School and College Legal Services*

Recommendations 6

• R1
  All bid invitations and public works contracts shall contain appropriate language concerning the requirements of Section 1771.5(b) of the Labor Code.
• R2
  A prejob conference shall be conducted with the contractor and subcontractors to discuss federal and state labor law requirements applicable to the contract.
• R3
  Project contractors and subcontractors shall maintain and furnish, at a designated time, a certified copy of each weekly payroll containing a statement of compliance signed under penalty of perjury.
• R4
  The awarding body shall review, and, if appropriate, audit payroll records to verify compliance with this chapter.
• R5
  The awarding body shall withhold contract payments when payroll records are delinquent or inadequate.
• R6
  The awarding body shall withhold contract payments equal to the amount of underpayment and applicable penalties when, after investigation, it is established that underpayment has occurred. The net result of the adoption of such Programs will be that the County Superintendent and the Districts or their consultants will be monitoring contractors' certified payroll and will be fulfilling the requirements of their Labor Compliance Programs for projects funded by State 2002 and 2004 bond funds. Again, we must stress that the State Allocation Board has recognized that Labor Compliance programs are costly and, for that reason, additional funding from Proposition 47 Bonds has been added to project budgets to cover the costs of these programs. In addition, after spending considerable time in studying, amending and adopting Labor Compliance Programs, a majority of the Districts, including the County Superintendent, have determined that they do not have the staff with expertise to comply with the requirements of a Labor Compliance Program. The County Superintendent on behalf of the Sonoma County Office of Education and the Districts and through a request for proposal process has selected a third party provider with the expertise to assist the County Office and districts with their Labor Compliance Programs. The Honorable Mark Tansil Presiding Judge Superior Court of California August 6, 2003 Conclusion: While, the County Superintendent and the Districts are legally required and have the requisite funding to meet the Grand Jury's Recommendation R1 for construction projects funded pursuant to Proposition 47 bonds, this implementation of the Recommendation for Proposition 47 projects was not due to the Grand Jury investigation, and, in fact, was accomplished prior to the publication of Grand Jury Report, but was due to changes in the law. The County Superintendent and the Districts were not required to monitor and review payroll records during the period of the Grand Jury investigation. The County Superintendent and the Districts have never turned a "blind eye" to prevailing wage issues and have always used their best efforts to comply with the law. While it may be reasonable to expect that the proliferation of Labor Compliance Programs will make contractors more aware of prevailing wage issues, for non- Proposition 47 funded projects there continues to be no legal requirement for the County Superintendent and the Districts to monitor and review certified payroll nor, in a time of shrinking budgets, is it likely that money would be taken from education programs for this purpose. The County Superintendent and the Districts will continue to follow the law by providing notice of labor law requirements in their contracts, making records available on request, notifying DIR whenever non-compliance is encountered and to cooperating with DIR to the fullest. However, with the exception of projects subject to a Labor Compliance Program, they will not be able comply with the Grand Jury's recommendation that they actively monitor and review payroll records. Very truly yours,