Corduroy Frog Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 I have seen an increasing incidence of RFPs which state their effort is not subject to the SCA. In such an occurrence: If the contract works mainly professional people, but has a few clerical and administrative people also working, are the clerical people subject to the SCA anyway, even if the customer states the contract will not be subject to SCA? [my uninformed position is yes they will be subject to SCA] If said clerical people are not paid SCA scale and benefits, and this is later discovered by the Dept of Labor to be a violation bearing additional payments, will the customer be liable for restitution because of their statement? [my uninformed position is the customer will not be held responsible, and will claim it is the contractor's responsibility] Thank you in advance for any relevant discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 Re: No. 1 -- See FAR 22.1003-1. Re: No. 2 -- See FAR 22.1015. Re: Question 1 -- See FAR 22.1003-1. Re: Question 2 -- See FAR 22.1015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 ji, why do you say no to question 2? My reading of FAR 22.1015, which states in part "The contracting officer shall equitably adjust the contract price to reflect any changed cost of performance resulting from incorporating a wage determination or revision," is that the government would be liable for increased cost of performance. If the application of the SCA is made retroactive, this equitable adjustment would cover the period to which the SCA is made on a retroactive basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwomack Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 If SCA applies then the answer to #2 depends on why the clerical workers weren't paid properly. If SCA does not apply then #2 cannot be answered as the question would be based on a false premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 Retreadfed, I didn't give a "NO" answer -- I used "No. [#]" to number the items. Let me edit it to make it more clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts