Mr. GUNTHER. I tried to explain to you the application of the vehicles, and why it was necessary to have numbers within a station and within cities. Mr. PLAPINGER. The savings on the amount of route cost would be available to anybody sitting in Washington. You are going to replace one truck with another truck, and you are going to have a saving to the extent of the moneys you are paying to the mounted deliveryman, some 90 cents an hour, to the postman using his own car. Mr. GUNTHER. You are talking about a contract service now. Mr. GUNTHER. You see, curbline delivery is both contract, and the Post Office has its own vehicles. By having these vehicles, we were able to add additional stops and deliveries over the standard-type vehicles that they had previously. Mr. PLAPINGER. In staff visits to the Ohio area recently, it was found that in 18 out of 22 instances, the routes had not been extended. Now, I have no idea how representative this sampling is, but it is in the area where you people had done your experimentation. Mr. GUNTHER. I believe, if you check the records, you will find that every route where the vehicle had been applied up to the end of November, had been changed, extended, and modified. Mr. PLAPINGER. You are talking about November of 1954? Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. PLAPINGER. You are not really familiar with the results of your experimenting? Mr. GUNTHER. We were very familiar, up to the end of 1954. Beyond that, we have no figures or any facts, because we were no longer employed by the Post Office Department. Mr. PLAPINGER. Your contract expired in 1954? Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. I would like to ask Mr. Gunther: I understand that you had nothing to do with the actual procurement? Mr. GUNTHER. That is correct. Mr. MEADER. But you were interested in the specifications, and were employed by the Post Office Department, or the Heller company was employed by the Post Office Department, at the time the procurement was made? Mr. GUNTHER. That is correct. Mr. MEADER. Do you know what Post Office Department officials did have charge of the procurement? Mr. GUNTHER. I believe they had a procuring officer at that time in the Bureau of Facilities. Mr. MEADER. What was his name? Mr. GUNTHER. At that time, Mr. O'Donovan. Mr. MEADER. And were there any other Post Office Department officials besides Mr. O'Donovan in charge of this procurement? Mr. GUNTHER. I believe so. I think the Assistant Postmaster General Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who was he, sir? Mr. GUNTHER. Mr. Hook. Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Deputy Postmaster General. Mr. MEADER. Who else? Mr. GUNTHER. Mr. Abrams. Mr. MEADER. Were the latter two top officials in the Post Office Department? Mr. GUNTHER. They were top officials in the Post Office Department. Mr. MEADER. But on the actual working level of negotiating the procurement, besides Mr. O'Donovan, were there some others? Mr. GUNTHER. Mr. Banton, Chief Industrial Engineer. Mr. MEADER. And did you have something to do with the bids, to see whether or not specifications that you thought were so important were met in the bids? Mr. GUNTHER. No. The only thing we did was to advise the Post Office Department in the formation of the specifications, which they turned over to General Services Administration, I believe. Mr. MEADER. But I recall your saying something about having seen objections to the bids. Mr. GUNTHER. I never saw objections. I was told by Post Office employees that there were objections that had come through from various manufacturers. Mr. MEADER. You are speaking about objections on the part of the manufacturers to the specifications? Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. But you never saw those, yourself? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. Mr. MEADER. You didn't personally look at the bids to see whether any deviations from the specifications were important or not? Mr. GUNTHER. I never saw the bids. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have some questions, Mr. Chudoff? I want to say for the record that the reason I got here at quarter to 12 was I was in a meeting of the Education Committee. I have some ideals on this thing, having gone through a like investigation. The Subcommittee on Public Works and Resources went through something like this with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We were under the impression, when we got through, that a real study should be made on the overall procurement of motor vehicles, on whether or not there should be a leasing or buying of any of the vehicles on the part of any department. I haven't any questions to ask, because I haven't heard enough of what you said. Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Minshall. Mr. MINSHALL. How long, Mr. Gunther, have you been employed by the Heller company? Mr. GUNTHER. Approximately 9 years. Mr. MINSHALL. What is your training and background for that employment? Mr. GUNTHER. I am an industrial mechanical engineer. Mr. GUNTHER. At Miami University and Northwestern University. Mr. MINSHALL. Prior to your association with this contract for the Post Office Department, had you had any similar experience? Mr. GUNTHER. At one time I was chief engineer for Thompson Products in Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. MINSHALL. For how long? Mr. MINSHALL. While you were here in Washington representing the Heller company, you said you had 10 or 11 men here. Were you in charge of those 10 or 11 men? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. I was only in charge of the engineering function, and I had two men reporting to me from our staff. Mr. MINSHALL. Did you assist the Post Office Department in drawing up these specifications? Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. When were the bids received; do you remember? Mr. GUNTHER. No; I don't recall the date. Mr. MINSHALL. Did you consult or advise, with anyone in the Heller company, which was the best bid to accept? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. That wasn't part of the Heller company's contract, to advise them on which bid to accept? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. As far as you know, the Heller company did everything in good business practices to insure that a proper engineering survey was made? Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. As you look back, would you change any of the procedures that you followed? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. What was the length of the contract that the Heller Co. had with the Post Office Department, if you know? Mr. GUNTHER. I don't recall exactly. I think it is a matter of record. I believe it was approximately 2 years. Mr. MINSHALL. Had you ever done any work for the Heller Co. on any other Government contracts? Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. What were those? Mr. GUNTHER. The Hoover Commission, back in 1948 and 1949. Mr. MINSHALL. What departments were those Mr. GUNTHER. Post Office Department. Mr. MINSHALL. But you did not at any time see any of the bids or consult with anyone concerning the bids, did you? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. On these trucks that are in question? Mr. GUNTHER. No, sir. Mr. MINSHALL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Gunther, I am interested in hearing only one thing at the moment. It seems to me if you had made this survey for the Hoover Commission over this same ground and in this same field in 1948 and 1949, and made certain recommendations at that time, then when you come back 3 years or 4 years later to repeat yourself and do that sort of survey for the Post Office Department, you would have interested yourself to some extent in what the Post Office Department had done insofar as following any recommendations you might have made indirectly to them through the Hoover Commission. You completed your survey for the Hoover Commission in 1949 and made certain recommendations. We understand that, beginning in 1950 and carried on through 1952 and possibly into 1953, the Post Office Department tried to, as you say, implement these recommendations by purchasing 16 vehicles over a period of several months, and undertaking to do just what you have done for the Department that we are talking about here at the moment. Did you say, or did you not say, that you knew nothing about these 16 vehicles, you had never seen them, or were not familiar with them? Mr. GUNTHER. I didn't say that, or if I did, it is in error. see some of those vehicles, and we did see some of the data. We did However, it was not conclusive and was only a step in the direction they were trying to attain. The Post Office Department had limited funds and were not able to expand and develop their experiments in 1952-53. They had done everything in their power that they could do at that time to develop vehicles of functional design, but they were seriously handicapped: (1) by the limitation of funds, and (2) by the limitation of personnel. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then you are familiar with the type vehicle they were using? Mr. GUNTHER. Oh, yes. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then what material or real changes did you recommend over the vehicle they were using on the basis of your recommendation of 1949 for this experiment? What changes did you recommend over that vehicle in the one that you have been using here and we are talking about today? Mr. GUNTHER. The vehicles, I believe, that they had procured from 1950 to 1953 did not have the functional design for the working area. within the vehicle. They had obtained part of it, but did not realize the full maximum design. Mr. MOOLLOHAN. Give me 1 or 2 specific instances. Mr. GUNTHER. I think the area around the driver; the space, the flat floor he was standing on; the working shelf in front of him; the right-hand drive; the sit-stand feature, plus the high torque that I mentioned earlier, plus the maximum horsepower-to-weight ratio had not been achieved to its maximum up to 1953. We were just furthering their development. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Am I to understand, Mr. Gunther, that you did not have the sit-stand feature in the 16 trucks that they were using? Mr. GUNTHER. I believe that they had procured sit-stand trucks, but they were not of functional design. It was part of the feature that they had purchased in some of the trucks with sit-stand features. Other trucks had high torque and low weight, but they had never combined it all within one truck. Mr. MOLLOHAN. As you know, 10 of the 16 trucks did have the sit-stand features. About the other features, I am not prepared to say, because I don't know. Mr. GUNTHER. Yes. Mr. MOLLOHAN. It seems to me that what you are objecting to was these 16 trucks had too large a motor. That is one thing you objected to. Mr. GUNTHER. I wouldn't say it was too large a motor. I would say the truck was a very heavy truck, a very heavy truck in total weight for a very light delivery service. We wanted a lighter truck so that we would have high horsepower to low weight and gain maximum operating economy. Mr. MOLLOHAN. We understand that there was very little weight difference in the overall weight of the trucks, the ones you recommended and the ones they were using. Mr. GUNTHER. I understand there was considerable difference in weight, almost 1,000 pounds. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, then, they changed the shelf, as I understand it, in front of the driver. That was for the purpose of sorting mail? Mr. GUNTHER. That is correct. Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you recommended that? Mr. GUNTHER. That is correct. Mr. MOLLOHAN. The way you emphasize the flat platform area that the driver stands on, you are suggesting that it was not that way in the other equipment? Mr. GUNTHER. That is right. They had a drive shaft leading from the end of the engine back to the rear wheels, which made a hump of approximately 6 inches, so that the driver could not pass from one side to the other without stepping over it. We tried to minimize that feature. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. They don't have a raise in the middle of the truck? Mr. GUNTHER. They do, but not as high. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did you review the data they had accumulated and compiled through their experiments in using the 16 vehicles before you made any further recommendations on this Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, we did. Unfortunately, they had not used the 16 vehicles on a simulated test track. Their data was all operating data, and because of the limited quantity they had procured and tested, it was very inconclusive. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did you consult with any engineers outside your organization, designing engineers outside your organization, or outside the Post Office Department, relative to this functional unit? Mr. GUNTHER. Practically every truck manufacturer was consulted in the design and development of this truck. Mr. MOLLOHAN. I believe you said that you worked with Mr. O'Donovan. Mr. GUNTHER. That is correct. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Was he the person you worked with more than any other person? We know that Mr. Hook and Mr. Abrams were concerned, but probably on a level that you didn't consult with them every day. Mr. GUNTHER. Mr. Banton was probably my day-to-day contact with the Post Office Department. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who was the person, in your opinion, who was more responsible than anybody else in carrying on the negotiations between the Twin Coach Co. and the Post Office Department? Did Mr. Banton carry on these negotiations personally, or did he delegate that to someone? Mr. GUNTHER. I don't believe I could name any one person. There were a number of them. Mr. MOLLOHAN. There must have been someone shuffling the papers more than anyone else. Mr. GUNTHER. I would say it was in the purchasing department. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did you ever have any contact with that person? We are very much interested in finding out who this person was. Mr. GUNTHER. Mr. O'Donovan was the procuring agent at that time. |