B-145606, JUN. 6, 1962
Highlights
WAS THE INDICTMENT OF MR. CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE INDICTMENT UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001 WAS THE BASIS FOR THE DEBARMENT ACTION. DISCLOSED THAT THE DEBARMENT WAS BASED UPON THE DISREGARD OF MINIMUM WAGE OBLIGATIONS TO 17 EMPLOYEES CONCEALED BY PAYROLL REPORTS FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT SHOWING FULL PAYMENT OF REQUIRED WAGES. "ONLY THROUGH INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION OF THE MISLEADING INFORMATION IN PAYROLL REPORTS WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ADOPT MEASURES PROTECTING THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE.'. WE BELIEVE THE DEBARMENT WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED AND AS STATED IN LETTER OF AUGUST 1. "APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTORY DEBARMENT IS MANDATORY. WE HAVE NO DISCRETION TO VARY ITS DURATION OR TO REMOVE IT ONCE PROPERLY INVOKED.'.
B-145606, JUN. 6, 1962
TO STANLEY Z. GOODFARB, ESQUIRE:
IN LETTER OF MAY 21, 1962, YOU STATE THAT THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE DEBARMENT COMMENCING MAY 1, 1961, OF HAYS ROOFING AND SUPPLY, INCORPORATED, AND WALLACE BYRD AND WAYNE COWAN, INDIVIDUALLY, FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, 40 U.S.C. 276A, WAS THE INDICTMENT OF MR. BYRD UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001 FOR THE CRIMINAL CHARGES ARISING FROM THE VIOLATION, AND YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF DEBARMENT ACTION BECAUSE OF MARCH 26, 1962, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ACQUITTED MR. BYRD OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES.
HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE INDICTMENT UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001 WAS THE BASIS FOR THE DEBARMENT ACTION, THE FINDING OF MAY 1, 1961, DISCLOSED THAT THE DEBARMENT WAS BASED UPON THE DISREGARD OF MINIMUM WAGE OBLIGATIONS TO 17 EMPLOYEES CONCEALED BY PAYROLL REPORTS FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT SHOWING FULL PAYMENT OF REQUIRED WAGES. AS REPORTED IN THE FINDING,"ONLY THROUGH INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION OF THE MISLEADING INFORMATION IN PAYROLL REPORTS WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ADOPT MEASURES PROTECTING THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE.'
THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THE DEBARMENT WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED AND AS STATED IN LETTER OF AUGUST 1, 1961, TO YOUR,"APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTORY DEBARMENT IS MANDATORY, AND WE HAVE NO DISCRETION TO VARY ITS DURATION OR TO REMOVE IT ONCE PROPERLY INVOKED.'