Luzerne County Council introduces proposed “responsible contractor ordinance”

After extensive discussion earlier this year, a Luzerne County Council majority has formally introduced a “responsible contractor ordinance.”

The ordinance would require prospective contractors to participate in apprenticeship training programs and meet other conditions to perform county government construction projects over $250,000.

A public hearing and final vote will be necessary for passage.

Four local contractors were highly critical of the proposal at last week’s council meeting. Several council members said they believe most of the concerns that were raised have been addressed in the most recent proposal.

James Solano, president of A. Pickett Construction Inc., told council he still has issues with the latest version.

“I ask you to please, emphatically vote no against the RCO as written,” Solano said.

Solano predicted there would be fewer bidders for county projects, resulting in less competition and higher costs.

He maintained the current ordinance is “still way too vague” and “way too exclusionary to use effectively.” Solano also asserted it lacks some specific metrics and could “easily be molded” to favor a preferred contractor.

Solano said the majority of his workforce is “well seasoned” and 55 and older, noting these employees live in and around the county.

“I’m not going to send them to an apprenticeship program. They know what they’re doing. They know how to do it. They know how to do it well,” Solano said.

Scott Linde, of Linde Corporation, also asserted the ordinance would decrease bid responses, “drive costs up incredibly” on county projects” and go against its stated mission to support county businesses and employ county residents.

George F. Hayden, president of the Hayden Power Group, which has been based in the county for 50 years, said the ordinance does not allow for fair, open competition.

“I think it’s in your best interest to look at this with a good eye and realize that this is going to affect a lot of small contractors and large contractors like us,” Hayden said.

Bernard Banks, of American Asphalt, said many area contractors do not have workers who are unionized or in an apprenticeship program.

Banks said his county business has operated for 73 years, and he argued the county’s existing requirement for contractors to obtain performance bonds ensures the county is covered if work is not completed to specified standards.

“Our guys are as qualified — if not more qualified — than people that we would pull out of the hall to get the RCO standard,” Banks said, adding he believes the ordinance “will be a terrible waste of taxpayer money.”

Council Chairman John Lombardo emphasized the current proposal was revised to exclude road paving projects from the ordinance requirements.

Earlier this year, the proposal defined a public works project as any construction, demolition, alteration or maintenance project funded by the county with a total value of $250,000 or more.

The ordinance introduced last week provides this definition for a public works project:

“Construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration and/or repair work other than maintenance work, covered under the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body where the estimated cost of the total project is in excess of $250,000, but does not include road maintenance paving work that is limited to milling, patching, paving, and nominal related road repairs, as well as any culvert maintenance and repair work, roadway drainage piping or earthwork for stormwater management or stream restoration, provided that the contractor is prequalified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for the applicable road, bridge, or drainage categories.”

Entities interested in performing work must submit a “contractor responsibility certification” that includes a condition for the firm to maintain a “primary place of business within the county” or “demonstrate a commitment to good faith efforts to employ workers who reside in the county on the public works construction project.”

The responsibility certification also requires firms to “employ craft employees in the appropriate trades and classifications necessary to complete the project” and to participate in a “Class A Apprenticeship Program” for three years prior to the project commencement for each craft or classification in which it will employ workers on the county project.

It defines the Class A Apprenticeship Program as a “registered apprenticeship program that has graduated apprentices to journeyperson status for at least three of the past five years.”

If a firm is “determined to be non-responsible” under the ordinance, the county would proceed to a responsibility review of the next lowest bidder, it said.

The ordinance aims to recognize the “critical role that skilled construction craft labor has in ensuring high quality workmanship and the delivery of safe, efficient, and timely public works construction projects,” it said.

“Due to the challenges posed by limited availability and potential labor shortages, it is necessary to encourage public works contractors and subcontractors to continue to develop a skilled workforce through participation in registered apprenticeship programs, as defined by this ordinance,” it said.

A registered apprenticeship program as defined as a workforce training program registered with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry under the Pennsylvania Apprenticeship and Training Act or with the federal Department of Labor, it said.

Warren Faust, president of the Northeast PA Building Trades, has voiced strong support for the ordinance, saying the use of apprenticeships will strengthen the county’s workforce for the future.

Faust also has disagreed the ordinance excludes non-union companies. He said in March there are 496 registered construction apprenticeship programs in Pennsylvania — 140 union and 356 non-union.

Eight of the 10 council members present at last week’s meeting voted to introduce the ordinance so it remains on the table for further discussion: LeeAnn McDermott, Chris Perry, Jimmy Sabatino, Joanna Bryn Smith, Brittany Stephenson, Greg Wolovich, Patty Krushnowski and Lombardo.

Council members Kevin Lescavage and Harry Haas voted against the ordinance, and council Vice Chairman Brian Thornton was absent.

Stephenson, who spearheaded the ordinance, thanked her council colleagues and the administration for input on multiple revisions and said she believes the current proposal resolves many prior concerns.

She has described the proposal as a “major reform in public contracting” that would “protect taxpayer dollars and strengthen the local workforce.”

Lombardo told the audience council remains open to continued suggestions.

He said after the meeting county officials had consulted with Scranton to understand issues that city encountered with its ordinance. If the ordinance is approved, Lombardo said council also would have the option to waive it for specific projects if no bids are received from companies that meet eligibility requirements.

Council is expected to hold a public hearing and vote on the ordinance at its next meeting Sept. 23.