Amend_0005_DWA_Exciters_18R0003.pdf

W68SBV81494782

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the changes outlined below . The proposal submission date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jul-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912EF18R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jun-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Jul-2018

CODE

USAED, WALLA WALLA - CONTRACTING DIV.

HILLARY A. MORGAN

201 N. THIRD AVENUE

WALLA WALLA WA 99362

W912EF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EF18R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value-tradeoff) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors:

Technical; Past Performance; Small Business Participation Plan; and Price.

All sub-factors of Factor 1, Technical, are of equal importance. Factor 1, Technical and Factor 2, Past Performance are equally important. Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 3, Small Business Participation When combined, the non-price factors (Factors 1 and 2) are significantly more important than Factor 3, Price. As proposals become more equal in their technical (non-price) merit, the evaluated price becomes more important in determining the best value proposal.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

1. FACTOR 1 Technical - The technical evaluation will be comprised of three (3) Sub-Factors. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be evaluated as one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or sub-factor ratings.

Sub-factor 1A: Design and Manufacturing Experience Sub-factor 1B: Installation Experience Sub-factor 1C: Technical Approach

The three (3) sub-factors are of equal importance.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the scope of work. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph C of this section.

During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

3. FACTOR 2 Past Performance - Each offeror’s current and past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence.

4. FACTOR 3 Small Business Participation Plan – The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

5. FACTOR 4 Price - The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

2. The overarching evaluation approach will be based upon adequacy of response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP. Marginal levels of overall detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning the requirements and may result in the entire factor receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

3. Factor 1 Technical - This factor is comprised of the following sub-factors:

a. Sub-factor 1A: Design and Manufacturing Experience

Proposals will be evaluated to determine experience with the design and manufacturing of static excitation systems relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s fabrication experience.

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1A:

I. Offerors must demonstrate design and manufacturing experience by providing a minimum of three

(3) examples that collectively address each of the elements identified below performed within the past seven (7) years.

a. Project examples must include units that are 100% complete to include commissioning at the time of proposal submission and have been completed within the last seven (7) years.

b. Designed and manufactured static excitation systems for hydrogenerators rated at a minimum of 250 MVA.

c. Use Attached “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant design and manufacturing experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail such as configuration and dimensions to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

b. Sub-factor 1B: Installation Experience

Proposals will be evaluated to determine installation experience for relevant projects of the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s installation experience.

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1B:

I. Offerors must demonstrate installation experience by providing a minimum of three (3) project examples that collectively address the elements identified below performed within the past seven

(7) years.

a. Project examples must include units that are 100% complete to include commissioning at the time of proposal submission and have been completed within the last seven (7) years.

b. Installation of static excitation systems for hydrogenerators rated at a minimum of 250 MVA.

c. Installation experience requiring the services of a commissioning engineer from an excitation manufacturer responsible for functionality checks, reports and setup required for field testing and commissioning of excitation systems.

d. Installation experience requiring the removal of an existing excitation system and installation of new utilizing existing connections.

e. Use Attached “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant installation experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail such as equipment types, ratings, capacities, and configuration to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

c. Sub-factor 1C: Technical Approach

This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the required scope of work and evaluates the offerors capabilities and availability of resources necessary to complete all requirements.

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1C:

I. Provide a work plan / schedule

1) Work plan / Schedule should reflect the planned activities, order of major tasks identified, task dependencies and durations proposed to successfully accomplish the entire project from notice to proceed to final commissioning, and contract close-out. Any assumptions made by the offeror shall be clearly illustrated in the proposal. Offeror should assume, for evaluation purposes only, an award date of 30 September 2018. At a minimum, the schedule must include the following:

a. Submittal of design drawings and equipment information

b. Manufacturing Facility Inspection

c. Factory Testing

d. Delivery of exciters and ancillary equipment onsite

e. Inspection of new exciters and ancillary equipment

f. Mobilization onsite

g. Site preparation

h. Removal of old exciters and ancillary equipment

i. Installation of new exciters and ancillary equipment

j. Commissioning/testing of new exciters and ancillary equipment

2) Discuss how work to complete one task may impact or be impacted by work to complete other tasks.

3) Clearly distinguish which work will be completed on-site versus work that will be completed off-site.

4) Clearly identify where off-site work will be accomplished.

5) Clearly identify work completed by the prime and work completed by sub-contractors or members of a joint venture team as applicable.

6) Identify any critical assumptions and uncertainties that may impact the completion of work and identify methods to check assumptions and address uncertainties.

7) Document capabilities and availability of resources necessary to complete all required major tasks above.

8) List any specialty work crews, trades and crafts, or individuals required to complete unique or special tasks.

9) List all critical subcontractors with their respective role and responsibility to complete all major tasks.

10) Provide narrative description of the bridge redundancy approach relevant to the immediate project, including the number of bridges and their continuous and maximum current capabilities.

Factor 1 Technical Ratings

The ratings excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 2 - Past Performance

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy (including context of data) and Quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major sub-contractors’) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of sub-contractors. Major sub-contractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include the most current and relevant past efforts (within the past seven years) in their proposal. Absent any current and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System NAICS 334413, Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. Data submitted by the offeror or gathered from other sources by the government in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past seven years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past seven years without regard to the contract award date. CPARS data is limited to the past 6 years. Offeror’s should provide additional performance data for projects beyond 6 years.

b. Offerors should submit all Government and/or commercial contract numbers and descriptions for the prime offeror and each major sub-contractor in performance or awarded during the past fifteen years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

c. RECENCY; The Government will evaluate recency by examining the offerors’ record of past performance and to assess the time period during which the offeror’s past performance is considered relevant.

d. RELEVANCY: The Government will evaluate those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. This evaluation will include all aspects of the offeror’s execution of schedule, performance, customer support and subcontracting plan for these projects and the offeror’s record of: 1) Conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) Maintaining program execution within price; 3) Adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 4) Ability to resolve technical and manufacturing problems quickly and effectively; 5) Businesslike concern for the interest of its customers; 6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of sub-contractors; and 7) Compliance with subcontracting plans submitted on previous projects.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

QUALITY: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The quality past performance evaluation conducted gathers information from the offeror’s customers to determine how well the offeror performed those past contracts. This quality assessment will be reflected in the overall confidence assessment described below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: Because this source selection requires a greater level of discernment with the past performance evaluation, the SSEB shall use all ratings in the chart below and reach a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant efforts gathered (documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment). The rationale for the conclusions reached by the SSEB will be included in the SSEB report.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity. Offerors shall use Attachment C to provide their Small Business Participation Plan. All offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

1. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

2. The extent of commitment to use such firms. The proposal will be rated more favorably under this sub-factor if it contains an enforceable commitment in the form of a signed letter of commitment (LOC);

3. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

4. The extent past performance is in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

5. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals. The goals for this procurement are:

• Total Small Business (any type of small business) 10% of the total contract value;

• Subcategory Small Business o Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% of the total contract value;

o Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 4% of the total contract value;

o Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) 2.5% of the total contract value;

o Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) 3% of the total contract value;

o Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 2.5% of the total contract value;

Evaluation Methodology for Factor 3 shall use Combined Technical/Risk Ratings as follows:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 4 – Price

Offerors must submit completed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) with unit price, quantity, and extended price. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed prices. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating. However, it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305 and FAR 15.404-1(b).

WAGE DETERMINATION

General Decision Number: ID180065 07/20/2018 ID65

Superseded General Decision Number: ID20170065

State: Idaho

Construction Type: Heavy HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, Including water and sewer line construction and heavy construction projects on treatment plants and industrial (power plants, manufacturing plants, processing plants, etc.) sites

Counties: Benewah, Clearwater and Latah Counties in Idaho.

Note: Under Executive Order (EO) 13658, an hourly minimum wage of $10.35 for calendar year 2018 applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the contract is awarded (and any solicitation was issued) on or after January 1, 2015. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must pay all workers in any classification listed on this wage determination at least $10.35 per hour (or the applicable wage rate listed on this wage determination, if it is higher) for all hours spent performing on the contract in calendar year 2018. The EO minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. Please note that this EO applies to the above-mentioned types of contracts entered into by the federal government that are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, but it does not apply to contracts subject only to the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, including those set forth at 29 CFR 5.1(a)(2)-(60). Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date 0 01/05/2018 1 01/19/2018 2 03/02/2018 3 04/06/2018 4 05/11/2018 5 06/15/2018 6 07/20/2018

CARP0001-045 06/01/2017

Rates Fringes CARPENTER (Form Work Only).......$ 32.32 16.14

* ELEC0073-011 07/01/2018

Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN......................$ 34.00 18.67

* ENGI0370-035 06/01/2018

Rates Fringes

POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR:

Backhoe (45,000 gw & under), Cranes (25 tons & under), Drill (8 in bit and over

GROUP 5....................$ 28.76 15.95

Backhoe (45,000-110,000 gw), Crane (25-45 tons), Bulldozer (D-6 and over), Grader/Blade, Front-End Loader(4-8 yds), Paver, Scrapers (all)

GROUP 6....................$ 29.04 15.95

Backhoe (over 110,000 gw), Cranes (45-85 tons), Heavy Duty Mechanic, Front End Loader (8-10 yds)

GROUP 7....................$ 29.31 15.95

Bulldozer (up to D-6)

GROUP 3....................$ 28.44 15.95

Cranes (85 tons & over), Front End Loader (10 yds & over)

GROUP 8....................$ 30.41 15.95

Front End Loader (under 4 yds)

GROUP 4....................$ 28.60 15.95

Rollers (all)

GROUP 1....................$ 27.51 15.95

ZONE PAY:

ZONE CENTERS: SPOKANE, PASCO, LEWISTON

ZONE 1: 0-45 Miles: Free ZONE 2: 45 Miles & Over: $2.00

BOOM PAY (ALL CRANES):

(A): 180'-250': $.50 over scale (B): over 250': $.80 over scale

IRON0014-006 07/01/2017

Rates Fringes

IRONWORKER, REINFORCING AND

STRUCTURAL.......................$ 32.64 26.56

LABO0238-028 06/01/2017

Rates Fringes

LABORER (PIPELINE ONLY)

COMMON......................$ 26.28 12.15

LABO0238-031 06/01/2018

Rates Fringes

LABORER

Asphalt Includes Raker, Shoveler, Spreader, and Distributor Group 4....................$ 27.38 12.35 Flagger Group 1A...................$ 24.74 12.35

Zone Differential (Add to Zone 1 rates): Zone 2 - $2.00

BASE POINTS: Spokane

Zone 1: 0-45 radius miles from the main post office.

Zone 2: 45 radius miles and over from the main post office

PLAS0072-003 06/01/2018

BENEWAH, BONNER, BOUNDARY, CLEARWATER, IDAHO (NORTH OF THE 46TH PARALLEL), KOOTENAI, LATAH, LEWIS AND NEZ PERCE AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES

ZONE 1:

Rates Fringes

CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 29.07 14.13

Zone Differential (Add to Zone 1 rate): Zone 2 - $2.00

BASE POINTS: Spokane, Pasco, Lewiston, Wenatchee

Zone 1: 0-45 radius miles from the main post office

Zone 2: Over 45 radius miles from the main post office

PLUM0044-015 06/01/2017

Rates Fringes

PLUMBER

Zone 1......................$ 38.46 17.74

TEAM0690-002 06/01/2017

Rates Fringes

TRUCK DRIVER (DUMP)

6 yds and under.............$ 24.59 17.30 over 6 yds..................$ 25.03 17.30

SUID2010-058 08/08/2012

Rates Fringes

CARPENTER, Excludes Form Work....$ 29.92 5.20

LABORER: Common or General......$ 23.75 8.98

LABORER: Landscape..............$ 22.13 11.13

LABORER: Pipelayer..............$ 17.67 7.26

OPERATOR: Bobcat/Skid Steer/Skid Loader................$ 20.97 0.00

OPERATOR: Concrete Batch Plant............................$ 24.94 11.96

OPERATOR: Forklift..............$ 21.20 0.00

TRUCK DRIVER: Lowboy Truck......$ 21.00 12.10

TRUCK DRIVER: Water Truck.......$ 24.48 11.67

WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing operation to which welding is incidental.

Note: Executive Order (EO) 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the contract is awarded (and any solicitation was issued) on or after January 1, 2017. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must provide employees with 1 hour of paid sick leave for every

30 hours they work, up to 56 hours of paid sick leave each year. Employees must be permitted to use paid sick leave for their own illness, injury or other health-related needs, including preventive care; to assist a family member (or person who is like family to the employee) who is ill, injured, or has other health-related needs, including preventive care; or for reasons resulting from, or to assist a family member (or person who is like family to the employee) who is a victim of, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope of the classifications listed may be added after award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (ii)).

The body of each wage determination lists the classification and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical order of "identifiers" that indicate whether the particular rate is a union rate (current union negotiated rate for local), a survey rate (weighted average rate) or a union average rate (weighted union average rate).

Union Rate Identifiers

A four letter classification abbreviation identifier enclosed in dotted lines beginning with characters other than "SU" or "UAVG" denotes that the union classification and rate were prevailing for that classification in the survey. Example: PLUM0198-005 07/01/2014.

PLUM is an abbreviation identifier of the union which prevailed in the survey for this classification, which in this example would be Plumbers. 0198 indicates the local union number or district council number where applicable, i.e., Plumbers Local 0198. The next number, 005 in the example, is an internal number used in processing the wage determination. 07/01/2014 is the effective date of the most current negotiated rate, which in this example is July 1, 2014.

Union prevailing wage rates are updated to reflect all rate changes in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing this classification and rate.

Survey Rate Identifiers

Classifications listed under the "SU" identifier indicate that no one rate prevailed for this classification in the survey and the published rate is derived by computing a weighted average rate based on all the rates reported in the survey for that classification. As this weighted average rate includes all rates reported in the survey, it may include both union and non-union rates. Example: SULA2012-007 5/13/2014. SU indicates the rates are survey rates based on a weighted average calculation of rates and are not majority rates.

LA indicates the State of Louisiana. 2012 is the year of survey on which these classifications and rates are based. The next number, 007 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 5/13/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

Survey wage rates are not updated and remain in effect until a new survey is conducted.

Union Average Rate Identifiers

Classification(s) listed under the UAVG identifier indicate that no single majority rate prevailed for those classifications; however, 100% of the data reported for the classifications was union data. EXAMPLE: UAVG-OH-0010 08/29/2014. UAVG indicates that the rate is a weighted union average rate. OH indicates the state. The next number, 0010 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 08/29/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

A UAVG rate will be updated once a year, usually in January of each year, to reflect a weighted average of the current negotiated/CBA rate of the union locals from which the rate is based.

WAGE DETERMINATION APPEALS PROCESS

1.) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can be:

* an existing published wage determination

* a survey underlying a wage determination

* a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on a wage determination matter

* a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling

On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour Regional Office for the area in which the survey was conducted because those Regional Offices have responsibility for the Davis-Bacon survey program. If the response from this initial contact is not satisfactory, then the process described in 2.) and 3.) should be followed.

With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal process described here, initial contact should be with the Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. Write to:

Branch of Construction Wage Determinations Wage and Hour Division U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

2.) If the answer to the question in 1.) is yes, then an interested party (those affected by the action) can request review and reconsideration from the Wage and Hour Administrator (See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR Part 7). Write to:

Wage and Hour Administrator U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's position and by any information (wage payment data, project description, area practice material, etc.) that the requestor considers relevant to the issue.

3.) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative Review Board (formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to:

Administrative Review Board U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

4.) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final.

END OF GENERAL DECISION

(End of Summary of Changes)