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

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

of the baseboard heaters in common spaces, nor the cleaning of ‘through the wall HVAC Units’ are separate or additional items and neither are reimbursable under the terms of the Contract.

Pursuant to Section 4 of Article 19 “Resolution of Disputes,” your client was to submit its dispute “within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice of the determination or action that is the subject of the dispute.” Since Mr. Radhakrishnan advised your client that neither the baseboard heaters in common spaces, nor the “through the wall HVAC Units” were extra work on September 23, 2003, the time to submit such dispute has long since passed. Your client’s appeal was submitted almost one year after the Bureau’s Determination. This is not only unacceptable, but violates the terms of the Contract.

5. Additional Insurance Premium

Termon’s request to recoup additional insurance premiums is unheard of. Given the significant amount of insurance required under this Contract, all Contractors were told to include the premiums in their bids. As your client was well aware, the Contract enabled business and homeowners to call the DEP/EPA hotline to request clean up and remediation services. It was estimated that approximately ten thousand (10,000) people would request such services. However, at no time did the “DEP materially reduce[ ] the amount of work that was assigned” nor did DEP end the contract “prematurely on June 1, 2003.”

6. Removal and Disposal of Wall-to-Wall Carpeting

Your client received a letter from Virginia Smyth, Bureau Chief Contracting Officer, dated July 9, 2003, wherein Ms. Smyth responded to your client’s letters of April 7,2003 and May 2, 2003. As stated above, pursuant to Section 4 of Article 19 “Resolution of Disputes,” your client was to submit its dispute “within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice of the i determination or action that is the subject of the dispute.” Ms. Smyth advised your client that the disposal of items is within the scope of the Contract” and that there would be no reimbursements for this Contract work. Again, the time to dispute such a finding has long since passed. Your client’s appeal was submitted well over one year after the Bureau’s Determination.

As set forth under Section 1 above, the Department shall process the payment of outstanding invoices and the release of the retainage, so long as a proper assignment of payment and a request for the release of retainage are submitted. Accordingly, as to that item, your Dispute is granted, as modified by the amount approved for payment of the final invoices from USEPA.

However, as to the remaining requests, your Dispute is hereby denied. Please be advised that in accordance with Article 19 of the Standard Construction Contract, I have conducted the requisite investigation. I hereby determine that NYCDEP’s prior determinations that additional compensation for items that were part of the Contract work, communicated to Termon well over a year ago, were appropriate.

<

' NYC-WTC_000153567