118 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Mr. Kendall. Was your understanding with any person other than 

 someone in the Moran, Proctor firm? The contracting officer, for 

 example, would not you have to have that understanding witli him? 



Mr, DeLong. Well, I listened to the contracting officer's statements 

 yesterday, and I do not feel I want to take exception to him. He 

 said lie did not have any understanding. I did not talk to the con- 

 tracting officer myself about it. It was handled by Mr. Suderow, and 

 I accepted the contract officer's statement that Mr. Suderow did not 

 have an understanding with him but had an understanding with the 

 design engineers. You want to remember, we wei-e consulted on 

 the first one and helped work out the problems on Texas tower No^ 2, 

 such as taking out the bracing and the method of erection, and so 

 forth. 



So the relationship was friendly, cooperative, and we felt no hesi- 

 tation, after the method was discussed with the design engineers, and 

 if you will look in your copy of the Design and Construction Report, 

 at figure 48, as constructed, j^ou will see part of the metliod in tliere 

 for scheme B. But I will say that Captain Albers, no doubt, is correct 

 when he says that he did not have a definite understanding. 



Mr. Kexdall. Do you have any other documentation of the fact 

 that you did not bid and did not propose to construct tower No. 4 if 

 successful as it was designed? Did you have any plans or drawings? 



INIr. DeLong. We have drawings that we submitted to you, on the 

 method of installation. The date of them is October 26 or someiliing 

 like that, our last erection drawings. We had another metliod that 

 we prefer, which we would use in deeper water, but our chief engineer 

 was unable to get approval on that method, so we went to the metliod 

 that we put our tender in on, on scheme B. 



Mr. Kendall. Would you explain briefly wliat tliose drawings are, 

 and make them a part of the record, sir, and give the dates again? 



(The drawings referred to are shown facing this page.) 



Mr. DeLong. We have a drawing here dated September 30, 1955, 

 which is the metliod that the DeLong Corp. would employ today put- 

 ting structures into 200 or 300 feet of water. But our chief engineer 

 reported to us that there were certain objections; the design engineers 

 were not happy about it. They thought they did not want to go 

 along, so we worked out the alternate scheme of taking part of their 

 tower the way they had lined it out, and do it in a method that we 

 could live with and feel that we would be successful in it, and have 

 it under control. After all, it is dated the iTfli dny of October 1055. 



This drawing is the basis for the agreement between the joint ven- 

 turers, Raymond Concrete Pile at that time, now the Raymond Inter- 

 national, who were our co-venturers on tower No. 2, as to how we would 

 do it, as to what equipment, what special jacks to raise the structui-es, 

 and so forth, how it would be written off, special barges, and things 

 like that. 



INIr. Kendall. Were these drawings or plans submitted to the design 

 engineer and the Navy ? 



Mr. DeLong. Well, the drawing dated October IT is in the book as 

 figure 48. 



Mr. Kendall. That is the design and construction report that you 

 refer to ? 



Mr. DeLong. Yes, sir. 



