Mr. BONNY. Yes, in the light of the knowledge that we had then, we purchased the equipment

Mr. FURCOLO. I am not trying

Mr. BONNY. And we conferred with the district engineer in the purchase of the equipment, which was purchased on his order and related specifically to the job, and we thought and still think that the equipment would be satisfactory.

INSPECTION OF MATERIALS BY CONSTRUCTOR

Mr. FURCOLO. With reference to the materials used, with the specific approval by the district engineer, I had intended to ask you why you did not inspect the material yourself. But your answer, I assume, would be the same if you had done so? I assume you would say it would have been a duplication of cost, and so on.

Mr. WILBUR. Our inspection was entirely a visual inspection.

ADEQUACY OF QUALITY OF FINISHED PRODUCT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT INSPECTIONS BY CONSTRUCTOR

Mr. FURCOLO. Now, just to conclude, I would like to ask one over-all question. In your answers, we have gone through briefly the allegations listed in A-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I have gathered from your answers, that you are in effect saying that not only the district engineer or someone else was of the opinion this was the thing to do but I gather that Atlas itself felt, and that you feel today, that it was the proper thing to do. I gather your answers in summary mean that the work was done properly in your judgment, as independent of anyone else, and that the tests made were correctly made.

Mr. BONNY. Yes; we feel that the circumstances under which the work had to be performed and the other circumstances of military exigency, which was present, and the necessity for using the equipment and materials we had, we think that the work was performed as well as it could have been performed, practically, under the circumstances. Mr. FURCOLO. And if you had had to make your own decision on these things it would have been about the same as the district engineer? Mr. BONNY. That is correct.

Mr. FURCOLO. I have gathered from the testimony here today that apparently you did not have the right to make inspections. You made the statement that you were not permitted to at one place. Other statements here made point out that the costs would have gone up, and there would have been a certain amount of duplication. The question I want to ask you is this: Do you feel that is a good thing or a bad thing? In other words, whether there was extra cost or extra duplication, might it have been desirable on a job such as this? Would it have been advantageous in the long run for the Government if you people were permitted to make such duplicate inspections if you felt it should be done? Or do you believe it best to have done it this way?

We would like to have the benefit of your knowledge and experience for any possible recommendations we might make.

Mr. BONNY. I do not think that it would have been proper or that it would have improved the final product in any case to have placed additional responsibility on the contractor for inspection functions in

addition to construction functions. I do not think anything would have been gained by it, and I think that this situation would not have been changed at all had we had the obligation or privilege of inspection.

I believe that action was taken in order to secure reasonable facilities that we would not have taken under conditions of normal operation, normal requirements. I have one illustration in mind which I believe will clear up the question you may have in mind; let me just take a moment.

Mr. FURCOLO. Yes.

Mr. BONNY. The material was approved on the gravel pit for use closest to the existing construction. The crusher run material used might have been since criticized. It is our opinion that there was no alternative available material, no alternative for the use of this material. And in view of those circumstances it is our understanding that particular pit was approved by the district engineer, by the architect-engineer and in turn approved and used by us. The practical facts of the matter are that the closest rock quarry where satisfactory stone, crushed stone could have been secured, was about 15 miles farther away from the runway and had we undertaken to use that, we did not have the equipment nor the facilities, and it would not have been possible in the time allowed to go the 15 miles to that rock quarry and transport that material the additional 15 miles and get the job done in the time required.

The decision had been made, and while it was not our decision, it was our opinion that the material was the best material at hand for

use.

Now, it apparently has developed later than the material carried a higher clay content than was at first thought, and apparently the pit did not extend, or the material was not as consistent as it appeared to be at first, and a considerable period of pretesting before using the material would have shown that, probably, but there was no time. It would have taken 3 or 4 weeks of proper testing of the material, had it been done, and we think that the material was proper for use there for the purpose, and we think the damage that was done as a result of getting wet was something that would have been prevented by proper drainage and that it would serve the purpose with reasonable maintenance and with some repair. That is our opinion.

(Off-record discussion.)

Mr. BONNY. The fact of the matter is that we attempted to get the correct answer. The district engineer is the authority. Mr. FURCOLO. Yes.

Mr. BONNY. The only authority we had. We actually have no right to express an opinion as to the action taken, because there is a military consideration about which we were not advised or privileged to be advised.

Mr. FURCOLO. Yes.

Mr. BONNY. The opinion I just expressed is our opinion, and it did concur with the district engineer, but as a matter of fact, it was not our privilege to express an opinion at all.

Mr. FURCOLO. I understand.

Mr. BONNY. On the point involved.

TIMING ON THE FORMULATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Mr. RILEY. Am I under the correct impression that no advance specifications had been formulated, but that specifications were formulated on the ground as the work progressed?

Mr. WILBUR. We had no specifications when we purchased our equipment, and when we started operation. I think that Mr. McClary might give you the facts on that.

Mr. McCLARY. I would like to take just a moment, because there has been some confusion on this question of specifications, and if I may I would like to explain that.

Mr. RILEY. We would like to have the explanation.

Mr. MCCLARY. The contract dated January 3, 1951, between Atlas Constructors and the United States Government provided that work would be done on airfields in the north African area, would be done in two phases, and sets forth the directions as to directives to be followed in performing the work. These are contained here in part. For the first phase

the contractor shall * * * do all things necessary for the construction and completion of five airfields, and Air Force headquarters, P. O. L. facilities, global communications and related work in north Africa area which sites are to be selected by the contracting officer, details of which are described in but not limited by appendix A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

The first to be done was the initial crash program; and the second phase was the finishing up, and there was about a 2-year longer time after the crash program.

Mr. RILEY. We are not so much interested in that here.

Mr. McCLARY. But the second phase of the work is that portion of the entire project described herein less the first phase described above:

The second phase shall be completed in accordance with the drawings and specification or instructions contained in appendix A hereto attached and made a part hereof, or to be furnished hereafter by the contracting officer and subject to his supervision, direction, and instructions.

In other words, the contractor was to get plans and specifications after the first phase of this work had been completed, and after this work had been completed, there would be time for the second phase.

OPINION OF CONSTRUCTOR AS TO ADEQUACY OF PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS

Mr. RILEY. In that connection, let me ask you a question: In the formulation of specifications and plans for this initial crash program, were you ever asked for your opinion or advice as to whether or not they were adequate?

Mr. McCLARY. We had no way of judging; we had never seen the ground.

Mr. RILEY. I am talking about after you got on the ground; were there any conferences between you and the architect-engineer or the engineers?

Mr. MCCLARY. Yes.

Mr. RILEY. As to the adequacy of the construction?

Mr. McCLARY. Yes; many times. And in our opinion it was sufficient and adequate under the circumstances indicated.

Mr. RILEY. Did you concur, in any of these preconferences, that the formulated specifications for the work on the ground in your opinion was adequate?

Mr. McCLARY. So far as we know, in the opinion of the men who were doing the job, that is correct. We do not know of any specific example where they discussed the bases in question until they were given a directive.

Mr. RILEY. I have just one other question, and then Mr. Davis will take over.

CRITERIA FOR DEPTH OF ASPHALT REQUIRED

Is it your thought that, in road construction where traffic is light, sometimes you have used as little as 2 inches of asphalt on the base? Mr. McCLARY. That is right; the asphalt is normally for the wearing top, and is designed to meet whatever demands, for whatever use is going to be made of it.

Mr. RILEY. It is that 2 inches is considered the minimum, or do you ever have less?

Mr. MCCLARY. There are areas where you have less, where the traffic would be light, or something of that kind. Then it depends entirely on the use to which it is put.

Mr. RILEY. But for heavy traffic you always have as much as 4 inches?

Mr. McCLARY. That is particularly true of airfield construction. Mr. RILEY. Mr. Davis.

INSPECTIONS BY SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO AIR INSPECTOR GENERAL

Mr. DAVIS. Can we assume that James Wise, designated as Special Assistant to the Air Inspector General, was one of the inspectors in north Africa?

Mr. WILBUR. He was just there for an inspection, and did not continue on the job.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have a general idea as to how much time he actually spent in north Africa?

Mr. WILBUR. I do not have that myself.

Mr. McCLARY. As far as we know, 10 days or some similar period. I do not know offhand of any longer period of time. I could not swear he was not there for, a longer period of time; but, as far as I know, he was not.

Mr. DAVIS. To the best of your knowledge, did he ever consult with any representatives of your company relative to the quality of the work being done?

Mr. McCLARY. We checked on the allegations, with the man who was in charge of our asphalt department, and he told us that Mr. Wise never talked to him; and, to the best of my knowledge, he did not talk to any of our people. These are statements from the man at the head of the asphalt department.

COMPLAINTS OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO AIR INSPECTOR GENERAL

Mr. DAVIS. So far as you are informed, then, after conferring with the representative on proper management of your organization, the

first knowledge you had of Mr. Wise's complaints were the allegations that he made in testimony before the Johnson committee in the Senate; is that correct?

Mr. WILBUR. That is right.

Mr. DAVIS. Each of you say it is correct?

Mr. McCLARY. Yes.

Mr. BONNY. Yes.

Mr. WILBUR. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. In the general course of defense, as I understand the relations, any complaints that he would have had to make ordinarily would have gone to the Corps of Engineers rather than to you as the contracting concern?

Mr. McCLARY. That is right.

Mr. DAVIS. Did any representative of the Corps of Engineers ever inform you of any complaints that Mr. Wise had made to representatives of the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. McCLARY. Not to my personal knowledge.

Mr. BONNY. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. WILBUR. And not to my knowledge.

BASIS FOR COMPLAINTS

Mr. DAVIS. I assume that you have checked into the complaints since they were made before the Johnson committee in the Senate. What is your best information as to where he got the basis for the statements that he made before the Senate committee?

Mr. WILBUR. He apparently checked with some of the architectengineer people, and the Corps of Engineers people, but certainly he did not check with all of them, because the inspector at the time at the asphalt plant since has given us an entirely different story than Mr. Wise came back with, with reference to the control of the asphaltconcrete mix.

Mr. DAVIS. This was the representative of the Corps of Engineers? Mr. WILBUR. The representative of the architect-engineer and the inspector at the asphalt plant.

Mr. McCLARY. I personally talked to the inspector at the asphalt plant at Nouaseur about this. It so happens that, when these allegations started to come in, I went out to try to find out on what basis they were made. I went to the asphalt plant at Nouaseur and talked to the architect-engineer, the inspector, and the resident engineer.

Mr. DAVIS. I think perhaps you had better give us his name.

Mr. MCCLARY. Davitt or Devitt, and with the information that we could obtain from Mr. Devitt in the discussion on that point, to the best of my knowledge, relating to this-and certainly the record bore it out-the asphalt mix is as we have told you gentlemen here. Where Mr. Wise got his information, particularly with reference to Nouaseur, I do not know, and I could not find out.

Mr. McNUTT. And you tried to find out.

Mr. McCLARY. And I tried to find out; yes.

(Off-record discussion.)

Mr. DAVIS. Is it fair to assume that you would have made some independent check, as you told Mr. Furcolo that you did not feel