Am I off base with this situation

[Leestarkweather]

Since the advent of the work processor, all my proposals to GC's or Corporate Clients have a paragraph stating the my bid is based on not being subject to Davis Bacon or any other prevailing/dictated wage scale. Some cities (Santa Monica, Palmdale, others) in CA have their own minimums. Anyway, there have been a few bids over the last 30 years where the GC used my bid, then informed me (after he was awarded the project) that the project was prevailing wage. It can, and does, happen. Every time my standard paragraph in my proposal allowed me to honestly, ethicly, and legally (not always the same 3 things) decline to do the job.

The same goes for a lot of the omissions and errors you come across when bidding some of the crappy, incomplete plans around these days. I always point out every problem area, and try to allocate adder dollars at the time of the bid (if it's not too time consuming). I've never had a GC or client pissed at me because of pointing out problems that were coming down the pike, and would have to be paid for somehow. After getting low bids from competing ECs and hammered for lots of "extras", I've been contacted and awarded work by many customers that didn't give me the work the first time.

And I sleep well at night.

 

[sparky 134]

And it keeps getting better.....

GC called and said the Fire Dept. wants four sets of point to point device drawings, loads calcs and cut sheets on the devices to be installed. I informed him I did not include time for engineering fire alarm drawings since the blueprints (which show the devices to be installed) were designed and stamped by a PE.

So I contacted the Fire Dept. plan review person and during our conversation he asked if the space was sprinklered. If it was then smoke detectors would not be required. I contacted the GC and was told the space is not sprinklered. So I informed him the Fire Dept. will require smoke detectors thru out the space. He asked if I included the smoke detectors and I said no because they were not shown on the drawings. Then I contacted the PE who created the drawings and he said he was informed the space was sprinklered thus he did not include smoke detectors.

So then I contacted the architect and asked him about sprinklers. He does some checking and calls back to say the space is not sprinklered.

GC says he does not have any 'extra' money to pay for engineered drawings or additional fire alarm devices and he doesn't want to go back to the tenant with a change order. I said either way the cost for doing the work would have been paid by the tenant. I suggested he contact the tenant and inform them the Fire Dept. is requiring this work to be done and if the tenant has a problem he should contact the architect and engineer to discuss.

 

[boboelectric]

Being a sub of a sub on a govt. job wouldn't exempt a contractor to pay prevailing rate. That's why all jobs have an info board on job site to inform the uninformed about their rights.

 

[jrannis]

I was hired to perform a tenant buildout by a GC. The space is being built for a VA office. The GC was hired by the landlord.

I am a non-union contractor. This is not a union vs. non-union discussion by any means. The local BA stopped by and threatened to picket the project and then sent the GC a fax informing them that prevailing wage will be paid on this project by the GC and all subcontractors. The GC called me to ask if I had received the same fax.

GC says, "It's not that big of a hassle. You just need to provide certified payroll for your employees."

I said, "I didn't know this was a prevailing wage project."

GC says (with a chuckle), "How could you not know ? The tenant is the VA Administration."

I said, "No one informed me during the bidding process that this was prevailing wage."

So now I'm at odds with the GC over paying prevailing wage. Had I known I would have used a higher labor rate.

I have to admit that I do not understand why you would not pay your people the prevailing wage. Maybe you should keep away from projects like this and let people make their regular minimum wages for that area.

 

[bradleyelectric]

I have to admit that I do not understand why you would not pay your people the prevailing wage. Maybe you should keep away from projects like this and let people make their regular minimum wages for that area.

I'm thinking the problem is there was no indication this was a "project like this" at bid time. I'm starting to think this may be a first time GC.

 

[George Stolz]

Fellas,

1. Watch your language.

2. The original poster asked if he was liable for paying prevailing wage if he was unaware that it was a requirement of the job. Please stick to discussing that question, avoid union/non-union discussion.

 

[jrannis]

Fellas,

1. Watch your language.

2. The original poster asked if he was liable for paying prevailing wage if he was unaware that it was a requirement of the job. Please stick to discussing that question, avoid union/non-union discussion.

Really George?
How did you read the "U" word in that?
I was questioning ethics.
The OP could be bargaining or not and have helpers or CWEs on the project.
How could you miss the job being PW anyway? And if so, why would you set up your business to where it would make that much difference? Maybe OP, you are paying your guys really low ages and this is a wake up call.:roll:

 

[sparky 134]

Really George?
How did you read the "U" word in that?
I was questioning ethics.
The OP could be bargaining or not and have helpers or CWEs on the project.
How could you miss the job being PW anyway? And if so, why would you set up your business to where it would make that much difference? Maybe OP, you are paying your guys really low ages and this is a wake up call.:roll:

The reason I didn't know the project was prevailing wage is because I only received a set of electrical drawings for the project. There were no bid documents attached, just a set of drawings. Since you do not know anything about me how dare you question my ethics ?

I have been doing work with this GC for years. The landlord is a new customer to the GC. Now if this was a true government, prevailing wage project then there would have been bid documents which would clearly spell out the prevailing wage requirement. Also, this project would have been posted for ALL contractors to bid on, not just my GC.

 

[pjmurph2002]

Any time you work at a Government facility, the first question you should ask is about prevailing wage. This is common practice. The fact that you didn't ask leads me to believe this is your first time working at a gov. facility. The responsibility is yours, not the GC. The GC cares about himself first, and everyone else second.

From what you have posted so far, I would recommend that you stop all work on the project and get the wage and FA issues resolved. If you proceed, without resolving this in writing, you are setting yourself up for a serious paperwork nightmare with the government, and significant monetary losses.
It might be worth walking away from this one, and consider it a lesson learned.