His Perl could have been tightened up considerably.

Boy, is that a call to action! I can't believe I'm the first in 4 years to have taken it up …. Here's a more-or-less faithful copy:

use strict;
use warnings 'all';
use constant {
    EMAIL => 17,
    CONTACTME => 27,
    SKUTITLE => 34
};


my @records; # Arrays are initialised empty; no need to do it explicit
+ly.

push @records, [ split "\t" ] for <>;
do { tr/"//d for @$_ } for @records;

my @contact_records;
do { push @contact_records, [ @$_[ SKUTITLE, CONTACTME, EMAIL ] ] if $
+_->[CONTACTME] == 1 } for @records;

{
local $, = "\t";
local $\ = "\n";
print @$_ for sort { $a->[0] cmp $b->[0] } @contact_records;
}
[download]

To me, this task suffers, rather than benefits, from the names, and is much better suited for a Unix-style pipeline; fortunately, Perl is good at those (although I resort to substr to avoid the to-me unsatisfying s///; $_):

use strict;
use warnings 'all';
use constant {
    EMAIL => 17,
    CONTACTME => 27,
    SKUTITLE => 34
};

{
local $, = "\t";
local $\ = "\n";
print @$_ for
    sort { $a->[0] cmp $b->[0] }
        grep { $_->[1] }
            map {
                chomp;
                [
                    map { substr $_, 1, -1 }
                        ( split "\t" )[ SKUTITLE, CONTACTME, EMAIL ]
                ]
            } <>;
}
[download]

Finally, note that, since the CONTACTME field is not carrying any useful information, we might as well avoid printing it; so we could define

sub snip_or_toss { $_[CONTACTME] ? @_[ SKUTITLE, EMAIL ] : () }
[download]