fbhwt
Electrical Systems Inspector
- Location
- Spotsylvania,Virginia
- Occupation
- Electrical Systems Inspector
I posted to this forum well over a year ago about a situation I was in involving work I had done while employed with an electrical contractor. The company I worked for was contracted by Lockheed-Martin to do the work (on a government installation) which envolved the installation of a UPS system, panel relocation, new panel installation, transformer installation, running conduit, feeder and branch circuit installation. I had filed a complaint with the USDOL because I believed that this work would be covered by the DBRA. I just recently received a letter from the USDOL and this was there findings, I might also add that I had done other work on other government installations for this company and was part of the complaint.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This letter is in response to information you provided to my office in October of 2009. you were concerned that you were not paid the proper wage rates while working on federally funded jobs as an employee of the above named firm. My office enforces the labor standards provisions of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts which requires the payment of prevailing wages and fringe benefits on federally financed construction projects.
You stated that you preformed work as an electrician on several federally financed construction projects but you were paid less than the required wage rate.
Our investigation did not corroborate your allegations.
First of all, we did not review any federally financed project that had been closed prior to our investigation. The recovery of unpaid wages on federal construction contracts is ultimately dependent on the witholding of funds otherwise due the prime contractor on the contract on which the violation occurred.
We reviewed two federally financed projects that affected you. The first was X project which was financed by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. You were found to have been paid the proper wage and fringe benefit rates for this project, $22.72 and $7.83 per hour respectively. (Although I was eventually paid, I was not paid according to 29 CFR 5.5 (a) (1) this however was not addressed in this letter.)
The second federally financed project was for panel and conduit installation in Building 1524, Dahlgren, VA. This work was a subcontract between Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and X Electric Company. Lockheed Martin's contract with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, of which X Electric Company was a small part, called for more than 80% of the work to be performed by exempt employees. Based on the investigation findings it was determined that neither the Davis-Bacon act (DBA) nor the Service Contract Act (SCA) was applicable to this contract. ( The work that myself and co-workers did was far more than "panel and conduit installation" as mentioned above. My co-workers and I spent almost four months on this job encluding overtime, we did 100% of the work, also the work was performed in Building 1520 not Buliding 1524 as stated in the letter).
DBA does not apply to construction work which is recurring , or the construction work is so merged with non-construction work or so fragmented in terms of the time spans of its performance that the construction work is not capable of being segregated as a separate contractual requirement.
Although X Electric Company was awarded a maintenance service contract for laying conduit and servicing electrical panels, it was determined that since the principal purpose of the contract was "to provide something other than services of the character contemplated by the Service Contracts Act, and any such services which may be performed are only incidental to the preformance of a contract for other purpose, the Act does not apply" (SCA Part 4.111)
Since less than 20% of the contract services were preformed by non-exempt employees the contract is exempt from all provisions of the SCA. We did not find that you were underpaid for your work on this project.
Consequently, we can take no further action on your behalf. End of letter
Somthing just does not seem right aside form where the work was actually done, any comments would be appreciated.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This letter is in response to information you provided to my office in October of 2009. you were concerned that you were not paid the proper wage rates while working on federally funded jobs as an employee of the above named firm. My office enforces the labor standards provisions of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts which requires the payment of prevailing wages and fringe benefits on federally financed construction projects.
You stated that you preformed work as an electrician on several federally financed construction projects but you were paid less than the required wage rate.
Our investigation did not corroborate your allegations.
First of all, we did not review any federally financed project that had been closed prior to our investigation. The recovery of unpaid wages on federal construction contracts is ultimately dependent on the witholding of funds otherwise due the prime contractor on the contract on which the violation occurred.
We reviewed two federally financed projects that affected you. The first was X project which was financed by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. You were found to have been paid the proper wage and fringe benefit rates for this project, $22.72 and $7.83 per hour respectively. (Although I was eventually paid, I was not paid according to 29 CFR 5.5 (a) (1) this however was not addressed in this letter.)
The second federally financed project was for panel and conduit installation in Building 1524, Dahlgren, VA. This work was a subcontract between Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and X Electric Company. Lockheed Martin's contract with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, of which X Electric Company was a small part, called for more than 80% of the work to be performed by exempt employees. Based on the investigation findings it was determined that neither the Davis-Bacon act (DBA) nor the Service Contract Act (SCA) was applicable to this contract. ( The work that myself and co-workers did was far more than "panel and conduit installation" as mentioned above. My co-workers and I spent almost four months on this job encluding overtime, we did 100% of the work, also the work was performed in Building 1520 not Buliding 1524 as stated in the letter).
DBA does not apply to construction work which is recurring , or the construction work is so merged with non-construction work or so fragmented in terms of the time spans of its performance that the construction work is not capable of being segregated as a separate contractual requirement.
Although X Electric Company was awarded a maintenance service contract for laying conduit and servicing electrical panels, it was determined that since the principal purpose of the contract was "to provide something other than services of the character contemplated by the Service Contracts Act, and any such services which may be performed are only incidental to the preformance of a contract for other purpose, the Act does not apply" (SCA Part 4.111)
Since less than 20% of the contract services were preformed by non-exempt employees the contract is exempt from all provisions of the SCA. We did not find that you were underpaid for your work on this project.
Consequently, we can take no further action on your behalf. End of letter
Somthing just does not seem right aside form where the work was actually done, any comments would be appreciated.
