COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 17 
Steers-Morrison-Knudsen joint venture be awarded the contract for 
the construction of tower No. 4. Dr. Charyk, Under Secretary of the 
Air Force, testified that fund limitations required the elimination of 
tower No. 1, which had the effect, as well, of eliminating the DeLong 
Corp. which had directed the successful construction of the first of 
the towers from any further participation in the construction of any 
of the remaining Texas towers. 
Mr. DeLong testified that his corporation, through his chief engi- 
neer, Mr. Suderow, since deceased, had an ag reement with the desion 
engineers that if his corporation were the low bidder on tower No. “A, 
it would be permitted to construct it in accordance with a method 
proposed by DeLong and similar to the method shown as scheme B 
on figure 48 of the Design and Construction Report. This was em- 
phatically denied by both Captain Albers and the design engineers. 
However, as proof of his contention, Mr. DeLong testified that if he 
were to be required to build a pin-connected tower under the horizontal 
tow and vertical tip-up of the Kuss method he would not have sub- 
mitted a bid and, in fact, “did not want any part of it.” Substantia- 
tion of his testimony that there was an implied or tacit agreement with 
the design engineers took the form of documentation furnished pur- 
suant to a subpena duces tecum served on Mr. DeLong requiring him 
to furnish all plans, drawings, proposals, submissions, contracts, and 
agreements prepared or made by the DeLong Corp. in connection with, 
in contemplation of, or in the solicitation of bids for, the construction 
of Texas towers Nos. 1,3, and 4. The documents produced included 
the instructions by the DeLong Corp. to its possible subcontractors 
m preparing their bids, a memorandum of agreement and joint ven- 
ture agreement with Raymond Concrete Pile Co. for the disposition 
of barges proposed for use in construction of tower No. 4, and a draw- 
ing dated October 17, 1955, similar to scheme B. The DeLong plan 
essentially called for welded connections for the braces, and a vertical 
tow of the template to the site. His objections to the use of pin 
connections stemmed from the fact that “the sea never gets tired,” 
its constant random motion would only serve to cause wear of 
the pin connections; and secondly, that there would be no means by 
which to evaluate the stresses imposed on the template during a hori- 
zontal tow to site and tip-up, along with a danger that one or two 
legs might touch bottom first, resulting i in even greater stress. He 
also objected to the time during which the tower would be at the mercy 
of the sea in floating the permanent platform into position between the 
three legs after they, were upright. 
On the other hand, there was introduced into the record a memo- 
randum which Dr. Rutledge, of the design engineering firm, prepared 
of a conference with Capt. “Garner Clark, USN, Assistant Chief of the 
Bureau of Yards and Docks, at which Captain Clark stated that he 
had denied DeLong permission to submit a bid based on an alternate 
desien for the construction of Texas tower No. 4. Moreover, Dr. 
Rutledge testified that the design engineers had no authority to make 
any agreement such as Mr. DeLong alleged, nor did they do so. 
Whether, i in fact, there was or was not an agreement to construct 
tower No. 4 by an alternate design and alternate method of erection is 
not, in and of itself, of any oreat significance. However, the reasons 
for seeking such an agreement are important. There was interposed 
