Environmental monitoring correspondence regarding remediation contractor, March 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

THACHER ASSOCIATES b. TA also identified that more usage time was billed for the equipment than for labor. In response to TA’s inquiry, Safeway stated that “NY Braking [sic] did not invoice us on the amount of hours the machine was utilized but for how many 24-hour periods we had it in our possession. As a result there could be many instances where there is more equipment time billed than labor time.” Safeway’s usage of its or sub-contracted equipment is subject to the same policies as any other contractor working on the project. Records of equipment status (Idle/Standby/Working) is required as part of Safeway’s backup documentation (Exhibit 20) and is to be charged accordingly. TA found no such records within Safeway’s submittals. This resulted in an over billing of $20,216.13 (Exhibit 21).

c. Safeway employed Dynamic Equipment, Corp., (Dynamic) for the lease of a 763 Bobcat at a rate of $520.00 per day. In Requisition 18, Safeway invoiced for services provided by Dynamic for Bobcat 763 at a rate of $130.00 per day. Safeway offered no explanation for the differing in rates other than “We paid them the whole amount and expect to be reimbursed accordingly.” This resulted in an over billing of $2,427.50 (Exhibit 22).

d. Safeway billed for waste disposal at cost, plus 10% and 5%. Waste disposal by other tier contractors should be invoiced at cost, plus 5% (Exhibit 18). This issue resulted in an over billing in the amount of $14,329.45 (Exhibit 23).

e. TA identified that Safeway invoiced the project for waste disposal. TA recommends the rejection of payments invoiced for all of the contractors with the exception of Asbestos Transportation Co., Inc. The rejection of payments is recommended due to the lack of critical information depicting the integrity of the waste disposal. Information lacking in the documentation provided includes waste pick-up point, waste destination, driver names, waste generator’s names, signatures and dates (Exhibit 1). The total amount of the invoices rejected is $61,379.26 (Exhibit 24).

Insurance

Safeway invoiced the project for Asbestos Liability Insurance in Requisitions 11, 12, 13, 16, 21 and 24. TA is of the opinion that all contractors employed on this project were covered under a general site-wide liability insurance policy and therefore were exempt from purchasing individual liability insurance (Exhibit 25). In response to TA’s inquiry relative to this issue, Safeway stated that, “To date we have not received any type of confirmation of denial. Until we have actual confirmation we will not include the liability into the overhead portion of our bill. We are in a unique industry where liability insurance is very costly and exceeds the 10% overhead that we are entitled to. Once it is determined, we will adjust bills accordingly.” This issue resulted in an over billing of $15,939.64 (Exhibit 26).

i 16

NYC-WTC_000174306