B-207762-OM DEC 1, 1982

B-207762-OM DEC 1, 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 WILLIAM DOLL COMPANY, INC., WHICH PERFORMED WORK UNDER THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CONTRACT NO. DACA31 -77-C-0099 AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY.

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 $6,716.03 ON DEPOSIT HERE TO THE 17 AGGRIEVED WORKERS 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 MS. LILLIE M. JORDAN ON EXTENSION 53218.

INDORSEMENT

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, AFMD-CLAIMS GROUP

RETURNED. WILLIAM E. DOLL COMPANY, INC., A SUBCONTRACTOR OF A.D.ROE COMPANY, INC., UNDER CONTRACT NO. DACA31-77-C-0099, PERFORMED CERTAIN INSULATION WORK CALLED FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT. THE SUBCONTRACTOR CLASSIFIED THE EMPLOYEES PERFORMING THE INSULATION WORK AS "ROOFER HELPERS." A DISPUTE AROSE AS TO WHETHER THAT WAS THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION FOR THE WORK INVOLVED. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) INVESTIGATORS WERE OF THE OPINION THAT SEVERAL OTHER HIGHER PAYING CLASSIFICATIONS MIGHT COVER THE WORK IN QUESTION. ULTIMATELY, THE CONTRACTOR REQUESTED A HEARING BY DOL UNDER 29 C.F.R. SEC. 5.11(B) TO DECIDE WHICH WAS THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION FOR THE WORK PERFORMED. A DOL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONDUCTED A HEARING AND RENDERED A DECISION FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE MISCLASSIFIED FOR THE ACTIVITIES BEING PERFORMED AND, THEREFORE, UNDERPAID A TOTAL OF $6,716.03. THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT APPEAL THE FINDING. A DECISION OF DOL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF A CLASSIFICATION IN A WAGE DETERMINATION IS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN DOL'S JURISDICTION. SEE FRAMLAU CORPORATION V. DEMBLING, 360 F.SUPP. 806 (1973).

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

DOL DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE IMPOSITION OF DEBARMENT SANCTIONS AGAINST EITHER PARTY. WE AGREE THAT DEBARMENT IS NOT WARRANTED SINCE THE UNDERPAYMENTS WERE THE RESULT OF A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF THE EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN A WILLFUL INTENT TO UNDERPAY THE WORKERS. SEE B-198964-O.M., MARCH 15, 1982. ALSO, ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, THE SUBCONTRACTOR IS NO LONGER IN BUSINESS. THUS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT DEBARMENT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE. SEE B-202894-O.M., AUGUST 18, 1981.