B-196698.OM, FEB 1, 1980

B-196698.OM: Feb 1, 1980

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

CLAIMS DIVISION COMPTROLLER GENERAL: HERE IS 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. 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. JACKSON IS INTERESTED IN THIS MATTER. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION IS WARRANTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT RECORD AS TO WHAT FORMED THE BASIS FOR THIS CONCLUSION.

B-196698.OM, FEB 1, 1980

CLAIMS DIVISION

COMPTROLLER GENERAL:

HERE IS THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS BACON ACT, 40 U.S.C. 276A, AND THE CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT, 40 U.S.C. 327 ET SEQ., BY EARTH ENTERPRISES, INC. PERFORMING WORK UNDER DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, CONTRACT NO. F45603-76 95052 AT MCCHORD AFB, WASHINGTON.

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 $875.03 ON DEPOSIT HERE TO THE 5 AGGRIEVED WORKERS IN ACORDANCE 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 MS. MARCIA BROWN ON EXTENSION 53218.

SENATOR HENRY M. JACKSON IS INTERESTED IN THIS MATTER.

INDORSEMENT

DIRECTOR, CLAIMS DIVISION

RETURNED. WHILE THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD WOULD APPEAR TO SUPPORT DEBARMENT, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION IS WARRANTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S (DOL) ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL HEARING ON OCTOBER 3, 1978, AT WHICH TIME HE REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD AND CONCLUDED THAT DEBARMENT SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT RECORD AS TO WHAT FORMED THE BASIS FOR THIS CONCLUSION. THUS, IF WE WERE TO REINSTITUTE DEBARMENT PROCEEDINGS WE WOULD HAVE TO, AT THE VERY LEAST, GO BACK TO DOL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S CONCLUSION. IF, AFTER WE OBTAINED THE INFORMATION, WE STILL WERE OF THE VIEW THAT DEBARMENT WAS WARRANTED, THE CONTRACTOR WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE ACCORDED DUE PROCESS BEFORE IT COULD BE DEBARRED. DUE PROCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD ENTAIL, AT THE MINIMUM, NOTICE AND SOME TYPE OF FORMAL HEARING. THEREFORE, SINCE IT ALREADY HAS BEEN IN EXCESS OF 3 YEARS SINCE THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED AND ANY FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WOULD FURTHER DELAY PAYMENT OF THE WORKERS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DEBARMENT SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED.

THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH YOUR OFFICE SHOULD BE DISBURSED TO THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES.