Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall the eason why you wanted the home addresses of these persons?

Mr. STROBEL. I wanted to get in touch with them as fast as possible, and I wanted to deal with those people as individuals, not necessarily as members of these firms.

Mr. MALETZ, And subsequently, it is correct, is it not, that you personally signed contracts with Mr. Erickson and Mr. Lundin?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.
Mr. MALETZ. To review Public Buildings Service standards.
Mr. STROBEL. As members of the panel.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that this job required about 2 months' work?

Mr. STROBEL. No; actually it required more than that. I think it took them approximately 5 months to submit their reports, which was a very big volume.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall what the compensation was to Mr. Lundin and to Mr. Erickson?

Mr. STROBEL. I think the compensation was in the magnitude of $3,000, and I might add, a very nominal sum, considering the time we required from these people as principals.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it your testimony now, Mr. Strobel, that your listing of Wilcox & Erickson as a client of Strobel & Salzman was an error?

Mr. STROBEL. I think it was an error; yes, sir.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, you testified on Wednesday that you are acquainted with Robert & Co., of Atlanta, Ga.?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it not a fact that in the latter part of 1954 Robert & Co. made efforts to help Strobel & Salzman get an engineering contract from the city of Dearborn, Mich., to design an incinerator plant?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right. As I explained, Mr. Robert and some of his men in the firm of Robert & Co. Associates, architect-engineers, are interested in International Incinerator, Inc., which is the licensed holder for a patent on incinerators, and I think the particular reference you make was a case where the office of the International Incinerator asked us if we, if Strobel & Salzman, were interested in possibly taking on engineering work from the city. I think it was Dearborn.

We had had experience in that particular incinerator working out the contract we had with the city of New York.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, will you examine three documents, and tell the committee whether you can identify these documents?

(The documents were examined by the witness.)
Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.
Mr. MALETZ. Are those documents true and accurate?
Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer these documents in record at this point.

Mr. STROBEL. I should like to explain-
Mr. MalETz. Excuse me. I want to identify these documents.

MALETZ
The first is dated March 31, 1954.

Mr. KEATING. Would you read them, or let me see them?
Mr. MALETZ. Certainly.

These documents establish, do they not, that Robert & Co. sought to help Strobel & Salzman get a contract with the city of Dearborn in March 1954 ?

[ocr errors]

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.

Mr. MALETZ. The first document I offer in evidence is dated March 31, 1954, a letter from Frank M. Tobin, vice president and general manager of International Incinerators, Inc., to Strobel & Salzman.

That company, I take it, is an affiliate of Róbert & Co.?

Mr. STROBEL. Not exactly, although I understand that Mr. Robert has a financial interest in the company.

Mr. MALETZ. And attached to that letter is a letter dated March 26, 1954, from William Sharpe, engineering division of the city of Dearborn, to Robert & Co.

The third document is a copy of the letter from Robert & Co. to the city of Dearborn, Mich., dated March 30, 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be accepted in the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

INTERNATIONAL INCINERATORS, INC.,

Atlanta, Ga., March 31, 1954. STROBEL & SALZMAN,

New York, N. Y. (Attention Mr. Peter A. Strobel.) DEAR MR. STROBEL: Enclosed please find the original letter from Dearborn, Mich., addressed to Robert & Co., and Mr. Hicklin's reply to these people.

We have had a considerable amount of contact with both Mr. Sharpe, who wrote the letter, and Mr. Hoxle, director of public works in that town. In fact, at present they are using a moving picture film which we made up on our incinerator in an effort to sell the people in Dearborn on using our type of incinerator.

It is thought that you possibly might like to contact these people in your capacity as consulting engineers, and you know that we would very much wish to have you handle this work if you can see your way clear to do so.

In the event that you are interested in discussing this matter with these people, please be advised that we will give you any or all help that we possibly can on the survey which the city seems to require, exclusive of spending actual time in the field. Very truly yours,

FRANK M. TOBIN,
Vice President and General Manager.

CITY OF DEARBORN,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,

March 26, 1954.
ROBERT & Co. ASSOCIATES,
Architects and Engineers,

Atlanta, Ga. GENTLEMEN: A municipal refuse incinerator is being planned for Dearborn and Melvindale. The two communities are about to form a refuse authority and have an incinerator built. It has been recommended that a consulting engineer with incineration experience be retained by the authority. If your firm is interested, it is suggested that you forward a record of your past experience in municipal incineration work to this office.

Dearborn's present population is approximately 115,000 and Melvindale's population is about 12,000. Dearborn has some record of refuse quantities while Melvindale is now having a refuse study made. An engineering refuse study for the city of Dearborn by the consultant will probably be necessary before the consultant prepares plans and specifications for the incinerator and building. Yours very truly,

WILLIAM SHARPE,
Engineering Division.

ROBERT & Co. ASSOCIATES,

Atlanta, March 1954. CITY OF DEARBORN, Dearborn, Mich. (Attention: Mr. William Sharpe, Engineering Division, Department of

Public Works.) GENTLEMEN: We have your letter of March 26 regarding a municipal refuse incinerator for Dearborn and Melvindale.

While we handle incinerators in this section of the country, since Dearborn is pretty much out of our normal territory for this kind of work we feel that perhaps you could be better served by an engineering firm in your section of the country.

We greatly appreciate your contacting us in this regard and if you are unable to work it out satisfactorily with someone in your section or if we can be of any further assistance to you in this regard we will appreciate your advising. Yours very truly,

R. G. HICKLIN, Vice President, Mr. STROBEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this, even though the top letter is addressed to my attention, I had nothing personal to do with what subsequent action, if any, was taken on that issue.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, I take it that Strobel & Salzman actually did not get the engineering contract from the city of Dearborn, Mich.

Mr. STROBEL. As far as I recall, they did not.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall writing to Robert & Co. on June 20, 1950, soliciting business from Robert & Co. ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.
Mr. MALETZ. You have before

you a copy
of a letter which

you

sent on June 20, 1950, to Robert & Co.?

Mr. STROBEL. Right.
Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer this document in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. Accepted.
(The document referred to is as follows:)

JUNE 20, 1950. ROBERT & COMPANY ASSOCIATES, 96 Poplar Street, Atlanta, Ga.

(Attention of Mr. A. G. Standford, vice president.) GENTLEMEN : Mr. George Nielsen of F. L. Smidth & Company told me that he mentioned our firm to you in regard to a possible New York City installation of the patented incinerator.

This letter is, therefore, being written to acquaint you with the types of work which we have done and also to let you know that we would be pleased to cooperate with your office as local structural engineers and permit applicants.

Enclosed is a brief descriptive list of some of the projects completed by us, which will give you an idea of the varieties and classes of work performed by our organization. The writer also wishes to mention the fact that he has, for many years, known Mr. Frederick H. Zurmuhler, commissioner of public works of New York City.

We are, of course, interested in the structural design phase of the work, but will be pleased to lend our assistance in introducing this incinerator in the New York territory. Very truly yours,

STROBEL & SALZMAN, By PETER A. STROBEL.

Partial list of structural engineering projects
Description of projeot

Approximate cost 12-story department store building, Best & Co., New York, N. Y.- $4,000,000 15-story addition and alteration, printing building, New York Times, New York, N. Y.

5,000,000 Manufacturing plant and laboratory, Ortho Pharmaceutical Co., Bridgewater Township, N. J---

1,000,000 Food processing plant and warehouse (earthquake design), H. J. Heinz Co., Tracy, Calif..

2,500,000 Medical and surgical buildings (12, 7, and 4 stories), Central Islip State Hospital, Islip, N. Y.

6,000,000 Junior High School No. 71, Brooklyn, N. Y..

1,000,000 Junior High School No. 117, Brooklyn, N. Y.

1,000,000 Magnesia manufacturing plant and warehouse, Charles H. Phillips Co., Gulfport, Miss----

800,000 Shopping center, Ridgeway, Conn.-

1, 000, 000 Children's group, Marcy State Hospital for State of New York_

800, 000 Alteration and addition, railroad station, Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., Roanoke, Va-

1,000,000 Manufacturing plant, A. G. Spalding & Bros. Inc., Willimansett, Mass.

1, 200,000 Plant for Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc., Stratford, Conn.

1, 200, 000 7 units, 14 stories, Sedgwick houses for New York City Housing Authority

7,000,000 Swimming pool and bleachers at Jacob Riis Park, N. Y-

1,000,000 Recreation Center, outdoor and indoor swimming pools, St. Mary's Park, Bronx, N. Y------

1, 100, 000 Young Recreation Center playground, New York, N. Y..

700,000 Talc mining and processing plant, Gouverneur Talc Co., Balmat, N. Y.--

2,500,000 Industrial and Technical Building, Home Economics Building, Ad

ministration and Classroom Building-Farmingdale Agricultural and Technical Institute, Farmingdale, N. Y.; for the State of New York----

6, 500, 000 Esso Office Building, Baton Rouge, La---

2,500,000 Cosmotron Building for Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N. Y.

1, 000, 000 Research Center for Johnson & Johnson, Milltown, N. J-

1,500,000 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-unit armories for the Organized Reserve Corps under

the Corps of Engineers.
Catenary airplane hangars, 130 feet by 160 feet for the Corps of

Engineers, including Technical Manual TM5-9728.
Portable 160 feet by 200 feet, all-steel hangar for the Corps of Engin-

eers, including Technical Manual TM5–9621.
Several jobs for F. L. Smidth & Co., in connection with their cement-

plant work.
The CHAIRMAN. Read it.
Mr. MALETZ. This is from you to Robert & Co. [Reading :)

[ ROBERT & Co., ASSOCIATES,

Atlanta, Ga. (Attention of Mr. A. G. Stanford, vice president.) GENTLEMEN : Mr. George Nielsen, of F. L. Smidth & Co., told me that he mentioned our firm to you in regard to a possible New York City installation of the patented incinerator.

This letter is, therefore, being written to acquaint you with the types of work which we have done and also to let you know that we would be pleased to cooperate with your office as local structural engineers and permit applicants.

Enclosed is a brief descriptive list of some of the projects completed by us, which will give you an idea of the varieties and classes of work performed by our organization. The writer also wishes to mention the fact that he has, for many years, known Mr. Frederick H. Zurmuhler, commissioner of public works for New York City.

We are, of course, interested in the structural design phase of the work, but will be pleased to lend our assistance in introducing this incinerator in the New York territory. Very truly yours,

STROBEL & SALZMAN,

By PETER A. STROBEL. Do you recall, Mr. Strobel, testifying on Wednesday that Robert & Co. was engaged by Strobel & Salzman as subcontractors to draw up plans and specifications for a patented incinerator?

Mr. STROBEL. I testified that they were engaged as subcontractors to furnish plans and specifications covering the patent incinerator. This letter does not indicate what actually took place later on, in this respect, that Strobel & Salzman became the prime contractor with the city of New York. It was a large incinerator alteration.

The construction cost is running to 6 million, I believe.

I would like to say that part of the work that Robert & Co. did in that contract amounted to, I believe, approximately 17 drawings out of the total set of drawings of 140, plus or minus.

I am mentioning those figures to indicate the rather small part of the work.

Mr. MALETZ. When was Robert & Co. engaged by Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. That was subsequent to this letter here. I don't know exactly what year it was.

Mr. MALETZ. Would it be in 1954?
Mr. STROBEL. No; I think it might have been earlier,

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall you testified on Wednesday that on or about February 7, 1955, while you were in Atlanta on GSA business, you had some discussions with Robert & Co. concerning this project?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. I take it it was with regard to the subcontract which Robert & Co. had taken with Salzman & Strobel ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.
Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Strobel-

Mr. FINE. I just want to get that clarified. I remember the testimony that Mr. Strobel gave, that he spoke to Mr. Robert, or somebody down in Atlanta, Ga., about what had happened to this incinerator plant that had been in operation for a long time before, or a contract had been let for some time before.

Mr. STROBEL. Well, the work had, by that time, been completed, as far as they were concerned, but the contract has not been terminated, our contract with the city has not been terminated, we are still working on it, or the firm.

Mr. FINE. But Robert & Co.'s participation has been completed ? Mr. STROBEL. They are out, that is right.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, is it correct that, acting in your capacity as Commissioner of Public Buildings, you personally approved the negotiation by the Public Buildings Service of an architect and engineering contract with Robert & Co. for modifying and adding to specifications for the Communicable Diseases Center of the Public Health Center at Atlanta, Ga., and that that contract called for a fee to Robert & Co. of $24,200!

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. I would like to explain the background for that.

« PreviousContinue »