Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Davis Bacon'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 3 results

  1. All: I am trying to figure out the authority for a contracting officer to require "Mandatory E-payroll" reporting. The email indicates the clause will be used "in all NEW solicitations (stand-alone, basic IDIQ JOC and associated task orders, basic IDIQ and associated task orders)". For example: http://bit.ly/2xOSpxz at p. 74: "The contractor shall use a supplemental electronic Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute payroll processing system". The "functional requirements" seem familiar, perhaps DCAA, but I couldn't find an exact match. My research shows that the DOL encourages, but doesn't require, electronic payroll reporting. As you can see from the linked solicitation, reference is made to "compliance with far 52.222-8, payrolls and basic records and far 52.222-13" but no such mandate appears therein. I can't find anything in the congressional record, acquisition.gov, or a Navy directive authorizing use of this clause. The Army Corps has a similar clause, but it is not mandatory (PIL 2011-09). On the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that the contracting officer would draft and insert such a clause without peer review or other safeguards. Any help would be most appreciated. Excerpt from solicitation attached in case the link doesn't work. Mark SWDiv Mandatory E-payroll.pdf
  2. Under FAR Clause 52.222-11 - Subcontracts (Labor Standards) , does the actual reporting requirements stop at the Prime, or at the contracting officer? Fixed Price Construction IDIQ. All contractors/subcontractors are SB. As an example: Prime uses one subcontractor. The subcontractor (acts like a prime and) subcontracts all of the actual work. The Prime does not interpret 52.222-11 to mean that all of the document generation requirements under this clause get sent to the CO; rather, submittals like Payroll, Form 1413, Apprentice Certifications and such stop at the Prime. Prime believes they only need to submit said documents on the first tier subcontractor. Initially I read the clause and disagreed; it seemed an easy way around Federal labor laws if this were the case. After reading through para (d)(1) and (d)(2) of the clause a few more times, what seemed clear at first no longer seems so. Para (d)(2) states that the Contractor shall deliver an updated 1413 for additional subcontracts, which seems to imply that additional lower tier subcontractors do not generate a new 1413 -they just get added onto the current one. After thinking about this some more, I think it's a poorly worded and confusing clause. I think the intent may be that a subcontractor should read (d)(1) as if he were the Contractor being referred to in the clause, and therefore the requirements apply to himself/herself as well. I want to say that in (d)(2), any subsequently awarded lower tier subcontracts get updated on the 1413 for that subcontractor. In turn, the lower tier subcontractors have to repeat this process until no more subcontracts occur. Can anyone weigh in?
  3. I am getting ready to award a task order under Connections II for an enterprise land mobile radio system. I wrote Davis Bacon and Service Contract Acts into the RFP. The Contractor submitted a proposal stating the following: "Our subcontractors have assured us that none of their employees supporting these requirements are covered by the Davis Bacon Act. However, if it turns out that any of their next tier subcontractors will be covered under this Act, they will comply with all the requirements of the Davis Bacon Act." According to FAR 22.404-9 22.404-9 -- Award of Contract Without Required Wage Determination. (a) If a contract is awarded without the required wage determination (i.e., incorporating no determination, containing a clearly inapplicable general wage determination, or containing a project determination which is inapplicable because of an inaccurate description of the project or its location), the contracting officer shall initiate action to incorporate the required determination in the contract immediately upon discovery of the error. If a required wage determination (valid determination in effect on the date of award) is not available, the contracting officer shall expeditiously request a wage determination from the Department of Labor, including a statement explaining the circumstances and giving the date of the contract award. ( The contracting officer shall -- (1) Modify the contract to incorporate the required wage determination (retroactive to the date of award) and equitably adjust the contract price if appropriate; or (2) Terminate the contract. My question is, If the exclusion of Davis Bacon is an error made by the Contractor, 1. Is the Government required to comply with ((1) above and incorporate retroactively, or 2. Because of the Contractor's error, can the Government, prior to award, inform the Contractor that if there is a change requiring DB, the Government will incorporate latest WD without price change, and should there be a WD revision during the remainder of the requirement, a change in pricing may be applicable at that time? 3. As this will only be incorporated at the time it is determined DB is going to be required, wouldn't application of DB at the time of the mod to add DB WD be appropriate? 4. My understanding is that Davis Bacon is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor under Connections II. Is it possible that the second tier subcontractor be allowed to comply with all the requirements of the Davis Bacon Act? Because the above is silent on fault, I assume Question 1 is applicable and I can't find anything that speaks to Question 4. Thank you
×