560 562 (1948). WHERE IT IS UNQUESTIONED THAT THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED BY A PROPER CITY OFFICIAL AND THAT A SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATION EXISTED IN FACT TO COVER THE COST OF THE CONTRACT WE HOLD THAT THE CONTRACT IS NOT NECESSARILY INVALID BECAUSE IT LACKS ON ITS FACE THE CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY C. 44 sec. 31C. WHILE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE IS PREFERABLE A CONTRARY RESULT IN THIS CASE WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO BENEFIT FROM ITS OMISSION WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE STATUTORY POLICY. WE ADOPT A READING OF THE STATUTE WHICH WILL EFFECTUATE RATHER THAN FRUSTRATE ITS EVIDENT PURPOSE. SEE MEDEIROS V. ELECTION COMM'RS OF FALL RIVER 367 MASS. 286 292 (1975) AND CASES CITED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CONTRACT INCLUDING THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES WAS VALID. *FN10

THIS CASE IS NOT CONTROLLED BY RYAN V. SOMERVILLE 328 MASS. 324 (1952). IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT AN APPROPRIATION HAD EVER BEEN MADE FOR THE CONTRACT AS WAS REQUIRED UNDER THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER AT ISSUE IN THAT CASE. ST. 1937 C. 363. BY CONTRAST IT IS UNCONTESTED THAT A MORE THAN AMPLE APPROPRIATION EXISTED FOR THE PRESENT CONTRACT. FURTHERMORE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER HAD AS PART OF ITS PURPOSE THE PROTECTION OF PARTIES CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY AS IS THE CASE WITH G. L. C. 44 sec. 31C. SEE ST. 1937 C. 363. 3. EFFECT OF ILLEGALITY OF PERFORMANCE.

WE NEXT CONSIDER WHETHER THE PERFORMANCE CALLED FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS ILLEGAL AND IF SO WHETHER THIS ILLEGALITY IS ITSELF A SUFFICIENT GROUND TO VOID THE CONTRACT AND THE INCLUDED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. THE Court HELD THAT WHILE THE CONTRACT WAS LEGAL PERFORMANCE WAS ILLEGAL WHICH ILLEGALITY WAS 'FUNDAMENTAL TO THE CONTRACT AND MAKES PERFORMANCE IMPOSSIBLE.' *FN11 THIS IMPOSSIBILITY IT SEEMS WAS THE BASIS FOR HIS HOLDING THAT AT THE TIME ARBITRATION WAS DEMANDED NO VALID CONTRACT EXISTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

WE FIND THIS REASONING SOMEWHAT CIRCULAR. THE PARTIES WERE BOUND BY A VALID CONTRACT WHICH INCLUDED A PROVISION THAT ALL DISPUTES ARISING UNDER IT WOULD BE SETTLED BY ARBITRATION. THIS AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS GOVERNED BY G. L. C. 251 REGULATING THE ARBITRATION OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES. SECTION 1 THEREOF STATES IN PART THAT 'A PROVISION IN A WRITTEN CONTRACT TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION ANY CONTROVERSY THEREAFTER ARISING BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHALL BE VALID ENFORCEABLE AND IRREVOCABLE SAVE UPON SUCH GROUNDS AS EXIST AT LAW OR IN EQUITY FOR THE REVOCATION OF ANY CONTRACT.'

SECTION 2 OF C. 251 PROVIDES FOR PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL OR TO STAY ARBITRATION AND STATES IN SUBSECTION (B) THAT '[U]PON APPLICATION THE SUPERIOR COURT MAY STAY AN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING COMMENCED OR THREATENED IF IT FINDS THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE.' SECTION 12 PERMITS Court TO VACATE AN ARBITRATION AWARD UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIED GROUNDS INCLUDING AT SUBSECTION (A) (3) THAT 'THE ARBITRATORS EXCEEDED THEIR POWERS'; AND AT SUBSECTION (A) (5) THAT 'THERE WAS NO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADVERSELY DETERMINED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION TWO AND THE PARTY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ARBITRATION HEARING WITHOUT RAISING THE OBJECTION; BUT THE FACT THAT THE RELIEF WAS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT OR WOULD NOT BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF LAW OR EQUITY IS NOT GROUND FOR VACATING OR REFUSING TO CONFIRM THE AWARD.'

SINCE THE CONTRACT WAS VALID THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE CONTAINED IN IT WAS BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE UNLESS REVOKED. G. L. C. 251 sec. 1. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT ON MAY 26 1972 SERVED TO REVOKE THE THERETOFORE VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT *FN12 WAS NOT BRIEFED OR ARGUED IN THE TRIAL COURT OR ON APPEAL AND THUS HAS BEEN WAIVED. THE DEFENSE TO LIABILITY ON THE CONTRACT BASED ON THE ILLEGALITY OF PERFORMANCE WAS A DISPUTE WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE BROAD AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATE AND WAS PROPERLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE ARBITRATORS TO DECIDE. SEE QUIRK V. DATA TERMINAL SYSS. INC. 379 MASS. 762 765 (1980) CITING GLENN ACRES INC. V. CLIFFWOOD CORP. 353 MASS. 150 154 (1967). CF. COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX V. GEVYN CONSTR. CORP. 450 F.2D 53 55-56 (1ST CIR. 1971) CERT. DENIED 405 U.S. 955 (1972). THE CITY ARGUED THIS DEFENSE BEFORE THE ARBITRATORS AND DID NOT PREVAIL. THE FACTS THAT THIS DEFENSE MAY HAVE ENTITLED THE CITY TO PREVAIL IF THE MATTER WERE INITIALLY TRIED BEFORE A COURT OR THAT THE ARBITRATORS MAY HAVE MADE AN ERROR OF LAW IN REACHING THEIR DECISION DO NOT PERMIT A COURT ACTING UNDER THE LIMITED AUTHORITY GIVEN BY C. 251 sec. 12 TO VACATE OR REFUSE TO CONFIRM THE ARBITRATION AWARD. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON & ME. CORP. V. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSP. AUTH. 363 MASS. 386 390 (1973).

4. AWARDING OF DAMAGES BY ARBITRATORS.

THE FINAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ARBITRATORS EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY IN AWARDING DAMAGES FOR DELAY AND FOR LOST PROFITS UNDER THE CONTRACT SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE AWARD BE VACATED UNDER G. L. C. 251 sec. 12 (A) (3).

IN THIS CASE A SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATION WAS PROPERLY MADE TO COVER THE COST OF THE CONTRACT TO THE CITY. COMPARE MARLBOROUGH V. CYBULSKI OHNEMUS & ASSOCS. SUPRA. AS PART OF THE CONTRACT THE CITY AGREED TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING UNDER IT TO ARBITRATION. FULFILMENT OF A CONTRACT FOR THE RENOVATION OF A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IS A PURPOSE FOR WHICH MUNICIPALITIES GENERALLY MAY EXPEND PUBLIC FUNDS. G. L. C. 40 sec. 5 (19) (20). COMPARE BOSTON TEACHERS LOCAL 66 V. SCHOOL COMM. OF BOSTON 370 MASS. 455 467 (1976). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A CITY WHICH IS A PARTY TO A CONTRACT MAY BE HELD LIABLE TO RESPOND IN DAMAGES FOR A BREACH SO LONG AS RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. SEE E.G. SINGARELLA V. BOSTON 342 MASS. 385 (1961). SUCH DAMAGES MAY INCLUDE DAMAGES FOR DELAY OR FOR ANTICIPATED PROFITS.

THE PURPOSE OF G. L. C. 251 GOVERNING ARBITRATION IS TO PROVIDE FURTHER SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BY A METHOD WHICH IS 'NOT SUBJECT TO DELAY AND OBSTRUCTION IN Court .' QUIRK V. DATA TERMINAL SYSS. INC. SUPRA AT 767. AS NOTED ABOVE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS IS CONFINED TO CERTAIN NARROW GROUNDS. ARBITRATION IT IS CLEAR MAY NOT 'AWARD RELIEF OF A NATURE WHICH OFFENDS PUBLIC POLICY OR WHICH DIRECTS OR REQUIRES A RESULT CONTRARY TO EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISION ' S.E. EAGER THE ARBITRATION CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS SEC. 121.6 (1971) OR OTHERWISE TRANSCENDS THE LIMITS OF THE CONTRACT OF WHICH THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS BUT A PART. MARLBOROUGH V. CYBULSKI OHNEMUS & ASSOCS. SUPRA. HOWEVER WITHIN THESE BOUNDS AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION ARBITRATORS HAVE BROAD AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A BALANCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SEE M.S. KELLIHER CO. V. WAKEFIELD 346 MASS. 645 647 (1964); WACHUSETT REGIONAL DIST. SCHOOL COMM. V. WACHUSETT REGIONAL TEACHERS ASS'N 6 MASS. APP. CT. 851 (1978). CF. SCHOOL COMM. OF BOSTON V. BOSTON TEACHERS LOCAL 66 378 MASS. 65 (1979) AND CASES CITED. IF THE ARBITRATORS IN ASSESSING DAMAGES COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT BUT DO NOT OVERSTEP THE LIMITS OF THE ISSUES SUBMITTED TO THEM A COURT MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ON THE MATTER. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON & ME. CORP. SUPRA.

FALZARANO DEMANDED ARBITRATION AS TO HIS CLAIMS OF DAMAGES FOR DELAY AND LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS ON THE CONTRACT. CLEARLY THESE MATTERS FELL WITHIN THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT. WE PRESUME THAT IN MAKING THEIR AWARD THE ARBITRATORS RENDERED DECISION AS TO BOTH THESE MATTERS AND ON NO OTHERS. FAZIO V. EMPLOYERS LIAB. ASSURANCE CORP. 347 MASS. 254 257 (1964). BOTH OF THESE GROUNDS ARE ASPECTS OF THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO WHICH ANY CONTRACTING PARTY IS COMMONLY SUBJECT. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT RECOVERY ON EITHER GROUND IS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CONTRARY TO LEGISLATIVE OR OTHER PUBLIC POLICY WHETHER THAT OF ST. 1971 C. 1080 OR OF G. L. C. 44 sec. 31C OR OTHERWISE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE ARBITRATORS TO AWARD. TO DISTINGUISH AMONG AVAILABLE BASES OF RECOVERY ON THIS CONTRACT AND TO DECLARE ONE OR ANOTHER THEORY TO BE UNAVAILABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY WOULD DEPRIVE THOSE WHO CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC AUTHORITIES OF THEIR RIGHTFUL EXPECTATIONS AFTER THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN AND SURVIVED THE STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED BIDDING PROCEDURE. FURTHER SUCH AN EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORITY OF A COURT TO DECLARE UNDER G. L. C. 251 sec. 12 (A) (3) THAT ARBITRATORS HAVE 'EXCEEDED THEIR POWERS' WOULD TEND TO UNDERMINE THE PREDICTABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ARBITRATION AS A METHOD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

FOR THESE REASONS WE HOLD THAT NO GROUNDS EXIST FOR VACATING THE PRESENT ARBITRATION AWARD UNDER G. L. C. 251 sec. 12. WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS AND REMAND THE CASES TO THE SUPERIOR COURT WHERE ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS ARE TO BE ENTERED ALLOWING FALZARANO'S APPLICATION TO CONFIRM AND DENYING THE CITY'S APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ARBITRATION AWARD.