COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 33 



posals to a fee of $600,000 in view of more clarified definition of 

 scope and services to be rendered and decisions as to items of service 

 which if required or called for will be provided under modification 

 of the contract. 



It was stated that distribution of the total fee of $600,000 would be 

 as follows: Anderson-Nichols, $150,000; Moran, Proctor, Mueser & 

 Eutledge, $450,000, based on the distribution of work in the design 

 phase as outlined previously by Commander Albers covering the feasi- 

 bility study. 



Detail design proceeded immediately. Work progressed from this 

 point on as rapidly as possible toward construction of Texas tower 2. 



That completes my prepared statement, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Mr. Anderson, I want to be sure that I under- 

 stand this. The feasibility report, I believe, determined that the con- 

 struction of such a tower was feasible. You then proceeded imme- 

 diately with the second phase, is that correct ? 



Mr. Andeeson. Well, I think that your question applies to part 1 

 of that feasibility report which work was done by Moran, Proctor, 

 Mueser & Kutledge. We did not enter into that. 



REEMPHASIS OF ANDERSON-NICHOLS RESPONSIBILITT 



Senator Stennis. I was not making reference to who prepared the 

 report. In any event, it was decided that the construction of the 

 towers was practical, and the Air Force and the Navy decided to 

 proceed, is that correct ? 



Mr. Anderson. It certainly was assumed, yes, sir. 



Senator Stennis. When you moved into the second phase, did 

 your firm have anything to do with designing that portion of the 

 structure which is below the water ? 



Mr. Anderson. No, sir. 



Senator Stennis. You were involved, as I understand it, only with 

 the living quarters, and some additional features. 



Mr. Anderson. Plus the mechanical electrical features. 



Senator Stennis. Your statement refers to the design and other 

 matters "toward construction of Texas tower No. 2." Aren't you in 

 error as to the tower involved? You are talking about tower No. 4, 

 are you not ? 



Mr. Anderson. Well 



Senator Stennis. That is the one under inquiry here. 



Mr. Anderson. That is correct. 



Senator Stennis. Which is correct? 



Mr. Anderson. Well, at that point the design went forward on 

 tower No. 2. It was a later date that design went forward on Texas 

 tower No. 4. 



Senator Stennis. We are primarily interested in tower No. 4 here. 

 What is the explanation of this statement with reference to tower 

 No. 2? 



Mr. Kendall. I think Mr. Anderson is just giving a chronological 

 sequence of events, and the first tower to be cranked out in the 

 program was tower No. 2. 



Senator Symington. If counsel will yield — we have had testimony 

 this morning that the construction of the towers was entirely differ- 



