"Q. Dr. Hostettler, one more question. You heard the description of some of the difficulties that were occurring on the job shortly after it commenced? "A. Yes.

"Q. Are you able to tell us whether or not these difficulties sound like something abnormal, or are these the normal difficulties of starting up a foam application?

"A. Well, of a job this size, they are certainly normal difficulties, particularly if you consider in a small hole 800, 900 feet down in the ground."

Viewing all the evidence, it is concluded that Polytron at least deserves "E for effort" throughout. The curtain was rung down on it very abruptly under the circumstances. In the end the comparison of the precast foam which was later used to the foam which was installed in May merely points up the basic impossibility of meeting the requirements under the circumstances. At the time Polytron could never have satisfied the Government under its interpretation of the specifications. Latex could not under relaxed specifications. E. I. Thompson could not under a research and development contract. There is a casual hiatus in the Government's contention with respect to quality. Last, the Government contends that the technique of the placement through the holes in the liners was a basic misconception. It takes the position that the testing sections should have been built up in sections or panels and the foam placed in layers behind the sections as they were built up. It is not clear from the evidence who conceived the idea of pressuring the foam through the holes. The technique was the subject of discussion at several meetings held in Las Vegas during the latter part of December, attended by all concerned. It does not appear from the memoranda recounting these meetings that the technique was suggested by Polytron. It seemed to have been the natural result of the difficulty of backpacking a liner of the type installed in Section C4b, referred to as a "Q Deck". Placing the foam in layers as suggested might have been feasible with the wooden liners in C3c and C3b. However, to place the foam through holes in the wooden forms was sensible because they could be easily removed and some correlation between the foam in boxes and the foam in place could be made. It was Mr. Jennings' memory that the method of pressuring foam through holes in the liners originated with Walsh. It seems sensible that Walsh would be primarily concerned with this aspect of the matter.

In conclusion, the one central idea that emerges from a study of the record as a whole is that strong pressures with respect to time permeated the whole undertaking. The prime contract provided that Walsh would have the whole complex complete and ready for tests within 150 days. This was indeed a sizable task. It was provided that a bonus of $600 a day would be paid for completion before 150 days to a limit of $6,000. A penalty of $600 a day would be imposed for each day's delay after the completion date to a limit of $6,000. It is noted that in May 1960 when Polytron placed its foam, Walsh had run into changed conditions and was behind schedule. No doubt this had some bearing on the abrupt ending of Polytron's effort.

Dr. Merritt on several occasions in his testimony remarked on the pressures with respect to time. As observed, it was clear that both he and Mr. Kwan were capable and careful structural engineers. However, in the end it is plain that the part of the specifications

dealing with polyurethane was hastily conceived and hastily executed. The Government representatives were moving into a very technical and esoteric realm of science which, admittedly, they knew nothing about. The only thing that they had at the time was Dr. Harding's letter of September 8. Certainly that letter contained a caveat. The body of the letter was prefaced:

"These polyurethane foam systems are quite a recent development and have not been studied in great detail yet from the point of view of structural applications. For any specific end use, some development work would almost certainly be required."

The tabulation of the values on page 3 concludes with a statement they were minimum values. Dissect the specification itself (refer to pages 2 and 3 of this decision). Note the reference in the first paragraph to foam manufactured by Union Carbide. It was estab lished that at the time Union Carbide did not manufacture polyurethane foam, but only manufactured certain of the resins or ingredients. Also in the same paragraph note the requirement of the "one-shot" process. Due to the exothermic heat generated by the "one-shot" process and the mechanical difficulties attendant to this type of application, it was not suited to the conditions in the tunnel. This requirement was abandoned. As stated, the values in the second paragraph were taken from Dr. Harding's letter, overlooking his statement that they were minimums. The third paragraph was applicable to foam placed behind the wooden liners typified by Sections C3c and C3b. It had no application to the metal liners typified by C4b and C6b. Last, as previously noted, the box test had no relevance to the operation as it was conceived. No doubt in the historical setting there was very good reason for the Government's haste. However, it would be unfair indeed for the Government's haste to waste Fenco's and Polytron's time and money. They should be made whole. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Contracting Officer to work out an equitable adjustment with Polytron and Fenco in accordance with this decision.

Prior to the hearing the appellants asked that the Contracting Officer audit their books in order that the amount of an equitable adjustment, if any was due, could be determined at the hearing. The Contracting Officer objected to this on the ground that it would be a waste of time and money if it was ultimately found that no adjustment was in order. The examiner agreed with this position and the hearing was limited to the determination of liability. At the hearing there was some discussion with respect to setting out criteria to be applied for an equitable adjustment if it was found that one was appropriate. The standards to be applied to these adjustments are very fluid and have not been fixed with precision. It would indeed be a mistake to try to set out rules in this connection in a vacuum.23 However, it seems appropriate to make one remark in this regard.

23 See Ginsburg, The Measure of Equitable Adjustments for Change Orders under FiredPrice Contracts, Mil. L. Rev., October 1961 (123); see Ribakoff, Equitable Adjustments under Government Contracts, Government Contracts Monograph No. 3 at 26, Geo. Wash. Univ. Law Center (1962); Spector, Confusion in the Concept of the Equitable Adjustment in Government Contracts, 22 Fed. B. J. 5 (1962); McBride, Confusion in the Concept of the Equitable Adjustments in Government Contracts: A Reply, 22 Fed. B. J. 235 (1962). Cf. Bruce Construction Corporation, et al. v. United States, 324 F. 2d 516 (Ct. Cl. 1963).

Some suggestion was made by counsel at the hearing that the cost of removing the foam placed by Latex should be included in any equitable adjustment. From the evidence at hand it appears that Latex did its work under a revised specification which it represented that it could meet. Accordingly, the basis of the decision does not apply to this phase of the operation.

This decision constitutes the findings and conclusions. Insofar as the findings and conclusions proposed by the appellants are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions of the decision, they are denied.

This decision becomes the final decision of the Commission within 30 days unless an appeal is taken within 20 days or unless the Commission decides to review the matter on its own motion.

E. RIGGS MCCONNELL,
Hearing Examiner.

When Mr. Shields of your company visited our campus recently, I had the pleasure of talking with him briefly about the properties of foamed plastics. He mentioned that you have been working with these materials for some time, and he suggested that you might be able to send us some information or tell us where we might find information on the strength properties and curing problems associated with foamed-in-place plastics.

Our need for this information arises from a research contract under which we have the responsibility to design a set of experiments involving the dynamic behavior of lined tunnels in rock. Our preliminary studies indicate that considerable advantage can be gained by completely surrounding the tunnels by a foamed plastic. To be practical, however, we must have a material which is not prohibitive in cost, which can be foamed in place within the void between the face of the tunnel and the lining, and which has an unconfined static compressive yield strength (not ultimate strength) which is not less than 50 psi nor more than approximately 200 psi. As an alternate to foaming the plastic in place within the void, even a greater practical advantage could be gained if it would be possible to spray a considerable thickness of the plastic over the rock face using a process similar to the gunite process in concrete.

Mr. Shields indicated that from his recollection a polyurethane foam will foam in place without special equipment to cure it. Also he recalled a static yield strength for this material of approximately 100 psi for a 4 lb./ft3 density. In addition he stated that the cost of this material is approximately $0.47/lb. and a cost of placing it of $0.05-$0.10/lb. Mr. Shields also noted that this material develops a hydrostatic pressure during curing of 25-30 psi if it is completely confined and a pressure of 3-4 psi during curing if it is not confined. Furthermore, Mr. Shields said that as he recalled the fumes given off during curing are noxious but they are not toxic; thus an industrial mask is recommended for use by the men placing the material. Apparently the fumes given off are predominantly carbon dioxide, and in the case we are concerned with oxygen may have to be supplied to the workmen since they may be in a confined space which may not allow free circulation. Mr. Shields suggested that you could confirm the above data which he recalled from memory. Also you might be able to indicate if workmen will require supplementary oxygen if they are confined in a tunnel approximately 6 ft. in diameter and 50 ft. long during placing of the foam.

Such

The above data is very encouraging for our purpose; however, from a group of reports from the University of Texas which describe their tests of materials for cushioning air-dropped materials, we learned that what is referred to as Urefoam which, I believe, is a polyurethane foam possesses a dynamic stressstrain curve which is practically linear up to the point of total destruction. a stress-strain curve is very undesirable for our purpose since we must have a material which will absorb a large amount of energy during deformation. Ideally the material we require should give a constant stress over a large part of the strain history, preferably at least from practically zero strain up to 50 per cent strain.

Consequently, we should greatly appreciate your sending us information regarding the following items if it is readily available. If it is not available we should appreciate also your telling us where we might find information for a foam which may meet our requirements as described below.

(1) Confirmation of Mr. Shields' remembered data.

(2) Static stress-strain curves from unconfined compression tests and/or from triaxial compression tests.

(3) Dynamic stress-strain curves from drop tests.

(4) Resistance to penetration of a mass of foam by a small mass either statically or dynamically forced into the foam.

785-389-66-53