NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.2.6
← Document results/DEP Box 26/WORLD TRADE CENTER - BUILDING EXTERIORS
Document / 10 pages

Invoice or notice re: WTC Air Quadrant D, Oct 2004

Machine-extracted title · confidence 95%

Document page from DEP Box 26 regarding World Trade Center Air Quadrant D with illegible text content.

NYC-WTC_000153563–000153572

Folder label: “WORLD TRADE CENTER - BUILDING EXTERIORS

Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000153565
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

1. Invoices and Retainage

First, your Dispute alleges that there are four enumerated invoices, as well as others categorized as “various” to be paid to your client. With respect to the “various” invoices, in the amount of $3,447.90, a check in the amount, of $3,103.11 ($3,447.90 less the retainage amount) dated March 22, 2004 (check no. ADOOl53987024) was sent to your client. (See copy of FMS report attached hereto as Exhibit “1”).

With regard to the other invoices, NYCDEP has, on several occasions, advised Termon that the majority of these funds have been approved for payment by USEPA and has asked on several occasions for a request for the release of retainage, all of which would be included in one payment. When the $3,447.90 is deducted from the total arriount your client claims is due and owing, the remaining balance, according to your client, is $ 82,205.98. NYCDEP recently learned that with respect to these invoices (011, 022, 024 and 025), USEPA has authorized payment in the amount of $78,339.41.

By letter dated September 8, 2004 to Krish Radhakrishnan, your client has asked that future payments be sent to you. In order to do so, your client must effectuate an Assignment of Payment, which must include your firm’s EIN number, a vendor code and your firm’s name and address. Further, if not already in the City’s payment system, your firm must fill out a Substitute W-9 form to ensure that the checks are properly cut (a W-9 form is attached as Exhibit “2”). Once NYCDEP has received an appropriate request for an Assignment of Payment (a sample of which is attached hereto for your information as Exhibit “3” - please note that the Assignment of Payment must be notarized and must have a place for the Department’s stamp of consent), as well as an invoice requesting release of the retainage amount, both will be processed, ensuring that your firm receives any and all balances due under this Contract. In the interest of expediency, it is most likely that both the $78,339.41 and the retainage amount will be included in one check.

I have been advised that on numerous occasions, NYCDEP has asked your client to submit, in writing, an invoice for the release of the retainage amount. As discussed above, upon receipt of a Proper Payment Assignment and invoice for the retainage amount, a check shall be cut to your firm, as Assignee. It should be noted that while your client claims $213,800.57 is due and owing as retainage, NYCDEP’s figure is $214,145.06, which shall be the amount provided.

Therefore, once all the Payment Assignment paperwork has been approved and processed, your firm shall be receiving $214,145.06 (retainage) plus $78,339.41 (invoices), a total of $292,484.47.

2. Cleaning of HVAC Units in Residential Apartments

With regard to the HVAC Units in Residential Apartments, the Scope of Work clearly states that “[t]he Cleaning Contractor is responsible for cleaning residences, common spaces, and portions of HVAC systems identified by the Monitoring Contractor.” The HVAC Systems “determined by the Monitoring Contractor to be impacted by dust or debris” were to be cleaned in accordance with the “site-specific scope of work” prepared and provided by the Monitoring Contractor. While Section 3(h) does reference HVAC systems, so does Section 3(i), referencing “window and room air conditioners.” However, Termon’s reading of

NYC-WTC_000153565

OCR can misread numbers and units. Confirm readings against the page image before using them.

NYC-WTC_000153565Source: NYC Law Department, mirrored locally

Related records

Browse subjects →

Ranked by indexed similarity. Reasons describe shared subjects and filing context; check the source records.

Same-box records

No available related records indexed in this group.

Filed elsewhere

More like this page

Similar subjects in other documents. Similarity does not establish the same event, measurement or conclusion.

Page similarity is temporarily unavailable or this page has no indexed vector.

Others also read

Readers open these alongside this record — through an Ask answer, the same folder, or indexed similarity. Not a claim they are about the same event.

Compare copies and versions →