ASA Legislative Fly-In Was a Huge Success!
At the end of October, 34 ASA Members participated in a legislative fly-in in Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, October 29th, our members toured the nation’s Capital, participated in a legislative briefing, and attended a reception and dinner with invited guests: Reps. Guest (R-MS), Peters (D-CA), Stauber (R-MN), Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Veasey (D-TX). On Wednesday, October 30th, ASA Members walked the halls of Congress and participated in 50 congressional staff meetings, along with meeting Sens. Boozman (R-AR), Cardin (D-MD), and Wicker (R-MS) and Reps. Guest (R-MS), Hill (R-AR), and Cuellar (D-TX).
| ASA’s 2019 Legislative Priorities include: Change Orders: We support H.R. 2344, Small Business Payment for Performance Act of 2019, which would require prompt payment to contractors for change orders. The federal government must do more to address enforcement of prompt payment to subcontractors and suppliers. Reverse Auction: We support S. 1434, the Construction Consensus Procurement Act of 2019, which would prohibit the use of reverse auctions for design and construction services procurement, and for other purposes. The federal government must ensure that reverse auction methods are prohibited for skilled services that contain a high degree of variability such as construction and design services. Miller Act: We support H.R. 224, Miller Act Legislation that would exempt certain contracts from periodic adjustments to an acquisition-related dollar threshold. Ultimately, this language underscores the importance of the Miller Act by requiring federal infrastructure projects to be bonded for over 90 years. We also supported the insertion of H.R. 224’s language into H.R. 2500, the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and support its inclusion in the NDAA’s conference report. P3 Bonding Requirements: We support the inclusion of language in S. 2302, the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act, to clarify that current payment and performance security requirements for federally funded infrastructure projects also apply to Transportation Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) financed infrastructure projects, including Public Private Partnerships (P3). Retainage: We support the reduction of the maximum retainage rate used by the federal government from 10% to 5%. In construction contracts, retainage is a sum of money earned by a contractor or subcontractor for satisfactory work, but held until the contract, or a certain portion of the contract, is complete. Though retainage arguably serves as a type of insurance for owners and prime contractors, it can have the unfortunate effect of requiring contractors and subcontractors to complete work without full payment, in essence financing the job, and making it difficult to timely pay their own creditors. In some cases, contractors and subcontractors are burdened with sizable retainage receivables long after the contract has been performed. Bid Listing: We support the reintroduction and passage of the Stop Unfair Bid Shopping Act (SUBS Act) to require general contractors on federal construction contracts valued at $1.5 million or more to list the subcontractors proposed to perform work valued at more than $100,000 as part of their bid. This legislation would ensure that companies honor their contract with the federal government by adding a means to eliminate the practice of bid shopping while ensuring taxpayer dollars are not misused. Repeal of the 40 Percent Excise Tax on “Cadillac Plans”: We support efforts to repeal the Cadillac tax; thereby we support S. 684/H.R. 748, the Middle-Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act. On July 17, 2019, the House passed H.R. 748 by a 419-6. National Infrastructure Investment: We support a robust, well-funded, comprehensive infrastructure funding bill, the streamlining of the project permitting process, and oppose efforts to arbitrarily cut the federal construction accounts. Our members also advocated for the following ASA supported provisions to be included in the final version of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):House Sec. 872(d) – Accelerated payments applicable to contracts with certain small business concerns under the Prompt Payment Act.House Sec. 873 – Modifications to small business subcontracting.House Sec. 877 – Exemption of certain contracts from the periodic inflation adjustments to the acquisition-related dollar threshold.House Sec. 828 – Enhanced post-award debriefing rights.House Sec. 829 – Standardizing data collection and reporting on the use of source selection procedures by Federal agencies.House Sec. 881 – Permanent authorization and improvement of Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program.House Sec. 883 – Reporting on expenses incurred for bid and proposal costs.House Sec. 884 -Post award explanations for unsuccessful offerors for certain contracts.House Sec. 899J – Pilot program on payment of costs for denied Government Accountability Office bid protests. |
| On behalf of the ASA Government Relations Team, we thank all of the members who joined us in Washington, D.C. this week to advocate for issues affecting the construction subcontracting industry! Visit ASA’s Facebook page to view more photos from the Legislative Fly-In! |
ASA Idaho – Meet the General Contractor Networking Event Makes Connections
In order to form a beneficial and long-lasting relationship, you need to know where the other person is coming from, understanding their pain points and push button issues. A relaxed meet and greet is the perfect place to talk with and form long-lasting bonds. Idaho ASA’s “Meet the GCs” plans to be held every quarter as a relaxed networking and business development opportunity for subcontractors and suppliers looking to meet and do business with local and regional general contractors.The kick-off meeting, held November 13, from 4-6 pm, welcomed Ben Petzinger, Project Director of Okland Construction, and about 50 attendees. He discussed his company’s current project backlog, upcoming bids, best practices, and a few other relevant topics before opening up for a Q&A and discussion. Here are just a few photos from this event.
ASA Joins the TEAM
On Monday, November 18, 2019, ASA became a member of TEAM (Taxpaying
Employers Against Misclassification), a growing group of employers and
employer organizations concerned about the issue of employee
misclassification and payroll fraud and how it is harming American
businesses and workers. These practices result in non-payment of owed
taxes and in unfair competitive practices against employers who are
legally compliant.
The goal of TEAM is to educate and inform those who may not fully
understand the issue of payroll fraud or fully comprehend the negative
consequences for lawful employers, workers and government and the
taxpayers. The
website will provide information on the law, recent research, and
legislation as well as identify and expose examples of payroll fraud.
- What is employee misclassification? Misclassification occurs when employers incorrectly classify workers as independent contractors rather than full-time employees to avoid paying the required taxes and benefits. Simply put, it is a form of payroll and tax evasion.
- Why is misclassification such an important issue? By misclassifying workers, an employer is able to save money and gain a competitive advantage over other businesses that follow the rules. Misclassification also hurts the workers, who often assume the employer is making the required deductions from their paychecks and providing them with the basic benefits of full-time employees, only to find out later that they have few or no benefits and are “on the hook” for the unpaid taxes. Ultimately, misclassification also hurts the American taxpayer. When employers fail to make their required contributions, the burden is shifted to everyday citizens. Although misclassification of full-time employees as independent contractors is sometimes inadvertent, due to a payroll error or misunderstanding of current law, more often than not it is intentional, and the employer deliberately short-changes workers to gain an edge in the marketplace. To make matters worse, laws against misclassification haven’t been enforced aggressively enough, making it easier for unscrupulous employers to slip through the cracks.
- What can be done to stop employee misclassification? Due to the economic downturn, federal and state authorities are facing declining revenues and the threat of budget shortfalls. Fiscal solvency is a top priority, and as a result, more attention is being paid to misclassification than ever before. By stepping up enforcement and cracking down on the bad actors, governments can recoup badly needed taxes and, at the same time, level the playing field so that all businesses are competing in a fair and honest environment.
ASA Joins the Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC)
On Monday, November 18, 2019, ASA became a member of the Business
Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC), a national coalition of
businesses, associations, taxpayer organizations and think tanks that
are committed to reducing all forms of unfair government created,
sponsored and provided competition with the private sector. BCFC
believes the free enterprise system is the most productive and efficient
provider of goods and services and strongly supports the Federal
government utilizing the private sector for commercially available
products and services to the maximum extent possible.
Our alliance with the BCFC organically grow out of our work regarding
the Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s audit of the Federal
Prison Industries (FPI) authorized by Congress with the passage of the
FIRST STEP Act of 2018 (P.L.115-391) signed into law on December 21,
2018. On August 29, 2019, ASA met with the GAO regarding the following
questions:
- Please identify the challenges, if any, private companies face in competing with FPI.
- FPI’s sales have declined when compared to the early 2000s. Has the extent of the burden, if any, FPI places on the private sector declined commensurately?
- Please identify those elements of prior reform efforts that remain relevant today?
- What are the primary differences in the cost structure between FPI and private sector (non-profit, as applicable) producers and how are these differences reflected in product prices?
- To what extent have you analyzed the effect of the First Step Act’s expansion of markets available to FPI? Are there any recent analyses of FPI of which we should be aware?
Currently, ASA members working in prison construction are unfairly competing with the FPI. We will continue to update you on our BCFC relationship and progress on this important issue.
