32 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Senator Saltonstall. Thank you. 



Senator Stennis. All right. Did you have something, Senator 

 Symington ? 



Senator Symington. Yes, I would like to develop this thought. 

 You got $60,000 of the first $130,000. The actual design contract- 

 how much of that ? 



Mr. ANDERSoisr. That was a total — that first design contract was a 

 total of $600,000, of which we were awarded $150,000 



Senator Symington. And then, as I remember it, the construction 

 actually cost over $10 million. Were you involved in the construction, 

 or just in the design ? 



Mr. Anderson. Purely in the design. 



Senator Symingtoi-t. I ask this question, with all respect, Mr. An- 

 derson. T\niy, if three-quarters of the money went for the Moran, 

 Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge Co. would the Navy go to you as in effect 

 a prime contractor for the design? T^Hiy would they not go to a 

 company like Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge ? 



Mr. Anderson. Well, I do not believe I can answer that question, 

 sir. As I said originally, when this feasibility study was awarded, 

 we were the prime contractor in the sense that we were the ones that 

 were called in by the Na\^. Later we called in Moran, Proctor, 

 Mueser & Rutledge, and there was some question of whether Moran, 

 Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge would be a subcontractor to us. But as 

 we discussed it, we decided to make it a coventure. 



Senator Symington. Was it a negotiated contract with you? 



Mr. Anderson. Yes, it was. 



Senator Symington. And was anybody else asked to consider it? 



Mr. Anderson. Well, I would not be able to answer that, sir. 



Senator Symington. You do not know that ? 



Mr. Anderson. No. 



Senator Symington. Thank you. 



Senator Stennis. All right, proceed with your statement, Mr. 

 Anderson. 



Mr. Anderson. On September 23, 1954, five copies of the feasibil- 

 ity report on Texas tower — I might explan that the feasibility report 

 was in two parts, part 1 being that prepared by Moran, Proctor, 

 Mueser & Rutledge, and part 2 being that which was prepared by 

 Anderson & Nichols. 



In September 1954, Anderson-Nichols submitted part 2, or their 

 part of the feasibility report, consisting of one set of reproducible 

 drawings constituting recommendations for design and construction 

 of the platform portion of Texas tower, which were forwarded to the 

 District Public Works Officer, Air Defense Command, Ent Air Force 

 Base, Colorado Springs, Colo., for their study and review. 



On November 9, 1954, a conference was held in the office of the 

 District Public Works Office, 1st Naval District, in which a pro- 

 posal covering design services was submitted, a lump sum fee amount- 

 ing to $797,460. After considerable discussion involving the items 

 making up this fee, it was requested that further consideration be 

 given. 



On November 12, 1954, a proposal for engineering services for 

 design was submitted to the District Public Works Office, 1st Naval 

 District, in which it was agreed to reduce the fee of the original pro- 



