Environmental monitoring correspondence regarding remediation contractor, March 2003

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

TA TASSOCIATES hacher a. Safeway double billed for four (4) of its employees who performed work on both the asbestos abatement/demolition project and mold remediation project. This results in an over billing in the amount of $ 2,266.33.

b. Safeway has made errors with regard to overtime rates charged to the project. Employee daily and/or weekly time invoiced to the project is billed at time and one half where no prior time during the billing cycle is reflected to justify the overtime rate. This issue raises a concern of Safeway billing labor from other projects to the Ground Zero project.

c. Deductions for lunch breaks are billed at time and one half. In accordance with the Trade Agreement for Local Unions 78, 66 and 12A, “Employees shall receive a one half (1/2) hour unpaid meal period ... Employees working a shift of more than 12 hours shall receive an additional one-half (1/2) hour unpaid meal period ...”. This resulted in over billing in the amount of $79,549.04.

d. Safeway over billed the project by charging labor for 24 hours where the daily logs support only 12 hours worked. This resulted in an overcharge in the amount of $3,970.21.

e. Safeway invoiced the project to employee tax and deductions verses employer tax liability. This same payment was reported with correct tax deductions in the labor cost report and backed out in a separate batch transaction. The hours in question were added to the next pay period. The original entry was not backed-out of the project, resulting in double payment. This resulted in an overcharge of $1,674.10.

f. TA requested Safeway to “... provide a clear trail representing all payroll adjustments and/or corrections.” Safeway submitted an explanation that is inaccurate, demonstrating a failure to adequately research and accurately evaluate its in-house documents.

At the same time, Safeway referred to its response to Bovis’ inquiry regarding discrepancies between sign-in sheets and electronic swipe card logs. Safeway provided an explanation indicating that “Certified payroll confirms that employee was paid.” This response does not address the issue raised by TA.

g. 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.

h. TA noted that Safeway made several corrections to its payroll records. Several of the payroll corrections resulted in other errors. Correction entries

5

NYC-WTC_000174295