BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1939
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Roger Hern�ndez, Chair
AB 1939 (Daly) - As Introduced: February 19, 2014
SUBJECT : Public works: prevailing wages: contractor's costs.
SUMMARY : Authorizes a contractor to bring an action against a
party (such as a developer) to recover increased costs as a
result of a subsequent decision that classifies a project, or
any portion thereof, as a public work, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes a contractor to bring an action to recover from the
party it directly contracts with, any specified increased
costs as a result of any decision by the Department of
Industrial Relations, the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, or a court that classifies, after the time at which
the contracting party accepts the contractor's bid, awards the
contractor a contract under circumstances where no bid is
solicited, or otherwise allows construction by the contractor
to proceed, the work covered by the project, or any portion
thereof, as a "public work."
2)Provides that this authorization does not apply if either of
the following is true:
a) The developer of a construction project or its agent
expressly advised the contractor that the work to be
covered by the contract would be a "public work."
b) A contractor on the developer's construction project
expressly advised the other contractors with whom it has a
direct contract that the work subject to the contract would
be a "public work."
3)Specifies that, in order to be entitled to the recovery of
increased costs, the contractor shall notify the developer
within 30 days after receipt of the notice of a decision by
the Department of Industrial Relations or the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, or the initiation of any action
in a court alleging, that the work covered by the project, or
any portion thereof, is a "public work."
AB 1939
Page 2
4)Provides that a contractor is not required to list any
prevailing wages or apprenticeship standard violations on a
prequalification questionnaire that are the direct result of
the failure of the developer of a construction project or its
agent, or a contractor, to notify contractors that the
project, or any portion thereof, should have been a "public
work."
5)Provides that these provisions do not apply to private
residential projects built on private property unless the
project is built pursuant to an agreement with a state agency,
redevelopment agency, or local public housing authority.
6)Provides that these provisions do not apply if the conduct of
the contractor caused the project to be a "public work," or if
the contractor has actual knowledge that the work is a "public
work."
EXISTING LAW generally requires the payment of prevailing wages
to workers employed on "public works" projects of greater than
$1,000.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Under existing law, contractors are generally
required to pay prevailing wages to workers on "public works"
projects. However, situations sometimes arise in which the
contractor was not informed that the project would be a "public
works" project, or a subsequent administrative or court decision
classifies the project, or a portion of the project, as a public
works project. In such a situation, the contractor may be
responsible for the payment of the difference between the
prevailing wages and the wages actually paid, and associated
penalties and other sums.
Existing law already provides remedies to contractors to recover
such increased costs on contracts awarded by an "awarding body"
(generally a public agency) under certain circumstances.
For example, existing law already authorizes a contractor to
bring an action to recover from an awarding body specified
increased costs if either the awarding body previously
affirmatively represented to the contractor that the work to be
covered by the bid or contract was not a "public work" or the
AB 1939
Page 3
awarding body received actual written notice from the Department
of Industrial Relations that the work to be covered by the bid
or contract is a "public work" and failed to disclose that
information to the contractor.
In addition, current law authorizes a contractor to bring an
action to recover from an awarding body specified increased
costs incurred by the contractor as a result of a decision of
the awarding body, the Department of Industrial Relations, or a
court that classifies the work as a "public work," if that body,
before the bid opening or awarding of the contract, failed to
identify as a "public work" in the bid specification or in the
contract documents that portion of the work that the decision
classifies as a "public work."
This bill proposes to establish similar remedies for a
contractor to recover increased costs from the party it directly
contracts with (such as a private developer) under similar
circumstances.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
This bill is jointly sponsored by the Associated General
Contractors (AGC) and the Construction Employers' Association
(CEA). They argue that, because developers have no legal
obligation to inform contractors if they took public subsidies,
contractors have no way knowing if prevailing wages are
required. This means that workers may not receive the correct
wages until and if an enforcement action or legal action is
taken. Additionally, the contractor and subcontractors may be
subject to prevailing wage penalties, liquidated damages and
legal fees, simply because they were not informed that the
developer took a public subsidy that triggered a prevailing wage
requirement.
The sponsors point to a recent case involving Hensel Phelps
Construction Company and the Hilton San Diego Bayfront Hotel as
highlighting the need for this bill. According to the sponsors,
Hensel Phelps (the prime contractor) asked the San Diego Port
District and the hotel developer in writing if the project
involved the use of public funds and if prevailing wages would
be required to be paid. The sponsors allege that the contractor
was told that the project would not be a public works project.
However, subsequently the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) determined that the project was a public work due to a
AB 1939
Page 4
$46.5 million rent credit provided by the San Diego Port
District. As the prime contractor, Hensel Phelps was liable for
the payment of prevailing wages and associated penalties and
costs, ultimately paying over $8 million in a payment plan with
DIR. The contractor is reportedly engaged it litigation at this
time to recover increased costs from the San Diego Port
District.
Therefore, in order to address this situation in future cases,
the sponsors state that this bill provides that if a developer
fails to inform a contractor that prevailing wages are required
and it is subsequently determined that prevailing wages are
required, the owner or developer must reimburse the contractor
for unpaid wages, sums incurred pursuant to the Labor Code and
attorney's fees associated with their failure to provide
direction to the contractor. If an owner or developer does
inform a contractor that prevailing wages are required, and the
contractor fails to inform subcontractors about the prevailing
wage requirement, the contractor then will be liable for unpaid
wages, sums incurred pursuant to the Labor Code and attorney's
fees associated with their failure to provide direction to the
subcontractors.
The sponsors conclude that this bill will ensure the timely
payment of prevailing wages and reduce enforcement actions by
the Department of Industrial Relations.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Air Conditioning Trade Association
Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Chapter
Associated General Contractors of California (co-sponsor)
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
Construction Employers' Association (co-sponsor)
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
AB 1939
Page 5