Prove the Objective Truth of this Quote

I cannot help you but I did find a Wikipedia article that traces the quoted philosophy back to 1862 Germany. It provides a decent starting point for further research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

Is this thread related to contracting issues or matters? Please see Terms of Use, rule number 8. “No straying from contracting. All discussions must be related, in some way, to contracting issues and must remain on topic.”

It appears to be a request for legal justification to support or argue against a political opinion.

We were once upon a time chided by an esteemed member here for providing legal advice, although that water has long flowed over the bridge.😃

WifWaf said:

I am looking for the area of statute, CFR, or case law where WIFCON believes the following quote rings most true.  Be objective with facts.

What is the purpose of this?  Is it for your own edification, a project you are working on, or a paper you are writing?  Responding properly takes some effort so we need to know.

I am in search of a discussion on a discussion board.  Maybe this topic is about something people are attributing to me from their own pasts or from some other discussion.  You shouldn’t do that, it is demeaning of my life and work.

I am just a CO in search of how to comply with FAR 1.602-1(b).  Seriously - that’s it.

WifWaf said:

I am in search of a discussion on a discussion board.  Maybe this topic is about something people are attributing to me from their own pasts or from some other discussion.  You shouldn’t do that, it is demeaning of my life and work.

I am just a CO in search of how to comply with FAR 1.602-1(b).  Seriously - that’s it.

@WifWaf, I didn’t attribute anything to you from my own past or some other discussions. I questioned what this opinion had to do with contracting, caselaw, CFR, etc. and now - how this Elon Musk statement applies in application of complying with FAR 1.602-1(b).

Please clarify/elaborate. Thanks.

“(b) No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.”

Deleted.

WifWaf said:

I am looking for the area of statute, CFR, or case law where WIFCON believes the following quote rings most true.  Be objective with facts.  Maybe rely on the Section 809 Report's legwork, but be creative too.

Alternative, intervention-promoting viewpoints are also welcome here.

@WifWaf I'm not sure what you're looking for. Your opening and subsequent post are murky, at best. Are you looking for a quote from a statute, regulation, or decision that supports Elon Musk's comment? And what do you mean by "Be objective with facts." Facts are facts.

As for your quote from Elon Musk, at least one senior government official appears to agree with him. See the new book by Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, Overruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (2024). And see this from Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 721 (Thomas's dissent):

Quote

Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.

The phrase "freedom from government" appears in 69 Federal circuit courts of appeals decisions. It appears in 190 Federal district court decisions. And see Anderson, " Executive Orders, 'The Very Definition of Tyranny' and the Congressional Solution, The Separation of Powers Restoration Act, in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly (Spring 2002).

As for promoting intervention, see "The Power of Procurement: How the United States Should Leverage Its Buying Power to Uphold International Labor Standards and Clean Global Supply Chains", by Sebar Jamal, in the current edition of Public Contract Law Journal (Spring 2024).

Thank you for trying to wade into my murkiness.  Let me clarify.  No legal advice is requested.  No politics are necessary to prove a truth (quite the opposite).  History is what WIFCON does best, and accurate history can help prove objective truth.  I trust you all to provide accurate history.

As a CO, I like to think it is actually possible to meet my FAR 1.602-1(b) authority and -2(a) responsibility.  However, my counterparts in various industries have to do the actual compliance with these laws and regulations, so my ears perked up when one of them publicly decried the repercussions he experienced meeting the laws that we can assume a CO (and, later, a judge) implemented in his contract.  I am looking to decide if Mr. Musk is being objectively truthful in this instance.

One way we can decide that for ourselves is by comparing his industry operating in the present to that same industry operating in the past.  In doing so we could identify many onerous laws and decide if less of them in the past likely benefited overall output.  That's "freedom to operate" in tangible, unideological terms.  In other words, objective truth.

The quote provided in the OP is likely discussing the onerousness of operating in NAICS 336414 - "Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing" 1.  That's been around since the 1960s at least.  What especially problematic statutes, regulations, and case law interpretations have been added to contracts operating in that industry in the past 60 years?  What, if any, have been removed?  Did any small businesses thrive in that NAICS Code due to a particularly onerous law not being applied?

Thank you for the book recommendations, I am looking into them.

1 https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=20c1055b4757790570616163f6140723

@WifWaf

Here's your quote of Musk:

On 8/19/2024 at 7:43 AM, WifWaf said:

[America's core principles include promoting freedom to operate].  Meaning, the least amount of government intervention possible.  This is important because, almost like entropy, the hand of government gets heavier every year.  The laws and regulations accumulate every year, and these laws and regulations are immortal.  So you have to have to an active role in reducing the number of laws and regulations, otherwise as more and more are passed, eventually everything becomes illegal.  Action A is illegal and action B is illegal and there isn’t anything you can do that is legal.

Six sentences. From them I extracted the following statements asserted to be facts:

1. America's core principles include promoting freedom to operate.
2. The hand of government gets heavier every year.
3. The laws and regulations accumulate every year.
4. The laws and regulations are immortal.

I take the following to be a reasonable interpretation of 1.

     Meaning, the least amount of government intervention possible.

The following is purely rhetorical prediction, not a statement of fact:

     If you don't actively reduce the number of laws and regulations, everything will be illegal.

I say that 1, 2, and 3 are true.

For the truth of 1, see the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and any number of Supreme Court decisions.

2 and 3 say essentially the same thing, and 3 is demonstrably true. See Gorsuch's book for the facts.

I say that 4 is demonstrably false.

Vern Edwards said:

I say that 4 is demonstrably false.

I dunno, 29 CFR Part 9, “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts” seems immortal to me.  Or undead.

WifWaf said:

I dunno, 29 CFR Part 9, “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts” seems immortal to me.  Or undead.

Laws and regulations are enacted, published, revised, and repealed the time. They are not "immortal" and it's stupid to say so. Not even the Constitution is immortal.

Are you done?

Quote

Is this thread related to contracting issues or matters?

Regulations are enacted through FAR clauses, so I'd say it's 100% related to contracting. The SNAFU regarding the COVID clause is a perfect example.

Vern Edwards said:

They are not "immortal" and it's stupid to say so.

Quote

The Chicken Tax is a 25% trade tariff (tax) originally imposed on brandy, dextrin**,** potato starch, and light trucks imported into the United States from other countries. Intended to restrict the importation of those goods, the Chicken Tax was imposed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1963 as a response to a similar tariff placed by West Germany and France on chicken meat imported from the United States. While the Chicken Tax tariff on brandy, dextrin**,** and potato starch was lifted years ago, the tariff on imported light trucks and cargo vans remains in place in an effort to protect U.S. automakers from foreign competition.

The Chicken Tax: Origins and Impact (thoughtco.com)

You're being disingenuous. Nothing is immortal, so you are certainly correct in the most pedantic way possible, however I'm fairly certain that no one took that statement to mean that any regulation enacted today will still be around when the sun goes supernova. According to you my professors at the GWU Graduate School of Business were also obviously stupid, because the tendency of regulations to persist once enacted was an axiom throughout the entire Business and Government Relations curriculum.

The Service Contract Act, enacted nearly 60 years ago, has a threshold of $2,500.  That amount never was increased just to make organized labor happy.

Davis-Bacon threshold is similarly enshrined at $2000…

@REA'n Maker To say that I am "certainly correct" in a "pedantic" way is laughable. And business school professors are never wrong. Right? (I'm sure that's axiomatic in business schools.)

If you want to complain about the persistence of laws and regulations, try making an intelligent analysis instead of schoolyard complaints. And in doing so try not to say things like "Regulations are enacted through FAR clauses... " Did you learn that at the GWU Graduate School of Business?

Immortal means "Not subject to death." American Heritage Dictionary, 5th ed. A "tendency to persist" and being long-lived are not the same as immortal. In this country, laws can be, and are, amended or repealed, and regulations can be, and are, revised and withdrawn.

The gold standard for U.S. currency (1834) was abandoned in 1971. The Armed Services Procurement Regulation (1949) was canceled in 1984. The Service Contract Act of 1965 has been amended several times, as has the Davis Bacon Act. Executive orders, like the Chicken Tax, can be, and have been, revised or withdrawn. OMB Circular A-76 (1966) was revised many times and is now under a Congressional "moratorium". The graveyard of laws, regulations, and policies is huge. Remember when GSBCA had bid protest authority?

Case law can be overturned, stare decisis notwithstanding, as many have recently learned to their shock. Roe v. Wade (1973) was long-lived. Chevron (1984) was long-lived, and its death is likely to produce many shocks. More long-standing case law is likely to be be overturned in the next session of the current Supreme Court.

As long as there is a chance for change there is hope (and fear). Statutory repeal and deregulation have happened and will happen again.

On 8/21/2024 at 12:38 PM, formerfed said:

The Service Contract Act, enacted nearly 60 years ago, has a threshold of $2,500.

On 8/21/2024 at 5:06 PM, joel hoffman said:

Davis-Bacon threshold is similarly enshrined at $2000

And the resulting complexities are daunting today.  Were they ever less daunting?

WifWaf said:

And the resulting complexities are daunting today.  Were they ever less daunting?

Yes, when $2000 was a much larger purchase(scope). Inflation has made it applicable to very small efforts.

Many thresholds are now adjusted for inflation. But not these labor related ones. It’s ridiculous.

joel hoffman said:

Many thresholds are now adjusted for inflation. But not these labor related ones. It’s ridiculous.

I  think the SCA and D-B thresholds should be raised, but it's a political question, not an administrative one, and it (arguably) affects the interests and well-being of workers, who outrank bureaucrats, now and in the foreseeable future.

A $2,000 dollar construction effort now days could involve an hour or two worth of labor to install something. Does that mean obtaining a wage decision and payrolls, etc, etc?

The threshold isnt based solely on the cost of labor…

What about the addition of 29 CFR Part 13, effective January 2017 and incorporated into all CONUS SCA/DBA contracts via FAR 52.222-62.  This change still makes my head hurt reading SCLS WDs.  At what point is federal work no longer free to operate for the high school graduate with a dream?

joel hoffman said:

A $2,000 dollar construction effort now days could involve an hour or two worth of labor to install something. Does that mean obtaining a wage decision and payrolls, etc, etc?

WifWaf said:

What about the addition of 29 CFR Part 13, effective January 2017 and incorporated into all contracts via FAR 52.222-62.  This change still makes my head hurt reading SCLS WDs.

Are those supposed to be arguments that might persuade Congress to repeal or revise a law that is actually or symbolically important to a politically powerful constituency like labor?

Is that all you've got? Bureaucratic inconvenience and confusion?

Surely, Joel, you can do better. (I'm not sure about WifWaf.) Why don't you stop posting and think about it?

How is the present dollar threshold for Davis-Bacon bad for the system and the country? What's your argument?

😂

What good does applying Davis-Bacon, essentially requiring Union labor rates to simple tasks, that may take a couple of hours to perform, provide the country, labor or the system?

The “system” has recently reverted to determining, in practice,   “prevailing wage rates” based on local Union rates, even where union labor is a small fraction of the labor force. DOL stopped doing that probably 20-25 years ago. Now it’s back.

Bureaucratic inconvenience?????? Come on Vern. Unnecessary, wasteful complexity for minuscule tasks that doesn’t effect any real difference in a workers pay.

Most small construction tasks are performed by small businesses, who likely aren’t unionized  in most parts of the country. Union contractors probably won’t even bother contracting for such small jobs. 

$2000 total cost is minuscule in scale. Why over complicate it.

I could talk for days about dealing with the Tri-City, Washington unionized labor force at Umatilla, Oregon that built the Chemical Weapons Demil Plant. (Example: three electricians carrying a 20’ , 3/4” piece of electrical conduit that probably weighs 5 pounds or less across the site from a storage trailer… the prime had electrical labor overruns of 165% on a huge FFP contract that affected the other trade productivity.)

joel hoffman said:

Unnecessary, wasteful complexity...

"Unnecessary" depends on your point of view. But please provide a specific example of the "wasteful complexity" of Davis-Bacon. What's so hard about paying a specified minimum wage and maintaining payroll records? What is complex and what is the waste?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for specifics that will explain your point of view. D-B seems like more of a problem for big contracts than for small ones.

Remember, I once ran the construction shop for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Vern Edwards said:

How is the present dollar threshold for Davis-Bacon bad for the system and the country? What's your argument?

One could try comparing the unemployed+discouraged worker rate in right-to-work states to that of union-friendly states.

https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/

I imagine that’s been argued, and those that don’t see any truth as objective have undermined the argument.  So the question in this case then becomes, how does one prove truth is objective?  A middle ground of “objective enough” must be found.

Not understanding this angle of debate from your opponent is why there is such a vast schism on the issues today.

@WifWaf What are you trying to prove about Davis-Bacon? What is your assertion? What are your facts?

First, some definitions I’ve gathered over the years.

Modernity: the truth is knowable for anyone equipped to know - like looking through a window.

Postmodernity: the truth is largely unknowable and those who say they know only know themself - like a mirror.

Critical realism: the truth is knowable but hard to know - like a darkened window.  The relativity and psychology that can pollute historical knowledge is not an insurmountable barrier to truth - it doesn’t mean it’s not worth basing your life on it.  We just need to be aware of our own worldview lenses.

Critical realism allows for the middle ground I mentioned above.

Vern Edwards said:

@WifWaf What are you trying to prove about Davis-Bacon? What is your assertion? What are your facts?

My point is, the opponents I mentioned above have a point.  Even with a portfolio of facts, I cannot know on such a grand scale as the whole country of 330M peoples why the majority of discouraged workers are having trouble joining the labor force.  So it is unwise to even try.  Instead, anyone in power over a government decision that could even remotely discourage a labor force should have a bias against action.

Unnecessary mandates are heavy handed.

"What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

Vern, the specifics are that a $2000 construction job probably wouldn’t take more than a day or so at the most. The labor is only a small fraction of the total cost, including materials, any equipment and materials plus the overhead and markup. The administrative costs for a contractor to comply with the D-B wage rate requirements for a minuscule job involving  a few man hours would likely be burdensome, especially for a small business, non- union contractor.

I doubt that many if any Union contractor would bother with a small job. Many union contracts include show up pay requirements, such as at least four hours, even for a one to three hour workday.

There are also strict limitations on what Union employees are allowed to do, leading to the need for additional crew members and/or separate trades for routine work that one or two persons can accomplish. Add the additional paperwork burden to that. 

Only between 10-12% of the nationwide construction workforce is unionized. Many of those work on large projects.

Apparently you believe that the 88-90% non-union workforce are being taken advantage by their employers and it would serve the nation well to pay everyone union  wages and benefits.

If a non-union employee performs more than one trade on a small job, do they have to keep track of the different trade times? Probably just get paid the highest rate.

@joel hoffman The Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Act dollar thresholds are not going to change in the foreseeable future. You don't have an argument that will convince Congress and the President to change them. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but it doesn't matter. They don't care what we think. You know that. Why go on?

The only way you could increase those thresholds or repeal those laws would be if you had an overwhelming Republican majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican president. Do you see any signs of that happening any time soon? Even then it would be no sure thing. The socioeconomic programs are political rules, and only politics can change them.

I am not going to discuss this further. All that's going on here now is whining.

I'm have written something somewhat along these lines, only taking a broader approach, for an upcoming issue of The Nash & Cibninc Report. That won't matter, either, but at least I get paid for it.

Signing off the thread.

On 8/24/2024 at 7:52 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for specifics that will explain your point of view

@Vern Edwards Ok. See next post.

Vern Edwards said:

You know that. Why go on?

@Vern Edwards Because Saturday, you asked me to go on (“provide specifics”).  Did you forget? 

I thought I’d already made my point. You had appeared to believe that there was some value to the construction workforce in keeping the threshold at $2000.

However, in response to your Saturday request, I provided some specific details for my reasoning against retaining the threshold.

Yes, “I know” and am glad we agree that the DB threshold should be changed and that we agree Congress and the President won’t change it.

None of them know anything about it. It’s purely political, in almost meaningless support for the 10-12% portion of the US construction industry labor force that is unionized.

That’s why the $2000 DB threshold is practically or seemingly “semi-immortal”.

Those unionized construction firms likely won’t bother seeking or taking on a $2000 or even larger small construction contract. Those can be relatively easily procured from local small business firms using simplified acquisition methods.

Seemingly Immortal laws and regulations was a point in the original post quoting Elon Musk and in wifwaf’s summation, both of which you challenged.

it’s interesting that even some of the largest US construction firms have separate Union and non-union companies (e.g., Bechtel). It’s called “Double-Breasted Operations”.

I’m done too, thanks.

@joel hoffman I did ask for specifics. Sorry.

You'll like the article I just signed off on for N&CR. Bob will post it at Wifcon.

Bye.

Thanks, Vern.  I’ll look for the article. Bye.🤠

@joel hoffman and other interested persons:

See the September 26, 1980 memo from GAO to OFPP, subject: Should Small Purchases Be Exempt from Complying with Social and Economic Program Requirements.

Follow this link: https://gao.justia.com/general-services-administration/1980/9/should-small-purchases-be-exempt-from-complying-with-social-and-economic-program-requirements-psad-80-77/PSAD-80-77-full-report.pdf

I think you'll find it interesting, especially the discussion of raising applicability of Davis-Bacon from $2,000 to $10,000. Note the discussion of arguments pro and con.

I address the memo in my N&CR article.

It probably is more difficult now to increase the thresholds as it was in the 1980s.  Wage determinations are online and contracting personnel can access without the delays from the past.  DoL will fight and say the administrative effort on contracting is nil.

formerfed said:

It probably is more difficult now to increase the thresholds as it was in the 1980s.  Wage determinations are online and contracting personnel can access without the delays from the past.  DoL will fight and say the administrative effort on contracting is nil.

The administrative effort on the part of non-Union contractors isn’t nil. 88-90% construction employees are non-Union, generally including those working for small business employers. Local Small Businesses would  be the industry market for very small construction contracts (generally reserved for small business anyway) assuming the DB threshold would be raised to say$10k.

Remember that the labor share of $2k-$10k minor construction/Maintnence/repair contract would generally be a small percentage of the total price, which also would likely include, materials, tools and equipment, supervision, overhead and profit.

I agree Joel.  I’m just responding with what I think DoL will come back with.

Joel,

Are you trying to make a case for a change?  Fine with me if you are, but I don’t think Wifcon.com is where you need to make your case.

@joel hoffman @formerfed

I have followed.   In my research I found the following article, interesting read.  Makes me wonder if if there is hidden group (like 60 million workers that would like to be unionized) that help drives keeping DB and SCA alive.  The article not only generated the foregoing thought but the fact that if not all but most DB wage determinations carry both union rate and survey unit (SU) indicators.   For South Carolina that is supposedly the least unionized for construction most catagories are SU, for Hawaii the supposedly most unionized for construction most are union rate identifiers.  My point maybe DB supports both unionized and non-unionized workers.  

And, I always found the discussion of DB (SCA too) around the watercooler before I retired to be interesting.   Program folks always concerned about "wage rates" without considering they themselves might be a part of the AFGE or an equal.

All in all a very complicated topic with lots of considerations.

The article - https://www.epi.org/publication/union-membership-data/#:~:text=the public sector-,In 2023%2C 16.2 million workers in the United States were,from 11.3% to 11.2%.

Carl, did your research show you that DOL has recently decided to revert to methods used to determine Prevailing wage rates that are essentially based upon organized labor bargained rates, even though they might not be “prevailing” for the locality

This is the way it was done a relatively long time ago in the seventies and 80’s. I don’t remember when that was changed to reflect more actual prevailing rates.

Now it seems to be back during this Administration. So wage rates applicable to a small minority of the workforce may now again be considered the prevailing rates…

It was posted on WIFCON awhile back, complete with the DOL “spin”, justification.

On 8/19/2024 at 9:43 AM, WifWaf said:

I am looking for the area of statute, CFR, or case law where WIFCON believes the following quote rings most true.  Be objective with facts.  Maybe rely on the Section 809 Report's legwork, but be creative too.

Alternative, intervention-promoting viewpoints are also welcome here.

On 8/20/2024 at 5:16 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Six sentences. From them I extracted the following statements asserted to be facts:

1. America's core principles include promoting freedom to operate.
2. The hand of government gets heavier every year.
3. The laws and regulations accumulate every year.
4. The laws and regulations are immortal.

On 8/21/2024 at 11:38 AM, formerfed said:

The Service Contract Act, enacted nearly 60 years ago, has a threshold of $2,500.  That amount never was increased just to make organized labor happy.

On 8/21/2024 at 4:06 PM, joel hoffman said:

Davis-Bacon threshold is similarly enshrined at $2000…

On 8/22/2024 at 6:44 AM, Vern Edwards said:

As long as there is a chance for change there is hope (and fear). Statutory repeal and deregulation have happened and will happen again.

On 8/23/2024 at 8:50 AM, WifWaf said:

And the resulting complexities are daunting today.  Were they ever less daunting?

On 8/23/2024 at 7:39 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Are those supposed to be arguments that might persuade Congress to repeal or revise a law that is actually or symbolically important to a politically powerful constituency like labor?

Is that all you've got? Bureaucratic inconvenience and confusion?

Surely, Joel, you can do better. (I'm not sure about WifWaf.) Why don't you stop posting and think about it?

How is the present dollar threshold for Davis-Bacon bad for the system and the country? What's your argument?

On 8/24/2024 at 7:52 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for specifics that will explain your point of view. D-B seems like more of a problem for big contracts than for small ones.

Nine hours ago, @ji20874 posted: “Joel,Are you trying to make a case for a change?  Fine with me if you are, but I don’t think Wifcon.com is where you need to make your case.”

————————————————
ji, have you followed this thread? Yes, I responded to the subject of the thread. I simply mentioned that the $2000 Davis-Bacon threshold appears to be immortal.

It’s been the threshold since 1935. The original 1931 threshold was $5000 but was lowered, as part of efforts to end the Great Depression,  to $2000. You can read the history of the Davis-Bacon Act at Wikipedia.com

Then, I was challenged to explain why it’s “bad for the system and the country” and why it’s burdensome.

The conversation eventually got around to the likelihood of the DB threshold being increased.

It appears that it won’t likely be raised.

A dollar in 1935 is worth $22.69 in 2024. I wouldn’t advocate raising it that much. But a comparable amount of construction work within the current threshold is about 4.4% of what you could get in 1935.

And labor productivity was much lower then, resulting in larger labor crews and total labor hours to construct a project. Means, methods, materials, tools and equipment have greatly increased labor productivity.

 If most of the 88-90% of the US construction industry workforce is willing to work as non-union craft labor,  is there a need to retain a 1931 ($5000) or 1935 ($2,000) Depression Era threshold for application of primarily union based wage rates.

Almost all, if not all states, have adopted minimum construction wage rates.

In fact, when I was still active in construction contracting as late as 8 years ago, actual wages on our job sites often exceeded the DB minimum wage rates due to market competition for craft labor.

This thread intended to discuss, in part, regulations and laws that, once Instituted, tend to live forever, regardless of whether or not they are still necessary.

Unionized contractors likely won’t bother with minuscule contracts with very little labor hours but with the administrative expenses to comply and report, Union work craft rule restrictions, etc.

joel hoffman said:

Carl,

Thanks Joel. 

I do not know how I would ask the millions of workers to verify my thought, while noting that some of their voices are supposedly heard through various constituencies, but maybe, just maybe it is the whatever millions of individual workers that like the idea of a very low threshold so those that speak for them of sorts regarding establishment of law, the politicians, have it right, leave the threshold low and let it live forever at a low dollar amount.  A threshold that is low and looks immortal in my life time, after that I will never know.

joel hoffman said:

Unionized contractors likely won’t bother with minuscule contracts with very little labor hours but with the administrative expenses to comply and report, Union work craft rule restrictions, etc.

Carl, when you have to use multiple trades to perform a tiny amount of work…which is reserved for small business firms anyway, it’s not practical for Unionized contractors. So there is no need to “protect” or promote union labor on such small jobs.

But it probably will be the same for Longer time. Common sense isn’t evident here.

joel hoffman said:

Common sense isn’t evident here

@joel hoffman That's wrong. There is political common sense at work, and it is more potent than bureaucratic common sense. Much more.

No other agency has such a strong and enthusiastic constituency base as Labor.  Unions fight tooth and nail against anything that reduces their power.  They will view increases in contract thresholds as weakening their position as staunch supporters of labor, even if the increases are trivial by today’s dollar equivalency.

formerfed said:

No other agency has such a strong and enthusiastic constituency base as Labor.  Unions fight tooth and nail against anything that reduces their power.  They will view increases in contract thresholds as weakening their position as staunch supporters of labor, even if the increases are trivial by today’s dollar equivalency.

We're a democratic republic, and that's how it's supposed to work. We can change things only through rational appeal and persuasion (seasoned with political contributions).

But we can argue that (1) the coming years will confront us with serious challenges both foreign and domestic, (2) that the government depends on the procurement system to supply it with the goods and services that it will need to meet those challenges, and (3) that policies which render the procurement system less efficient, timely, and effective should be reviewed, reconsidered, and revised, suspended, or terminated as appropriate. We can then present documented facts in support or our assertions. We can also argue that too much law, policy, and regulation undermines support, and even compliance, with all. (Or so says Justice Gorsuch in his new book.)

formerfed said:

No other agency has such a strong and enthusiastic constituency base as Labor.  Unions fight tooth and nail against anything that reduces their power.  They will view increases in contract thresholds as weakening their position as staunch supporters of labor, even if the increases are trivial by today’s dollar equivalency.

As an example, the Davis-Bacon threshold was higher ($5000) 93 years ago than it is now. They lowered it 89 years ago to $2000. That’s longer than anyone here has lived.

Trivial? That’s an understatement. A dollar then was worth over 20 times what it is today. Today a dollar can buy about 4.4 cents of what a dollar could buy back then. My dad earned $1 a day plus meals and a cot in his Army run CCC Camp in 1933. $2000 was equivalent to 2000 man days of work. 🤪

On 8/26/2024 at 9:36 AM, Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffman and other interested persons:

See the September 26, 1980 memo from GAO to OFPP, subject: Should Small Purchases Be Exempt from Complying with Social and Economic Program Requirements.

Follow this link: https://gao.justia.com/general-services-administration/1980/9/should-small-purchases-be-exempt-from-complying-with-social-and-economic-program-requirements-psad-80-77/PSAD-80-77-full-report.pdf

I think you'll find it interesting, especially the discussion of raising applicability of Davis-Bacon from $2,000 to $10,000. Note the discussion of arguments pro and con.

I address the memo in my N&CR article.

Looking forward to your upcoming article, Vern.

The 1980 GAO memo to OFPP is very informative and mirrors much of my arguments.

Even then, GAO was indicating that there was no need for “protection” for organized labor for small, relatively insignificant projects below the then $10,000 simplified acquisition limit, let alone a $2,000 threshold. Such contracts were reserved for small business firms.

Those firms generally aren’t unionized and are burdened by administrative costs and manpower resources to comply with D-B. The GAO said that the D-B protections were designed for workers on large project [not minuscule projects that would likely be performed by non-union employees anyway].

Sorry for rambling. I’m done now.

On 8/19/2024 at 6:14 PM, WifWaf said:

I am just a CO in search of how to comply with FAR 1.602-1(b).  Seriously - that’s it.

That's from the OP's (WifWaf's) second post, and it's the key to understanding what this thread was supposed to be about. The attention to "immortality" and Davis-Bacon has been misleading.

FAR 1.602-1(b):

Quote

No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.

Is that possible?

The theoretical answer is yes. But as a practical matter the answer is no. There are too many rules (laws, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures).

The worst rules (in number and complexity) are in FAR Subchapter D, Socioeconomic Programs, which encompasses FAR Parts 19 through 26.

Do you remember my post about the Army RFQ for mowing less than two acres of lawn 18 times a year and doing other grounds maintenance? It was a simplified acquisition for commercial services set aside for small businesses. The RFQ was 90 pages long and incorporated 105 solicitation provisions and contract clauses, and a 525-page Army regulation for grounds maintenance as the quality standard.

I wrote a critical Nash & Cibinic Report article about that, which Bob published. I just completed an "audit" of that RFQ and concluded that when you print the full text of all the provisions and clauses, the Army regulation, and the full text of the Code of Federal Regulations rules incorporated into the contract by just two clauses𑁋 52.222-41 and 52.222-26𑁋the contract is more than 1,500 pages in length. Just for mowing, trimming, edging, and pruning less than two acres 18 times per year, for one year and four one-year options. If all provisions and clauses were  considered the contract would be much lengthier.

Although Joel has kept us focused on Davis-Bacon, it is one of the least administratively burdensome of the  socioeconomic programs. FAR 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements, is much less complex and demanding than FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards.

FAR 52.223-20, Aerosols, is a very short clause, slightly more than ½ pate in length. But paragraph (c) states:

Quote

The Contract shall refer to EPA's SNA program to identify alternatives. The SNAP list of alternatives is found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, with supplemental tables available at http://www.epa..gov/snap.

40 CFR part 82, subpart G, prints out to 100 pages at ecfr.gov. I call such pages "hidden" contract pages.

According to Justice Gorsuch in his new book, the 2021 Code of Federal Regulations spanned 200 volumes and 188,000 pages. Thousands of those pages are incorporated into government contracts by reference in provisions and clauses. Most COs, and overwhelmingly most contractors, are unaware of this and are not skilled in finding, reading, and interpreting those pages. And the socioeconomic rules are the most complex and demanding of all.

THAT is the problem with complying with FAR 1.602-1(b). It's not how long a given rule is in place, it's how many rules we have. The government is choking its procurement system to death.

Think about it.

Quote

Is that possible?

The theoretical answer is yes. But as a practical matter the answer is no. There are too many rules (laws, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures).

@Vern Edwards There are so many rules, it’s too much effort to ensure 100% compliance at the solicitation and contract document preparation.  Most contract specialists use contract writing systems and don’t have the time or energy to verify if all the proper clauses are present.  Their supervisors, contracting officers, procurement analysts, and any other reviewing personnel don’t put much effort into their tasks either.  There’s little if any fallout when mistakes surface.

The only repercussions now seem to be for major issues like improper influencing the awardee selection process, taking bribes and kickbacks, or antideficiency act violations.  Otherwise discovery of improper rule violations just gets shoulder shrugs.

Priorities to make timely awards, acquire what the mission wants above all other issues, and hitting the socioeconomic goal numbers really dilutes the importance of awarding a contract 100% compliant with all the rules.  As stated, there are too many rules to enable that to happen.