Notes on FEMA requirements for WTC interior cleaning licenses, June

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

^rom;,;Rubin, Gail Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:20 PM To; 'Pecunies, Russ' Cc: Levi, Steven; Michele Levine (E-mail) .Subject: RE: Downtown Building Cleaning

Hi Russ, thanks for the drafts. In order to be FEMA reimbursable, the building owner or the City must agree to indemnify the State (who has already agreed to indemnify the FEMA). Obviously, it would be preferable if the building owner would provide the indemnification, but if this is not feasible, then the City must provide it. This should either be incorporated into the License Agreement, so the owner will indemnify the State, or the City has to do so.

Second, in order to get the FEMA money, you need to insert their suggested paragraph re insurance proceeds. It is similar to their standard paragraph, but you might limit the first sentence to compensation received for "debris removal", or phrase it another way, because your license agreement doesn't use that term. You seem to use "removal of foreign material". The way the FEMA-drafted paragraph would work is that a licensor who receives money from any other source would have to reimburse us, rather than requiring only a licensor who receives money for debris removal from any other source to reimburse us. Their standard language is limited to the second situation.

Third, you might wish to insert a paragraph requiring owner cooperation. The standard FEMA "right of entry agreement" provides for owner assistance in marking sewer lines, water lines, utility lines, etc. You may,want owner cooperation on other issues.

Fourth, the standard FEMA "right of entry agreement" provides that the owner will hold harmless the City doing the work, its agencies, contractors, etc. Obviously this will make owners less likely to sign. You have to decide if this is something you need; obviously from a risk perspective it would be nice to have. The theory here is that you are doing the owners a favor by doing work on their buildings, so they should hold us harmless. Of course, they will not be happy with that.

As for the letter, I have some hesitation to say that DEP will pay the fees and expenses of the contractor if you have to go after the insurance proceeds. You might say DEP will pay the expenses "in the first instance."

I hope these comments are helpful.

---- Original Message---- From: Pecunies, Russ [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 2:40 PM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'j [email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'samron@law .nyc.gov' Cc: Hoffer, Mark; Gilsenan, Michael; Radhakrishnan, Krish Subject: Downtown Building Cleaning

To update everyone concerning the downtown building cleaning issue... Bids for all three contracts have been opened and three low bidders have been identified. The contracts have not been awarded pending changes to the insurance specifications and resolution of outstanding issues regarding the letter and license agreement.

I have attached the current drafts of the letter and license agreement. I think the letter is pretty close to being done. Please advise if you have any additional comments.

As for the License Agreement, the new draft incorporates several comments from ‘Steve Levi of NYC Law Dept. You will note that there is no 2

NYC-WTC_000154355