NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.3.3
☕ Buy me a coffee
← Document results/Unboxed/No folder label
Document / 19 pages

Environmental monitoring correspondence regarding remediation contractor, March 2003

Machine-extracted title · confidence 85%

Correspondence from an environmental firm dated March 2003 reviewing qualifications and invoices for a remediation contractor.

NYC-WTC_000174291–000174309
Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000174301
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

TA THACHER ASSOCIATES again sought and the original three (3) contractors were asked to re-bid the project. On the second bid. May 29, 2002, there were some changes in the requirements and directives which advised that the project overtime and overall project cost should be reduced. This was due to the fact that a new and less restrictive completion schedule had been established by DDC (June 1, 2002, to July 3, 2002). On the second round of solicitations, Safeway Environmental Corporation and Pinnacle Environmental responded. No quote was received from ANS, one (1) of the original bidders.

The original price quote of ANS was higher than the prices submitted by both Safeway Environmental and Pinnacle Environmental because ANS’s method of remediation involved drying ovens rather than a biocide application.

TA’s analysis of this project only involved Safeway Environmental Corporation’s work. Thus no technical determination or opinion is offered for the different ANS and Safeway remediation strategies. Safeway’s remediation work appeared sound and in accordance with current industry guidelines, standards and practices, according to TA’s analysis.

The Safeway Environmental Corporation bid excluded supplying electrical power within the work area. Safeway requested an additional sum of $17,500.00 to supply the electrical power. This price was not accepted since the needed electrical power could be supplied by Bovis Lend Lease through the use of their existing generators. Safeway was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder. The total, not to exceed amount of the proposal was $485,000.00.

Analysis of Technical Qualifications

The Corporation - Safeway

In review of Safeway’s technical qualifications, TA requested from Safeway a copy of the Contractor’s Asbestos Abatement license issued by the State of New York, Department of Labor, Division of Safety and Health. TA found no issues pertaining to Safeway’s licensure for asbestos abatement. TA also reviewed attachments provided in Safeway’s proposal for the Mold Remediation portion of the project. In an attachment labeled as “Significant Projects Completed,” Safeway provides an extensive list of projects that, according to Safeway, were successfully completed. Safeway also provided a list of owned equipment demonstrating a well stacked operation. In view of Safeway’s history, supplemental documentation provided and project staffing, it appears that Safeway was qualified for the assignments.

Workers

As a result of our inquiry, TA received an electronic version of scanned licenses issued to Safeway employees by the State of New York, Department of Labor, Division of Safety and Health, and the City of New York, Department of Environmental Protection. TA’s findings indicate no issues with the licenses

11

NYC-WTC_000174301

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

NYC-WTC_000174301Source: 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.

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 →