HVAC work on non-building

[joel hoffman]

Actually, the FAR just quotes the definition that originated in 29 CFR many years ago.

I hope you know that the point that I am making is that the definition is lousy. You can say all you want that the definition says that buildings and works are things, but the fact is that it doesn't. It refers to things in the second sentence, but it also refers to activities, and in the third sentence it makes a distinction between one set of activities and another. You are interpreting it to refer to things, and while I think that's what the definition writers meant, that's not what they said. I won't let the definition writers off the hook, and as a professor, you shouldn't either. We should give them as much trouble as we can. When they start a definition with a sentence as clear and as strange as the one they have written, they deserve all the trouble we can give them. I'm done arguing with you about it. We've beaten it to death. I won't concede anything, and neither will you, and I'm content to leave it at that.

Frankly, I love that definition, and I think it's a great teaching tool.

There are several aspects related to construction contracting that are out of date in the FAR and/or federal stautes. Many of the rules and definitions seem to date or originate back in the old DoD or Corps of Engineer construction regulations of decades ago.

Gone are the days where many or most general contractors own a lot of capital construction equipment. Rental equipment is prevalent now. Many don't self-perform a significant amount of general construction. This requires significant investment in permanent mangement staff and management systems. Many construction company headquarters are located in office suites vs. traditional true home office complexes with yards, equipment and tool shops and inventories.

Construction management firms are becoming common. These type firms often don't self-perform any construction. They hire subs to do all the work, so often can't meet the self-performance requirements or come up with "novel ways" to meet the minimums. Their management control and effectiveness is often less than the tradional firms thast have a heavy personal interest and manage risk in the schedule and quality of the construction. Safety often suffers from this dimished hands on approach.

The contract clause 52.236-1 Performance of Work by the Contractor only credits self-performed work performed "on the site". There is no consideration for off-site fabrication shops or pre-fabbed construction assembled at the home office or a permanent, modular factory.

Permanent modular construction and pre-fabricated assemblies are now becoming common types of construction and the labor regulations sometimes don't keep up.

As stated here, the definition of public works and public buildings is obsolete and leaves many questions unanswered. Permanent and relocable modular construction and pre-fabricated assemblies are now becoming common types of construction. The Government doesn't even track how many relocatable structures it owns, where they are or have clear rules on how to fix them.

[Don Mansfield]

I know this will do nothing to convince Vern, but I asked someone on the FAR Team responsible for Labor Law if they thought a mobile storage unit (as described by the OP) was a public work for purposes of the Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) statute. This was the response I received:

In reviewing your question and without knowing the history, I would say the mobile storage facility is considered a public building/work.

[ji20874]

Don,

In your question, were you abundantly clear that the storage unit is not bolted to a foundation or otherwise fastened to the ground? Any ambiguity on that matter could have led to an assumption on the part of your correspondent, which assumption would have led to the answer he or she gave.

As I recall, the original poster said it was not bolted to a foundation, but I don't recall him or her going so far as to say whether the unit was still on wheels or on a skid, for example.

[Don Mansfield]

ji20874,

No, I didn't specify. This was what I wrote:

Would a mobile storage facility (think mobile home but bigger) owned by the Government be considered a public building or public work? Assume the item is accounted for as personal property as opposed to real property.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Don:

It would convince me if the assertion that a mobile storage unit is a public work/building were accompanied by a convincing argument: major premise, minor premise, and conclusion. No argument, no convincement.

In these kinds of discussions I don't care what answer is right. I care about the argument. To show you just how unconvincing your correspondent is, you asked about a "mobile" unit and he/she answered without even asking you if the thing was on wheels and attached to a pickup (like one I saw on the ranch last weekend) or resting on the ground without wheels.