'Kinda sketchy': Barletta claims 'industrial espionage' in contaminated soil case. Here's the lawsuit.

PROVIDENCE − The U.S. Department of Justice has already won a $1.5-million settlement from the company for trucking contaminated soil to Olneyville for the renovation of the Routes 6 and 10 interchange. A swirl of legal actions stemming from the 6/10 project continue.

And the company is one of several whose work on the doomed westbound span of the Washington Bridge is under current scrutiny, with a "forensic analysis" of what went wrong expected out next week.

Amidst all this turmoil, Barletta Heavy Division has gone to court in an attempt to restore its reputation − and prove it was the victim of industrial espionage by a union with ties to its erstwhile rival in the construction industry, the now defunct Cardi Corp.

Lawsuit focuses on 6/10 contaminated soil

The Canton, Massachusetts-based Barletta filed suit in Rhode Island Superior Court against a soil testing company that found problems with soil the union said was trucked into the 6/10 project site.

In the lawsuit filed against R. I. Analytical Laboratories last September, Barletta asserts it honored its contract obligations and permit from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management to truck in soil for fill that did not contain levels of contamination that exceed DEM's "Residential Direct Exposure Criteria."

It acknowledges trucking in soil from various locations.

More: CEO of Barletta, company working on Washington Bridge, steps down. What to know.

But the lawsuit accuses R.I. Analytical of failing to properly document how it received the soil it tested, where it allegedly came from and the "chain of custody," which means how many hands touched it.

In its response, the soil testing company's own lawyers at Boyle Shaughnessy Law denied Barletta's allegations, including negligence, and said R.I. Analytical is "without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth."

They also made this point: "The acts or omissions which are alleged to have caused the damages and/or injuries" to Barletta were committed by a third party, who did not work for R.I. Analytical and for whom the company is "not legally responsible."

R.I. Analytical is currently seeking a dismissal of the case, with a hearing on the motion scheduled for April 11.

"The allegations you reference specifically and the claims asserted by Barletta against R.I. Analytical in the pending lawsuit are demonstrably false and have no good faith basis," Scott M. Carroll of Boyle Shaughnessy wrote in an email to The Journal on Thursday. "RI Analytical handled all samples and performed material testing of the samples in compliance with all applicable standards and regulations."

'Kinda sketchy and not really above board'

While the soil testing laboratory is the named defendant, the lawsuit centers around the alleged actions of officials from Local 57 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, who represent workers driving heavy construction equipment.

Local 57 employees told the state Department of Transportation and Department of Environmental Management in the summer of 2020 that they believed Barletta was using contaminated fill at the project site.

According to the lawsuit, James White, president and business manager of Local 57 , trespassed to collect soil samples at the site and sent them to R.I. Analytical for testing.

Internal R.I. Analytical emails Barletta uncovered through the discovery process, and provided to The Journal, show scrambling within the testing company when the soil samples became part of an investigation.

R.I. Analytical Vice President Alan Ford tells colleagues to "perform a data audit and file cleanup in case all the data us [sic] subpoenaed soon."

More: How did we get here? Lawmakers get their turn to question RIDOT about Washington Bridge

He orders the sample jars "be pulled, custody seals be applied, put into a custody sealed box and marked HOLD."

The samples are first delivered by someone named Doug Reardon, according to invoices, and then the name on the samples is changed to Steve Rogers, vice president business agent of Local 57.

The person who presented the initial sample appeared "as a homeowner at first and when he wanted further testing he mentioned something about possibly building commercially," Deb Capuano of R.I. Analytical wrote to colleagues. "He never once presented as [sic] sampling for this reason. Kinda sketchy and really not above board."

Cardi and Barletta were in a bidding war over doomed Washington Bridge project

All of this played out in the summer of 2020, at a time Cranston Democrat Nicholas Mattiello was still the House Speaker and his son, Nicholas Jr., worked for Cardi as a project engineer , which was locked in a bidding war with Barletta over the Washington Bridge contract.

The suit mentions that Antonio Cardi, president of Cardi Corporation, was at relevant times a member of the Local 57 Board of Trustees.

And it asserts that White, as president and business manager of Local 57, "receives feedback from Union Trustees regarding the construction projects on which they work, and the working conditions at those projects."

The discovery records show that the first sample of soil taken to R.I. Analytical by the union arrived on July 29, around a month before Barletta challenged the DOT's award of the Washington Bridge project to Cardi. That challenge and subsequent legal fight eventually led to Barletta getting the contract.

Who delivered the sample and where did it come from?

The central allegation in the lawsuit: R.I. Analytical failed to document the name of the person who submitted the sample, where it allegedly came from and other basics including: the alleged date and whereabouts of the sample collection; the date of delivery to the lab; the condition of sample upon receipt; who else touched it; the type of tests requested and performed and the results.

More: RI lawmakers hurled these 48 questions at RIDOT over the bridge closure. How they answered.

The lawsuit alleges the samples were left on a table with other samples − without any filling out any chain of custody documentation − at a time the doors to R.I. Analytical were unlocked and "no one was present… to receive the samples."

"As a result of R.I. Analytical’s breaches of…its professional and ethical duty," the lawsuit asserts: "R.I. does not know whether the Samples in fact came from the 6/10 Project site or were altered or contaminated prior to its testing of the samples."

As a result, "Barletta has suffered substantial damages including, but not limited to, damage to its reputation as a contractor."

The company is seeking unspecified damages.

White has declined comment.

Cardi: Us having anything to do with this is 'fiction'

But the 82-year-old Stephen Cardi, the former treasurer of the family-run company now owned by the J.R. Vinagro Corporation, called the idea that his company was at all involved in the contamination probe "a fiction."

"This fiction about us having something to do with this ...[is] an absolute fiction," he told The Journal on Thursday.

He acknowledged that his brother, Antonio Cardi, was at the time at issue a trustee of the Local 57 pension fund and that he was a trustee of the Local 57's Health and Welfare and Apprenticeship Funds.

In those roles, "we were in no position whatsoever to be able to find out about any material coming in," he said. "Had nothing to do with Cardi."

Asked if Cardi has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney in connection with the current Washington Bridge investigation, Stephen Cardi said yes: his former company turned turned over everything that was requested on a flash drive.

Barletta, meanwhile, still faces criminal charges in state court. The company is charged with using nearly 5,000 tons of contaminated soil and stone on the $247-million 6/10 project, and lying about it after the fact.

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: 'Kinda sketchy': Barletta claims 'industrial espionage' in contaminated soil case. Here's the lawsuit.