Exhibit 5--Letter from Robert E. Bevan, Chief, Construction Branch, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, to Hercules Construction Co., June 25, 1959 We have been advised that the steel work on the subject project was not galvanized. It is requested that you furnish us with the credit proposal Exhibit 6--Letter from J. H. Benoist Jr., vice president, Hercules HERCULES CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTORS Reference is made to your letter dated June 25, 1959 requesting a credit for the omission of the Galvanizing Process on the steel for the movable partitions on the subject job. We are enclosing copies of letters from our subcontractor, The Hamilton Co., for these partitions and from the supplier of these steel members. We believe these letters are selfexplanatory and will serve to answer your inquiry. With regard to your letter of August 7, 1959 concerning discrepancies in the various phases of the work in process, we are proceeding with the correction of these items as rapidly as possible. Exhibit 7--Letter from Vernon L. Murphy, Hamilton Company, Inc., St. NOISE CONTROL PRODUCTS 67 MOVABLE PARTITIONS ESTABLISHED 1921 FLOOR AND WALL COVERINGS HAMILTON COMPANY, INC. 4239 LINDELL BLVD., ST. LOUIS 8. MO. August 12, 1959 In compliance with the letter you received from Mr. Robert L. Bevan of the General Services Administration with regard to the galvanizing of the steel that we used for the O'Brien Movable Partitions on the second floor of the Mart Building, I have taken this matter up with the Glen O'Brien Movable Partition Company. They in turn went to some length to obtain a complete detailed report from the Mid-West Metal Products, Inc., who prepare the metal for them as to the application of this protective coating. I am enclosing the letter sent to the Glen O'Brien Movable Partition Company by them, giving them a complete detailed report as to this metal preparation. I am also enclosing a copy for your files. Needless to say, juding from the information in this letter, the preparation of the metal used in these movable partitions is far superior than that requested or than could be obtained from competitive partitions. I believe that this will answer all of the questions regarding this metal preparation. No credit can be allowed for not using the galvanized steel as we went beyond their requirements in the preparation of the steel we used for this installation. Yours very truly, HAMILTON COMPANY, INC. VLM/fa encl. Vernon L. Murphey Exhibit 8--Letter from James H. Minzey, Jr., manager, Mid-West Metal In compliance with your request we respectfully submit the following information describing the metal preparation and priming technique generally used on the partitioning components previously furnished on your orders. Most all of the steel used in producing your parts was certified in compliance with MIL Spec. QQ-S-636 or QQ-8-692. This was not a requirement but since we are heavily engaged in performing on Government contracts the same certified steel is used for both Government and commercial production. After the parts are fabricated and just prior to prime coat application they are inspected and processed through our 5 stage zinc phospating emersion system. Without getting too technical, this process cleans, etches and deposits a zinc phosphate crystalline coating on all surfaces of the metal in compliance with MIL Spec. MIL-C-490A. This insures a good prime coat and finish coat adherence and also retards primary and secondary metal oxidation. After the parts are completely dried from the phosphating process in the holding area, they are prime coated in compliance with your requirements, oven dried, stored for at least 48 hours to achieve primary curing and packaged for shipment. While we have experienced the previously outlined metal finishing process is more expensive than using electro zinc plated sheets, (commonly referred to as paintlok or galvannealed) far less damage is done to the treated surfaces of the parts when the treatment is applied after fabrication. This means to say that parts fabricated from previously treated sheet stock would leave the surfaces bare and unprotected where punching, notching and trimming operations were performed and also in some surface areas contiguous to the die formed contours where the male and female dies have engaged during the forming operation. Since we treat the metal surfaces after the parts are completely fabricated, all of the surfaces are treated and this is very important around holes, notches and edges to preclude poor finish coat adherence and oxidation attack. It has been our experience, our metal finishing technique previously described costs at least 50 per cent more in labor alone than it would if we used electro zinc plated sheet stock, in other words, on a quantity basis this stock purchased from the mill would cost an additional 3 cents a pound whereas our finishing process costs at least 6 cents a pound labor-wise. However, we seldom use previously treated sheet stock because fabrication destroys the treated surfaces in the areas previously mentioned and nearly all Government contracts we perform on require a zinc phosphate treatment after fabrication. In the few instances of our experience where Government contracts did not specify the necessity of zinc phosphate treatment they did specify complete prime coating after fabrication. We trust this to be the information you seek and if we can be of further service please allow us this privilege. Respectfully yours, MID-WEST METAL PRODUCTS, INC. JHMjr/cd James H. Minzey, Jr. |