RM 02-25-83 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Bend edevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - February 25, 1983 6. NEW BUS$NESS (Continued) c. c:ontinuea... liberty of asking Janet Holston who the electrical contractor was that Reese and Sons was using. He realized that it's not anybody's fault, but there is a loophole in the federal statute whereby the indivi- dual sole proprietor can charge anything he wants. In this case the electrical contrac- tor that they are using is more or less a one man operation and there is no way a legi- tiimite electrical contractor, who has employees and they go out and do the work, can compete with this type of an individual. He can put anything on paper, he can meet any require- ment necessary about area wage scales. He just turns right around and takes money off the top and puts money back into the business and he has a big paper shuffle, and Mr. Robinson sta ed that he was strictly against it. Mr. Hunt explained that Mr. Robinson is cor- rect. in what he is saying, there is a loop- hole. A sub- contractor, as an individual not employing anybody, can in fact do that. If 1he individual would employ somebody we would require them to pay prevailing wages for the person they employ but there really isn't anything we can do in the sense of a one person operation. I think that the only thirig that we can do is have Bureau of Housing ins ors make sure the work is done properly. Ms. Holston stated that on this particular con act the difference in the bid did have quite a wide range. The difference was again the roof, the siding and those types of things. We saw a lot of difference. Reese was the low Ms.lAuburn asked if we have had experience with Ree e and Sons_and what kinds of experience. Ms. Richmond stated that this would be Reese and Sons' third contract. Ms.lAuburn asked what kind of work they have don on the other two contracts. :t:-