COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 119 



Mr. Kendall. Well, I take it, then, your answer is what? I am 

 talking about prior to the bidding on November 1. Were they sub- 

 mitted to the design engineer and the Navy, or either one of them ? 



Mr. DeLong. Mr. Kendall, they would not have been submitted 

 ■liter the tender. 



Mr. Kendall. Let us see if we cannot answer this responsively, Mr. 

 DeLong. I take it your answer is either yes or no. Now let us get 

 the yes or no. 



Mr. DeLong. The reason my answer is the way it is is because it was 

 handled by our chief engineer, and I personally did not handle it or 

 have the agreement or present the papers. 



Mr. Kendall. You received a report from your engineer, did you 

 not ? _ 



Mr. DeLong. That is correct ; that it was approved and it was agreed 

 on. 



Mr. Kendall. Approved by whom ? 



Mr. DeLong. I have to go back and try to talk to some other people 

 and so forth, but I know one was Mr. Eutledge, the design engineer. 

 Whether it was with Captain Albers — evidently not, because Captain 

 Albers said that he had no prior agreement. But the desig-n engineers 

 submitted it in their design criteria, method of construction, and so 

 forth. So I think it was between the design engineer and ourselves, 

 and that there w^as no question in my chief engineer's mind or the de- 

 sign engineer's mind that the contracting officer would not approve 

 it. 



Mr. Kendall. In reviewing the bids that were received you were 

 low on everything but Texas tower No. 4, or any combination where 

 Texas tower No. 4 was involved ? 



Mr. DeLong. I believe that is correct. 



Mr. Kendall. Well, can you explain why you should be low on 

 towers No. 1 and No. 3, and more than a million dollars higher on 

 tower No. 4 ? Is there any reason for that that you can give us ? 



Mr. DeLong. Well, I think it is probably an evaluation of the 

 problems that made a difference. We made an estimate, evaluated 

 all the problems, the special equipment that we would have to use 

 and so forth, and put it in our estimate, a fair bid and we were not 

 successful. 



In the comparison of bids, tower No. 4 and tower No. 3 on the 

 face of it, makes you think it was lack of knowledge because the figures 

 are very close together, one tower with another, and one tower is in 

 80 feet and one tower is in 185 feet. 



depth of water is important cost factor in bidding 



Mr. Kendall. In other words, the greater depth of the water con- 

 tributed to a substantially increased cost ; is that what you mean ? 



Mr. DeLong. Always does. 



Mr. Kendall. Mr. DeLong, to get back to the erection process for 

 a moment, would you say that the loss of those diagonals during tow 

 was a serious structural mishap ? 



Mr. DeLong. Will you repeat the question, please ? 



Mr. Kendall. Would you say the loss of those diagonals during the 

 tow or erection was a serious structural mishap or defect ? 



Mr. DeLong. This, I would say, was quite a disaster. 



