B-193198.OM., OCT 20, 1982
Highlights
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL: WE ARE FORWARDING THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT. DETAILS OF THE VIOLATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING DEBARMENT ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED INVESTIGATIVE REPORT AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TRANSMITTAL LETTER. 300 WHICH WE HAVE ON DEPOSIT HERE TO THE 22 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. OUR PROPOSAL AND THE MATTER OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR'S NAME SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE DEBARRED BIDDERS LIST FOR VIOLATIONS UNDER THE DAVIS-BACON ACT ARE FORWARDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS. WE CONCUR WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DEBARMENT.
B-193198.OM., OCT 20, 1982
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL:
WE ARE FORWARDING THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, 40 U.S.C. 276A, BY LESCO, INCORPORATED, WHICH PERFORMED WORK UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTRACT NO. DAKF48-76-D A005 AT FORT HOOD, TEXAS.
DETAILS OF THE VIOLATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING DEBARMENT ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED INVESTIGATIVE REPORT AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TRANSMITTAL LETTER.
WE PROPOSE, WITH YOUR APPROVAL, TO DISBURSE THE $3,300 WHICH WE HAVE ON DEPOSIT HERE TO THE 22 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. OUR PROPOSAL AND THE MATTER OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR'S NAME SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE DEBARRED BIDDERS LIST FOR VIOLATIONS UNDER THE DAVIS-BACON ACT ARE FORWARDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT MR. LAWRENCE M. BOBIER ON EXTENSION 53218.
INDORSEMENT
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, AFMD-CLAIMS GROUP
RETURNED. WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LIMITED RECORD WHICH WOULD LEAD US TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR, LESCO, INC., AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. ACCORDINGLY, THE $3,300 PAID THE WORKERS SHOULD BE DISBURSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT. SEE B-193621-O.M., MAY 7, 1979.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DOES NOT RECOMMEND IMPOSITION OF DEBARMENT SANCTIONS. WE CONCUR WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DEBARMENT. SEE B-201218-O.M., JANUARY 19, 1981.