по

N

Commissioner

Page

kal Bervices Administration, Region 6

Bansas City, Missouri

June 25, 1959

one that indicates very poor fitting of parts one to the
other and certainly leaves the erected partition looking
Less than attractive. The finished appearance of the job
that is presently visible to us is far less acceptable than
similar work in the same building performed by our com-
pany on a prior contract.

In order to comply with the requirement in part which says
that studs shall be one piece, the installation is being
made with extruded aluminum sections. These aluminum sec-
tions are being used in direct contact with the steel mem-
bers with which they connect. Mot only does this represent
a deviation from the specifications as written, which
clearly defined the requirements to be all steel, but the
section of aluminum which is being used (in the opinions
of experts on aluminum) is far less strong and consider-
ably less rigid than would have been the result had the
steel stud as specified been used. We further have been
advised by specialists on metals that when steel and alum-
inum co-mingle the aluminum needs to be specially treated.
Our investigation of the work in progress at the Mart Build-
ing indicates that there is no effort being made to pro-
vide this treatment on this installation. We are further
advised by the same authorities that aluminum needs to be
treated in a similar special manner if it is going to co-
mingle with any alkali producing products, such as Gypsum
Board. This especially, if the aluminum is to be painted.
We feel that we are within our rights to ask why so many
deviations from a well-prepared and clearly written speci-
fication have been allowed. If, for any reason whatsoever,
it was determined that the specifications needed to be
modified, shouldn't we have been allowed to bid on the
basis of the modified requirements? Especially if the
modified requirements approve materials of measurably
less quality, and considerably less cost.

We have always had a great respect for the General Services Administration. We falt they said what was wanted and the inspectors saw that these spesifications were met. This first time in our experience where such a wide devarianos existed betwğun the specifications and

which is currently be

installed in the Hart

Ing. Could this be

ing a precedent

Region 6

We sincerely feel, Ms. Jay, that this is something that deserves your attention and we feel confident that once you have been advised of these facts you will give it that attention. Further, we an that you give us the answers to the questions as we have presented them to you. We would be happy te supply ang additional information migirt request.

Yours very truly,

HENGES COMPANY, INC.

Jellempn

Exhibit 3--Letter from R. J. Henges, Henges Company, Inc., Kansas City
Mo. to Thomas G. Jay, July 10, 1959

A letter was addressed to you from our St. Louis office dated June 25th. It related to partition work currently going on at the Mart Building in St. Louis. As a result of subsequent visits to the job site we have some additional points which we feel you would wish brought to your attention.

The electric installation has been made by surface mounting all switches, pull boxes and conduits. This is in direct contradiction to Section 11-4, which statespartitions shall be designed and constructed to permit the installation of elestrijdi Gifsuits continuously through the partition base and vertically by use of Wiring posts supplied by partition manufacturer. Not only is the installation being mado is described above, but in order to hold the conduit and the various electřická beïVice units to the partition, it's necessary, or at least it was found wécédénty by die installer, to make the attachment by means of screws or machine screws which effend through the full body of the gypsum panel, leaving an exposed head on uge sins of the partition and the exposed conduits on the other side of the partitión, Wik bertainly is anything but attractive and I'm confident again does not life specifications.

et

We mentioned in our previous commmication that the aluminum studs were a questionable item in this installation. We have had a sample piece of these aluminum studs tested by a qualified aluminum expert. His findings indicate that there has been no treatment of any kind provided in or on these studs. d most recent visits to the job site indicated that some of the painting work, at least the first coat, has been accomplished. It was indicated the slightest išfasion of the paint surface would completely remove it from the aluminum itself. it idő further noted that in those positions where partitions ran at right angles » Molbër partition line the attachment at this point was made by fastening metal member direct to the gypsum panel. This necessitated once again the use of a screw through the entire thickness of the gypsum panel with the screw head exposed

on one side and the channel fastened to the other. Where attempts have been made to secure these screws firmly the gypsum panels themselves are actually depressed and indented. Not only that, the attachment of the metal member to the gypsum is not tight. Light can be seen from one side of the partition to the other through this jumeture.

Our final comments would be that the quality of workmanship is far short of what we feel should normally be expected from this type of installation. Certainly far short of what could have been provided had we been successful as sub-contractor. With all of these tolermees allowed by the inspector for this job, the work still lags far behind the period which was established as a completion date. We were cognizant of the time element involved. We had made full provisions to meet the target date at the time our quotations were made to the general contractors. I am sure that an investigation on your part would reveal that the work is far short of completion, even at this writing.

We sincerely hope that you will find the time to make a thorough investigation of these facts as we have stated them, and again offer our services for whatever value they may be, in supplementing the information contained in these two letters.

Sincerely yours,

HINGES COMPANY, INC. OF KANSAS CITY

R. J. Henges

Exhibit 4--Memorandum from E. W. Kunze, Design and Construction Division, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, to Chief, Design and Construction Division, June 22, 1959

SUBJECT: Summary of telephone conversation with Mr. Ron Henges

10:30 a.m. June 19, 1959

Re: Movable partitions at the Mart Building,

St. Louis, Missouri

Mr. Henges seemed of opinion that the specifications were not being
very closely followed. He said the matter should be thoroughly

investigated. He brought up four prime points.

1. Possibility of electrolytic action where alumimm studs meets
steel door frames and top members; also that alımimm posts
are not as strong as steel.

2. The steel is not galvanized.

3. The door frames are not the same width as the partitions.

4. Mr. Henges has been informed that it is not good practice to
use alumimm studs with sheet rock.

Mr. Kunze's reply to the points are:

1.

The aluminum has been alodized, which would greatly reduce any
possibility of electrolytic action where alumimm meets steel.

Since the partitions are in airconditioned quarters, there should not
be enough moisture to cause any trouble.

2. Although steel is not galvanized, it has a rust resisting prime coat containing zinc chromate which would also prevent electrolytic action.

3. I told Mr. Henges I considered the wider frames furnished by
contractor to be superior in every way to the narrow specified
door frames.

4. Regarding aluminum not being acceptable next to sheet rock.
Mr. O'Brien of the partition company informs me he can give us a
large list of successful installations by reputable architects
of such construction.

(Note--#2 - It may be necessary to obtain a deduction from the contractor for not having galvanized steel. I consider the material he uses just as good but it would be cheaper to manufacture.