J. L. Heacock, Jr., to the Purchasing Department requesting that the Purchasing Frank G. Stewart Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; C. F. Rohleder, Philadelphia, Pa.; Frank V. Warren, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.; Townsend Shroeder & Wood, Philadelphia, Pa.; for the repairs to the I. P. Morris fire damage; opening of the bids to be not later than 7 August. The Purchasing Department mailed the Proposal Forms, plans and specifications to the prospective bidders on 26 July 1941. 7. Upon examination of the copies of the Contract Documents handed to us by Mr. Heacock on 24 July, the specifications covering roofing construction and sash and skylights were still unsatisfactory in our opinion, and Mr. Bell and Lt. Davidson suggested that an amendment be sent out immediately revising these specifications. A corrected form (Addendum #2), Specification pages 2 of 16, 3 of 16, 5 of 16, and 6 of 16, and a revised proposal form, were handed to Lt. Davidson by Mr. Heacock about 5 p. m. on 30 July. It was noted by Lt. Davidson that the time for opening of bids had been changed on the revised proposal form from 10 a. m. 7 August to 12 noon 2 August. Lt. Davidson immediately took exception to the revision in date, stating that the earlier date for receipt of bids did not allow sufficient time for contractors to assemble the necessary information and prices, and to prepare an intelligent bid for the work. Mr. Heacock stated that this date had been changed on instructions from the management. Lt. Davidson called Comdr. Weyerbacher by telephone and objected to the changing of the date for opening of bids. Comdr. Weyerbacher became quite indignant, stating that the contractors had already had the plans almost a week, and that that should be ample time to prepare their quotations. Lt. Davidson was very insistent that more time be allowed, particularly in view of revisions to Specifications and Amendments that were being sent out, and after considerable conversation, Comdr. Weyerbacher agreed to advance the date from 2 August to 4 August, thus giving prospective bidders an additional week-end to prepare their bids. Lt. Davidson told Comdr. Weyerbacher that he thought the original date of 7 August should be adhered to, but Comdr. Weyerbacher was unwilling to delay receipt of bids longer than 4 August, because the repairs to the I. P. Morris buildings had already been delayed too long, and the increasing need for use of the buildings and prospect of bad weather during the Fall months made it imperative that this work be expedited. 8. A corrected form (Addendum 3, page 1 of 1) and Specification page 4 of 16 were handed Lt. Davidson about 5 p. m. on 31 July. 9. It is to be noted that the Cramp Shipbuilding Company did not inform the Supervisors' office formally or specifically of the proposed change in time for receipt of bids on this project, but that representatives of the Supervisor's office discovered this change by examination of the corrected documents submitted on 30 July. 10. C. F. Rohleder was the low bidder for the repair work and was awarded the contract at a lump sum of $64,644. EXHIBIT No. 245 R. A. DAVIDSON 10/16/41. P. O. 1692 Contract for Craneway foundations North and South of Building 20 and Extension to Shipways E and F. Weyerbacher suggested that the work involved in this contract be given to Rohleder on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee basis. Davidson contended that Rohleder was a building contractor and not equipped to do this class of work. W. stated that all contracting today was done by general contractors who sublet the individual portions to others. D. stated on the job in question that Miller, Engineers of Wash., D. C., had prepared a complete set of drawings and a comprehensive set of specifications and that there was no undue hazard or unusual condition existing and conse quently no need for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. D. suggested that the work be advertised for bids on a lump sum basis. This was done; C. F. Rohleder was low bidder. Copy: MBR, 10/16/41. SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING, U. S. N., (CRAMP SHIPBUILDING Co.), Philadelphia, Pa., 11 August 1941. Confidential: [Ink note:] This letter not sent out. See file for another letter written later— same subject. Superseded by L24 (PE) (4017), dated 12 Aug. 1941. R. A. D. From: Supervisor of Shipbuilding, U. S. N., Philadelphia, Pa. To: Admiral W. G. DuBose, Cramp Shipbuilding Company, Philadelphia, Pa. Subject: Supplemental Contract NOd-1550-Steel Doors and Siding for Shipshed. 1. Sealed bids to be received at 10 A. M., August 11, 1941, were requested by the Cramp Shipbuilding Company from the following concerns: (a) Detroit Steel Products Co., 17th & Sansom Sts., Phila., Pa. (b) Byrne Doors, Inc., Washington, D. C. (c) C. F. Rohleder, Phila., Pa. (d) Truscon Steel Co., Phila., Pa. (e) J. S. Thorn Co., Phila., Pa. (f) J. Edward Ogden, New York, N. Y. 2. C. F. Rohleder was the only invitee that submitted a proposal for the work. An employee of the Cramp Company stated that Truscon Steel Company, and J. S. Thorn Company had been contacted by telephone and had declined to bid. J. Edward Ogden called at the plant but declined to bid because of the time limit set for completion of the work, and because the doors were of a special design and he could not bid on furnishing other than his standard design in the period of time specified. Cramp Shipbuilding Company officials state that all bidders who declined to bid did so verbally. No written statements were received. 3. It has been further stated by the Cramp Company officials that the Detroit Steel Products Company are in some manner affiliated with the Byrne Doors Company, who have collaborated with Mr. Rohleder in submitting his bid. This automatically reduces the number of invited bidders to four, some of whom are known not to be manufacturers nor erectors of special doors. 4. A representative of the Supervisor's office requested that the one bid received not be opened until after the matter could be discussed with the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. 5. A Cramp Company employee stated that the amount of the Rohleder bid was known to him and that it was in excess of the amount available for this item of construction, and probably would not be acceptable. This would seem to be a violation of the letter and spirit of the agreement between the Cramp Company and the Supervisor's office to obtain sealed bids covering facility contract proposals. 6. It is suggested that more favorable action might be received if door manufacturers were requested to submit bids based on their own specifications and designs, and manufactured to dimensions to fit requirements and give satisfactory operation. (Copy: MBR, 10/16/41.) MEMORANDUM FOR DESK FILE R. T. HANSON. 8/28/41. At 2 p. m., on 27 August 1941, Commander Weyerbacher, Mr. Dustin, and Mr. Rohleder called at this office for the purpose of discussing the proposed closures for the South end of Building 20. It was stated by Weyerbacher that a Mr. Dunkle, from Detroit, representing the Byrne Door Company, had called on him last week and, after some negotiation, had stated that the price of approximately $31,000.00 submitted for the door construction was his lowest figure. Weyerbacher and Rohleder think this price too high and came to discuss a substitution. Acting upon a previous suggestion of Weyerbacher, Rohleder had contacted some organization for prices to furnish a canvas enclosure which could be hoisted in folds. The price for the canvas suggested was $4,000.00, which, together with additional sash, glazing, and siding, total an estimated amount of $52,000 to close the South end of Building 20. At this point Mr. Rohleder presented a pencil copy of an estimate in the amount of $52,000.00. Weyerbacher asked how much this estimate would be reduced if the enclosures were made except for the area to be occupied by the bascule doors. Rohleder stated that the estimate would be reduced $4,000.00 (the amount of the canvas canopy). In glancing over the penciled estimate submitted by Mr. Rohleder, it was noted that one of the large items was 52 tons of structural steel, estimated at $130.00 per ton for furnishing, and $75.00 per ton for erection. Offhand and without analysis, this erection price seemed high and Davidson so stated. Weyerbacher suggested that a Mr. Ogden, of New York, be contacted to see what sort of proposition he could offer in regard to furnishing the doors. Mr. Rohleder stated that he had contacted Ogden, but that Ogden claimed he could not meet the specified completion dates so he did not bother with him further. According to Rohleder, Ogden has similar, if not better, type of door than that specified. Dustin thinks it is better. At this point, Mr. Rohleder produced a letter from Ogden stating that the time specified in the proposal was too short for the manufacture and completion of the proposed doors. It was noted that this letter was dated prior to the receipt of bids by the Cramp Company for this door construction and Davidson mentioned this fact. Rohleder stated that he had contacted Ogden at that time and Davidson stated that in reality then, while the Cramp Co. had invited 6 or 7 companies to submit proposals for the work, Rohleder was "playing ball" with all of these invitees and, consequently, the Cramp Company could expect to get only one bid. Rohleder said he was "playing ball" with anyone he could. Weyerbacher asked Rohleder if he had been in touch with Ogden within the past week. Rohleder said no, since Ogden could not meet the specified dates he had neglected him. Weyerbacher suggested that even though Ogden could not perform the work in the required time that he didn't think it would matter if he could meet other specifications and suggested that Rohleder call Ogden in for a conference. Davidson suggested that, if the Cramp Company desired to keep the cost down to a minimum, it would seem logical to deal directly with the door manufacturer for the required doors and with the general contractor only for the siding and necessary sash and glazing, because by dealing with the general contractor for the doors a duplication of profit would enter in whereby the door manufacturer would have to have his profit and the general contractor his profit also. Inasmuch as the sash and siding are for the most part independent of the door construction there is no reason why the work could not be separated. Rohleder stated he would be willing to undertake the work for cost and let Davidson decide what his profit would be if he did a good job. There was considerable conversation concerning the cost of the enclosure without the bascule doors, and Rohleder stated the estimated work amounted to approximately $22,000.00. Weyerbacher asked Rohleder who he got figures from. Rohleder replied that he was working with Thorn on this particular job. Weyerbacher decided the best thing was to call in Mr. Ogden. Rohleder stated that Ogden would want a week or ten days to prepare designs and estimates and said that he didn't know whether he could have this much time as Weyerbacher was pushing him. Weyerbacher thought that the time could be allowed for estimating purposes for the doors if they could get a start on the other work while waiting for the total estimates to come through. Mr. Dustin would like to have a unit cost for enclosing the North and South end, even though enclosure of the South end only was at present contemplated. There was considerable discussion about the possibility and inadvisability of changing the design of doors in an effort to decrease costs. Davidson again stated that inasmuch as the Cramp Company had invited Ogden to bid on the work originally, that they should ask him to come in for negotiation instead of having Mr. Rohleder negotiate with him. [s] R. A. DAVIDSON. Copy: MBR 10/16/41. MEMORANDUM FOR DESK FILE At 5 p. m. on 28 August 1941, Mr. G. F. Rohleder and Mr. C. W. Dustin called at my office for the purpose of discussing enclosure to the South end of Building 20. Mr. Dustin stated that it was extremely important that the South end of Building 20 be enclosed at the earliest possible date. Pending a proposition on the lift doors, it was his suggestion negotiations be carried on with Mr. Rohleder to do all the enclosure work, with the exception of the special doors, either as a supplement under purchase order 787 (a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract covering rehabilitation of buildings 20, 28, and 33), or as a portion of purchase order 3698 (a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract covering various items of the shipyard facilities). There was considerable discussion led by Davidson relative to the procedure necessary to negotiate for a cost-plus-a-fee contract, and to obtain the Bureau of Ships' approval; whereas, a lump-sum contract was more desirable. Mr. Dustin then suggested that the Cramp Company negotiate with Mr. Rohleder for the work on a lump-sum basis. Davison suggested that if the work were to be awarded on a lump-sum basis, several concerns should be invited to bid and the work awarded to the lowest competent bidder. Mr. Dustin said that an attempt had been made to get lump-sum bids for this work and that they had received only one bid; namely, that of Mr. Rohleder and that it was entirely in order to negotiate with Mr. Rohleder to do the work on a lump-sum basis even though they were unwilling to accept the original lump-sum bid. Davidson pointed out that their rejection of the original lump-sum bid and the complete change of plan to enclose only the south end of building 20 and possibly change the design of doors, would seem to nullify the original advertisement for bids and work should be readvertised. Rohleder and Dustin both stated that only one bid had been received and Davidson suggested that possibly more would have been received had the work not been "sewed-up." At this remark Mr. Rohleder became very indignant and stated that although he had "played ball" with all the other concerns invited to bid on the work that he had in no way prevented them from submitting a bid and that he didn't do business that way. Davidson explained that that was meant by the remark was not as Mr. Rohleder had taken it, but rather the meaning was that the Cramp Company had hired a consulting engineer to design the special doors for building 20 and that the designers had, it is understood, collaborated with the Byrne Door Company essentially using their design and that Mr. Rohleder in preparing his bid collaborated with the Byrne Door Company for the erection of the doors, so that it was natural, under the circumstances, for the Cramp Company to expect to receive only one proposal for the work. Davidson further stated that he was sorry Mr. Rohleder had taken the remark as he did because it had not been intended in that meaning. Mr. Dustin stated that he was still anxious to get the work of enclosing the South end of building 20 under way. Davidson stated that the Cramp Company were free to negotiate with any contractors they felt advisable to negotiate with or to advertise the work for bids on a lump-sum basis and that it was only required that a representative of the Supervisor's office be present during negotiations and to approve the action taken by the Cramp Company. Mr. Dustin and Mr. Rohleder left at 5:40 p. m., Mr. Dustin stating that he intended to discuss the matter further with Commander Weyerbacher and would contact Davidson further in regard to the subject work. L. J. Pilot: Trackwork__- W. M. Anderson: Test boilers, Lump Sum__ Pantano: Demolition, Lump Sum---- Dravo Corp.: Boilers & Compressors, Cost-plus-a-fixed-fee__ Leo Dawson: Sand blasting, Lump Sum___. Raymond Conc. Pile Co.: Test Borings, Unit Price- Bethlehem Steel Co.: Structural Steel, Unit Price_ American Dredging Co.: Dredging, Unit Price_ SEPTEMBER 1, 1941. H. T. Potts: Fencing, Lump Sum-- Turner Const. Co.: Shipways, Lump Sum__. McDonnell Hauling & Rigging Co.: O. H. Cranes, Lump Sum__ Total----- Total value of contracts in yard------ C. F. Rohleder has.. All others____. 1 Approx. 54% of total value. 46% of total value. 100% Copy: MBR, 10/16/41. SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING, U. S. N. (CRAMP SHIPBUILDING CO.) Philadelphia, Pa. [Ink note:] This letter was not sent out. Superseded by L11-1 (5499) dated 5 Sept. 1941-R. A. D. L11–1 (5499.) From: Supervisor of Shipbuilding, U. S. N., Phila., Pa. 4 SEPTEMBER 1941. Subject: Cramp Shipbuilding Company Purchase Order 5885-Repairs to Fire Damage-Buildings 27, 38, 39, and 44-Roofing Repairs under allowance Set Up in Contract. Reference: (a) Sup. Letr. L11-1 (5268) to Cramp S. B. Co., dated 8/25/41. (b) Cramp S. B. Co. Letr. L24/L11-1/L4-2 over (15063) to Sup-Ship., dated 8/20/41. (c) Purchase Order 5885, Construction Agreement between Cramp S. B. Co. and Charles F. Rohleder. (d) Warren-Ehret Co. Letr. to Cramp S. B. Co. (Repair Proposal, dated 5/22/41). (e) Cramp S. B. Co. Letr. L24/L11-1/L4-2 over (15081) to Sup. Ship., dated 8/29/41. 1. The Supervisor's Office adheres to the opinion expressed in reference (a) that additional roofing replacements made necessary due to demolition operations and structure repair is the obligation of the general contractor under the terms of his lump sum contract, reference (c). |