Dr. CORBIN. That's fair.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. In a sophisticated situation such as we find ourselves?

Dr. CORBIN. That's fair to say.

Dr. GRISBY. That's fair.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. But from your testimony and from our discussion, this whole process is in hand, it's nailed down?

Dr. CORBIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. There can't be shopping of subcontractors after the award of the prime contract, or replacement of a subcontractor has to go through a process justifying that, so that, to use a phrase, the Mickey Mouse is out of it and no more, "You said," "I said," "He said," it's all in black and white.

Dr. GRISBY. It's in black and white; that's right.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Thank you both.

Thank you.

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. I want to thank you both for coming to testify and for submitting certain material for the record. We have the New York City Transit Authority capital construction projects, WBE, DBE, and MBE information which I'd like to submit for the record, without objection.

[See app. 8.]

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. We have "Contracts awarded since January 1, 1980"-primary funder is the Federal Government-which I'd like to also include in the record.

[See app. 9.]

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. And we have a memo from Beverly Grisby to Andy Bennett: "UMTA meeting re: Glastek/Crescent payments dispute summary," which also will be submitted for the record.

[See app. 10.]

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Again, I want to thank you for testifying, and, before we conclude, I want to call back Mss. Pardini and Duncanson whom we had to rush a few minutes ago because we moved to Mr. DelliBovi.

Thank you very much.

Yes. I don't want to belabor this. I just want to clarify a few points. We were under pressure for time before, and we're still under pressure for time because I'll have to go to vote.

What is your understanding at this point, Ms. Duncanson, with respect to your case-your contract with Schiavone and the transit authority? What is your understanding as to where it is at this point?

Ms. DUNCANSON. At this point, Mr. Duncanson got a phone call from the transit authority, and I believe it was Dr. Grisby who told him that if at this point the transit authority has served its purpose, then they would not be needed unless we otherwise call them. What has been settled so far are the large items of money that were outstanding and not really fully to our satisfaction. In one instance, where the job is totally complete and Schiavone was trying to close the job out, J Street in Brooklyn, we put a lien on the job because they insisted on taking an $83,000 credit, and the settlement on that was a lot smaller. Schiavone agreed to give us out of that credit, which we have performed all the work for, approxi

mately $26,000, and that was what they said would be the most generous they would consider.

There are still time and material items that are in disputesome of the back charges that they put on our contract, such as the utilization of cranes, which had been used from the commencement of the job, and at one point when there was a dispute about jurisdiction and what our electricians were supposed to do.

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Do you have any further meetings or conferences scheduled with the transit authority personnel?

Ms. DUNCANSON. No. The meetings are now to be with Schiavone to settle the items on time and material. The transit authority has notified us that they feel they have served their purpose, and unless there is something very serious, then they will-

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Did you hear the testimony earlier that the transit authority considers itself to be still involved, and if you feel that they should be involved in any way, you can call on them on the basis of the statement made today and they would respond and become involved again?

Ms. DUNCANSON. Yes. I was told that a call came in from Dr. Grisby's office that if they were needed they would be on standby. However, at this point they feel that everything was satisfactory.

What I don't know is when the money is going to be forthcoming at this point, and those few items that I told you that are still outstanding on the time and material items are ongoing with Schiavone, they have not been settled.

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. There may be some other questions that I will submit to you for the record. Your answers would go into the record in connection with this, because we don't have time to go into it in more detail.

[See apps. 2 and 3.]

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Ms. Pardini, I just have one question in terms of your understanding of what you have not or have contracted for. The records indicate, you know, $1.6 million, and you said you've received only about 28 percent of that in terms of contracts. Would you like to make a statement on that?

Ms. PARDINI. Yes. There was a letter sent. But I would like to respond in the same manner that Pat did about the job because there's a lot of things-

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Go right ahead. You have 2 minutes before I have to run to vote.

Ms. PARDINI. OK. First of all, I categorically refute everything that the transit authority has said. They still maintain the point of view from the prime contractor's attorney. It almost sounds as if they're reading from notes that he has prepared.

I have a document here that says that the contractor has agreed to pay me that $160 more than that $48 that they talk about. They never approved of a substitution prior to the substitution. They only became aware of a substitution after I brought it to their attention. Everything that they have told you is absolutely untrue. It is one-sided, it's half-truths, and it does not represent at all what happened.

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Do you have a written document which shows that?

Ms. PARDINI. Yes, sir; I do. I can read you the sentence, if you like, and I was paid $160 a linear foot by the contractor until such time came that the cold weather set in, and then he had time to go shop my price.

Now he took away $400,000 worth of work, and then he substituted. They think it's $200,000, except their own contract documents, that I have copies of, indicate that they substituted for a contractor for $700,000, not $250,000 like they're saying, and that's only the beginning, sir. What they've said is absolutely half-truths and misrepresentations. We are good contractors, I am proud, and we did not abandon the job, and we do good work.

Now as far as your answer, we sent a letter to Railroad Construction telling them that we would not participate in any transit authority work until essentially they got their act together and allowed payment to the subcontractors.

I have a copy with me, the letter to Railroad Construction and their transmittal letter to the transit authority with my letter saying that I would not do that work, and that was done back in May. So there's a lot of problems.

[See app. 3.]

Mr. MAJOR OWENS. Thank you very much, and I hope you will respond to our written inquiries.

This subcommittee is hereby adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

We were informed that our Corp. Unique Services Inc. was submitted by the MTA for a contract No. T 346 for the value figure of $150,000.00 by Prime Contractor S. Garofallo Electric Corp. From the time this contract was effected, we have not heard from S. Garofallo Electric Corp.

We have also been contacted by other Prime Contractors, but nothing has materialized.

We object to the name of our service being used by Prime Contractors unless we are actively involved in working on the contract.