B-202851.OM, AUG 18, 1981

B-202851.OM, AUG 18, 1981

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL:

WE ARE FORWARDING THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, 40 U.S.C. 276A, BY R. A. GOTTLIEB, INC., VALLEY STREAM, NEW YORK, WHICH PERFORMED WORK UNDER ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTRACT NO. DACA-5176-C-0135 AT WATERVLIET ARSENAL, WATERVLIET, NEW YORK.

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 $2,449.30 ON DEPOSIT HERE TO THE TWO 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 ARE FORWARDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT MYRON COLBREUNER ON EXTENSION 53218.

INDORSEMENT

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, AFMD-CLAIMS GROUP

RETURNED. THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE CONTRACTOR, R. A. GOTTLIEB, INC., UNDERPAID THE TWO WORKERS IN QUESTION. WE NOTE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, IN HIS DECISION OF MARCH 21, 1979 (CASE NO. 78-DB-139-141), DECIDED THAT THE $65 PER WEEK PAID ONE OF THE WORKERS, PAUL SCHEINER, FOR LODGING AND MEAL EXPENSES WHILE EMPLOYED AT THE WATERVLIET PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE HOURLY WAGE RATE RECEIVED. HOWEVER, SUCH PAYMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUTING THE INDIVIDUAL WORKER'S WAGE RATE TO DETERMINE IF THE WORKER WAS PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DAVIS -BACON ACT. SEE B-199608, MARCH 16, 1981; B-200977-O.M., DECEMBER 30, 1980. ACCORDINGLY, THE $65 PER WEEK, PAID TO MR. SCHEINER, SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN FIXING THE DISBURSEMENT TO BE MADE TO HIM. THE OTHER WORKER SHOULD BE PAID AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHIEF OF PAYMENT BRANCH. THE BALANCE OF THE FUNDS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CONTRACTOR.

DEBARMENT SANCTIONS WILL NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DOES NOT RECOMMEND DEBARMENT AND DID NOT INITIATE DEBARMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN 4 YEARS SINCE THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, A PERIOD WHICH WOULD BE FURTHER LENGTHENED IF WE WERE TO DECIDE TO DEBAR, SINCE THE CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE TO BE ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL HEARING. SEE B-200301-O.M., B-200302 O.M., OCTOBER 17, 1980; B-200299-O.M., OCTOBER 7, 1980.