SCA Bailing Out

Started by Corduroy Frog · Jul 8, 2019 · 5 replies

  1. C

    Corduroy Frog

    Jul 8, 2019 · 6y ago

    Original post

    I have seen an increasing incidence of RFPs which state their effort is not subject to the SCA.  In such an occurrence:

    1. If the contract works mainly professional people, but has a few clerical and administrative people also working, are the clerical people subject to the SCA anyway, even if the customer states the contract will not be subject to SCA?  [my uninformed position is yes they will be subject to SCA]
    2. If said clerical people are not paid SCA scale and benefits, and this is later discovered by the Dept of Labor to be a violation bearing additional payments, will the customer be liable for restitution because of their statement?  [my uninformed position is the customer will not be held responsible, and will claim it is the contractor's responsibility]

    Thank you in advance for any relevant discussion.

  2. j

    ji20874

    Jul 8, 2019 · 6y ago

    Re:  No. 1 -- See FAR 22.1003-1.

    Re:  No. 2 -- See FAR 22.1015.

    Re:  Question 1 -- See FAR 22.1003-1.

    Re:  Question 2 -- See FAR 22.1015.

  3. R

    Retreadfed

    Jul 8, 2019 · 6y ago

    ji, why do you say no to question 2?  My reading of FAR 22.1015, which states in part "The contracting officer shall equitably adjust the contract price to reflect any changed cost of performance resulting from incorporating a wage determination or revision," is that the government would be liable for increased cost of performance.  If the application of the SCA is made retroactive, this equitable adjustment would cover the period to which the SCA is made on a retroactive basis.

  4. j

    jwomack

    Jul 8, 2019 · 6y ago

    If SCA applies then the answer to #2 depends on why the clerical workers weren't paid properly.

    If SCA does not apply then #2 cannot be answered as the question would be based on a false premise.

  5. j

    ji20874

    Jul 8, 2019 · 6y ago

    Retreadfed,

    I didn't give a "NO" answer -- I used "No. [#]" to number the items.  Let me edit it to make it more clear...

  6. R

    Retreadfed

    Jul 9, 2019 · 6y ago

    Thanks.

Sign in or sign up to post a reply.