Environmental monitoring correspondence regarding remediation contractor, March 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

TA THACHER ASSOCIATES represents $11,353.83 for the time period of June 3, 2002, to July 21, 2002. (Exhibit 28)

d. TA requested Safeway to provide a clear trail representing all payroll adjustments and/or corrections.” Safeway submitted an explanation that is inaccurate, demonstrating failure to adequately research Safeway’s in-house documents (Exhibit 8).

e. TA noted instances where Safeway employees were not paid initially due to the lack of daily logs or swipe card records. In these instances, corrections were made to the payroll records based solely on Bovis sign-in sheets. Conversely, TA noted that Bovis sign-in sheets also reflect Safeway employees who were not invoiced to the project. This demonstrates the lack of integrity in the documentation submitted and therefore the validity of payroll adjustments (Exhibit 11).

f. TA noted that Safeway made several corrections to its payroll records. Several of the payroll corrections resulted in other errors. Correction entries on employees reportedly not paid, were made and in some instances resulted in the employees being paid twice for the same work performed. (Exhibit 8) Also, payroll corrections resulting in back-out adjustments appear to be consistently excluded from the project totals.

g. Safeway invoiced for clerical services performed at the project site. In accordance with the DDC policy, (Exhibit 13), clerical services are part of the Contractor’s overhead. This issue resulted in project an over billing of $1,503.24 (Exhibit 14).

h. Safeway invoiced for supervisory personnel (other than licensed Asbestos Supervisors) who, in accordance with DDC’s policy, (Exhibit 13) are part of the Contractor’s overhead. This issue resulted in an over billing of $19,874.52 (Exhibit 29).

Materials

TA reviewed back-up documentation pertaining to materials purchased and invoiced to the project. Due to the complexity of the project, tracking of the used materials retroactively is difficult, if at all possible. TA did, however, review the rates charged and compared them to the Safeway supplier’s invoices. Our analysis indicates that Safeway’s charges are fair and reasonable.

18

NYC-WTC_000174308