Skip to main content

B-195748 OM, NOV 27, 1979

B-195748 OM Nov 27, 1979
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE 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 IS FORWARDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS. WAS FOR ROOFERS TO PERFORM ALL OF THE ROOFING WORK. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AREA PRACTICE TO USE LABORERS TO DO ANY WORK ON THE ROOF. WE HAVE HELD THAT WHERE IT IS AN EXCLUSIVE AREA PRACTICE TO USE A CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS.

View Decision

B-195748 OM, NOV 27, 1979

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

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 ALPINE ROOFING COMPANY, SUBCONTRACTOR TO PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. PERFORMING WORK UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, CONTRACT NO. F20603-76-90055 AT WURTSMITH AFB, MICHIGAN.

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 $8,377.39 ON DEPOSIT HERE TO THE 20 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 IS FORWARDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT MS. MARCIA BROWN ON EXTENSION 53218.

INDORSEMENT

DIRECTOR, CLAIMS DIVISION

RETURNED. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE EXCLUSIVE AREA PRACTICE, FOR PROJECTS SUCH AS THOSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS FOR ROOFERS TO PERFORM ALL OF THE ROOFING WORK, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF OLD ROOFING, AND FOR LABORERS TO LOAD THE DEBRIS ONTO TRUCKS FROM THE GROUND. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AREA PRACTICE TO USE LABORERS TO DO ANY WORK ON THE ROOF. UNDER THIS CRITERIA, ALL OF THE WORKERS CLASSIFIED AS LABORERS PERFORMED AS ROOFERS EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM DID NOTHING MORE THAN REMOVE THE OLD ROOFING AND TAKE IT TO THE GROUND LEVEL. WE HAVE HELD THAT WHERE IT IS AN EXCLUSIVE AREA PRACTICE TO USE A CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS, ROOFERS IN THIS CASE, TO PERFORM CERTAIN WORK, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PAY THOSE WORKERS WHO PERFORM THE WORK THE WAGE RATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATION. SEE 51 COMP.GEN. 42 (1971). WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 3 WORKERS, WHO WERE UNDERPAID BY MINOR AMOUNTS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION WORKED, THE UNDERPAYMENTS INVOLVED 17 WORKERS WHO WERE CLASSIFIED AS LABORERS BUT PERFORMED WORK WHICH ACCORDING TO THE EXCLUSIVE AREA PRACTICE WAS NORMALLY PERFORMED BY ROOFERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH YOUR OFFICE SHOULD BE DISBURSED TO THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES.

WE AGREE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S RECOMMENDATION THAT DEBARMENT SANCTIONS NOT BE IMPOSED SINCE IT APPEARS THAT MOST OF THE UNDERPAYMENTS WERE THE RESULT OF A CLASSIFICATION DISPUTE OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY LABORERS AND ROOFERS.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs