AGC of NH News
This section of news is a supplement to our biweekly newsletter and used for attachments that could not be included with that publication. Articles will run on this page that have not been published in our newsletter as well.
This section of news is a supplement to our biweekly newsletter and used for attachments that could not be included with that publication. Articles will run on this page that have not been published in our newsletter as well.
Transportation Reauthorization Moves Forward
February 2012
February 2012
As the expiration of the latest extension of SAFETEA-LU looms closer, both the House and Senate are working on different versions of a transportation reauthorization bill. Both bodies have stated that passing a transportation reauthorization is at the top of their priorities. The Senate bill has passed through committees, and will likely have hit the Senate Floor at the time of print. Additionally, the House bill is moving forward with equal progress. The theme of program consolidation and environmental streamlining is present in both bills. However, the similarities end there as each proposal has different time lengths and funding levels. Therefore, passing one cohesive bill prior to the expiration of the extension will be difficult. AGC of NH will continue to follow this issue and update members as more information becomes available. The chart below compares the Senate and House proposals. More information on each bill is available at www.agc.org.
Transportation Reauthorization Bill Chart
Transportation Reauthorization Bill Chart
AGC of NH Appeals Davis Bacon Wage Determinations
January 2012
January 2012
Following a series of concerns, discussions, and investigations, AGC of NH has decided to appeal the highway Davis Bacon wage determinations. AGC of NH found that several classifications increased wage rates significantly from 2010 to 2011. If the appeal is granted, a new survey of highway wage rates will be conducted.
AGC of NH first learned about the potential issues through communication with AGC of America. AGC of America had contacted chapters regarding anomalies in Davis Bacon Wage rates. This prompted AGC of NH to conduct a preliminary review of two counties, Hillsborough and Belknap. There were differences in both counties among the classifications, with the most significant being the Pounder, Paver, and Guardrail Installer. The Board of Directors reviewed the analysis, and they directed AGC of NH to contact New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation (NH DOT) and the Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) about the increases.
AGC of NH learned through discussions with NH DOT and the DOL, that the DOL began requesting certified payrolls from departments of transportation as a way to more accurately calculate the highway wage rates. Twelve months worth of certified payroll is generally used to calculate the wage rates, however NH DOT was allowed to submit six months worth of payroll data. AGC of NH believes that the small sample of projects may have lead to the higher wages. Furthermore, upon closer inspection of the wages and fringes, AGC of NH discovered that the wages for some classifications were averaged while the fringes for those classifications were taken from the prevailing fringe rate.
The Association detailed these issues in a letter to the U.S Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Administrator. AGC of NH also included a breakdown of wages and fringes of the Paver, Pounder, and Guardrail Installer categories, a comparison of Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties, and the 2011 Davis Bacon Wage Analysis Report. NH DOT is supporting AGC of NH in its appeal, and has sent a letter stating this support to the Wage and Hour Administrator. NH DOT has also asked that the current wages be stayed and contractors be allowed to rely on previously established wage rates.
AGC of NH Davis Bacon Appeal Letter
DOT Support Letter
AGC of NH Davis Bacon Analysis
Analysis of DB Wage Classifications
Rockingham-Hillsborough DB Comparison
AGC of NH first learned about the potential issues through communication with AGC of America. AGC of America had contacted chapters regarding anomalies in Davis Bacon Wage rates. This prompted AGC of NH to conduct a preliminary review of two counties, Hillsborough and Belknap. There were differences in both counties among the classifications, with the most significant being the Pounder, Paver, and Guardrail Installer. The Board of Directors reviewed the analysis, and they directed AGC of NH to contact New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation (NH DOT) and the Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) about the increases.
AGC of NH learned through discussions with NH DOT and the DOL, that the DOL began requesting certified payrolls from departments of transportation as a way to more accurately calculate the highway wage rates. Twelve months worth of certified payroll is generally used to calculate the wage rates, however NH DOT was allowed to submit six months worth of payroll data. AGC of NH believes that the small sample of projects may have lead to the higher wages. Furthermore, upon closer inspection of the wages and fringes, AGC of NH discovered that the wages for some classifications were averaged while the fringes for those classifications were taken from the prevailing fringe rate.
The Association detailed these issues in a letter to the U.S Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Administrator. AGC of NH also included a breakdown of wages and fringes of the Paver, Pounder, and Guardrail Installer categories, a comparison of Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties, and the 2011 Davis Bacon Wage Analysis Report. NH DOT is supporting AGC of NH in its appeal, and has sent a letter stating this support to the Wage and Hour Administrator. NH DOT has also asked that the current wages be stayed and contractors be allowed to rely on previously established wage rates.
AGC of NH Davis Bacon Appeal Letter
DOT Support Letter
AGC of NH Davis Bacon Analysis
Analysis of DB Wage Classifications
Rockingham-Hillsborough DB Comparison
Cell Phone Ban for CMV Owners/Operators in Effect in New Hampshire
January 2012
January 2012
As reported in the January 23 issue of the AGC of NH newsletter, the federal rule banning the use of cell phones by commercial motor vehicle owners and operators is in effect in New Hampshire. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation) adopted the final rule in 2010, and it took effect on January 3, 2011. The rule restricts operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMV) from using hand-held mobile telephones. While the rule states it does not currently apply to CMV drivers who do not cross state lines, it is applicable in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a reference statute that automatically adopts rules put in place by the Federal government. Owners/operators who violate this rule are subject to heavy fines. AGC of NH has confirmed the enforcement of this rule with Sgt. Begin of the New Hampshire State Police. NH State Police define commercial vehicles as vehicles weighing 10,001 lbs in commerce.
The following are frequently asked questions about the new rule. Please note that while the questions and answers refer to interstate transportation, these regulations apply in New Hampshire.
1. What is the effective date of the Mobile Telephone rule?
The effective date of the rule is January 3, 2012.
2. Are wired or wireless earpieces allowed?
Yes. Hands-free use of a mobile telephone is allowed using either a wired or wireless earpiece or the speakerphone function of the mobile telephone. Wireless connection of the mobile telephone to the vehicle for hands-free operation of the telephone, which would allow the use of single-button controls on the steering wheel or dashboard, would also be allowed.
3. Are commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers allowed to use push-to-talk mobile communications equipment while driving?
Yes, provided the driver does not reach for, dial, or hold the actual mobile telephone in his/her hand while driving and the driver is able to touch the button needed to operate the push-to-talk feature from the normal seated position with the safety belt fastened. Generally, the use of this type of communications equipment does not require drivers to take their eyes off of the forward roadway because the button used to enable the driver to communicate can be operated from the normal seated position with the safety belt fastened. For example, if the mobile phone is mounted in a cradle or similar device near the driver, or there is a remote push-to-talk button near the vehicle controls to allow the driver to communicate without reaching for, dialing, or holding the actual mobile telephone in his/her hands while driving, the equipment may be used.
4. Are holders of a commercial driver’s license (CDL) subject to the regulation only when driving a CMV, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, or any vehicle?
CDL holders are subject to the Federal rule only when driving a CMV.
5. What drivers are covered by the Federal rule: intrastate or interstate? CDL holders? All CMVs?
This Federal rule covers both, driver of CMVs in interstate commerce, and also any drivers who operate a vehicle transportation a quantity of hazardous materials requiring placarding under 49 CFR Part 172 or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73.
If a CMV driver is employed by a State or a political subdivision of a State (e.g. county, city, township, etc.), FMCSA safety regulations do not apply, even if the driver is engaged in interstate transportation. But, if a CMV driver employed by a State or a political subdivision of a State is operating a vehicle that requires a CDL, the applicable State traffic laws would govern (e.g., Maryland’s prohibition on the use of hand-held phones). The States have 3 years to implement by State law the disqualification provision.
6. What is required of the employer in terms of company policy or training?
The rule does not require motor carriers to establish written policies in terms of company policy or training programs for their drivers. However, employers are prohibited from allowing or requiring their drivers to use hand-held mobile phones. A motor carrier may establish policies or practices that make it clear that the employer does not require or allow hand-held mobile telephone use while driving a CMV in interstate commerce. The carrier is responsible for its drivers’ conduct.
7. Is dialing a phone number allowed under this rule?
No. Dialing a mobile telephone while operating a CMV in interstate commerce is prohibited by the rule. A driver can initiate, answer, or terminate a call by touching a single button on a mobile telephone, earpiece, steering wheel, or instrument panel – comparable to using vehicle controls or instrument panel functions, such as the radio or climate control system.
8. Can a driver reach for a mobile telephone even if he/she intends to use the hands-free function?
No. In order to comply with this rule, a driver must have his or her mobile telephone located where the driver is able to initiate, answer, or terminate a call by touching a single button while the driver is in the seated driving position and properly restrained by a seat belt. If the mobile telephone is not close to the driver and operable while the driver is restrained by properly installed and adjusted seat belts, then the driver is considered to be reaching for the mobile phone, which is prohibited by the rule.
9. Are tow trucks exempt?
No. The interstate operation of tow trucks that meet the definition of a CMV are not exempt. Tow trucks, however, are exempt when responding to police emergencies in accordance with 49 CFR 390.23(a)(3).
The following are frequently asked questions about the new rule. Please note that while the questions and answers refer to interstate transportation, these regulations apply in New Hampshire.
1. What is the effective date of the Mobile Telephone rule?
The effective date of the rule is January 3, 2012.
2. Are wired or wireless earpieces allowed?
Yes. Hands-free use of a mobile telephone is allowed using either a wired or wireless earpiece or the speakerphone function of the mobile telephone. Wireless connection of the mobile telephone to the vehicle for hands-free operation of the telephone, which would allow the use of single-button controls on the steering wheel or dashboard, would also be allowed.
3. Are commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers allowed to use push-to-talk mobile communications equipment while driving?
Yes, provided the driver does not reach for, dial, or hold the actual mobile telephone in his/her hand while driving and the driver is able to touch the button needed to operate the push-to-talk feature from the normal seated position with the safety belt fastened. Generally, the use of this type of communications equipment does not require drivers to take their eyes off of the forward roadway because the button used to enable the driver to communicate can be operated from the normal seated position with the safety belt fastened. For example, if the mobile phone is mounted in a cradle or similar device near the driver, or there is a remote push-to-talk button near the vehicle controls to allow the driver to communicate without reaching for, dialing, or holding the actual mobile telephone in his/her hands while driving, the equipment may be used.
4. Are holders of a commercial driver’s license (CDL) subject to the regulation only when driving a CMV, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, or any vehicle?
CDL holders are subject to the Federal rule only when driving a CMV.
5. What drivers are covered by the Federal rule: intrastate or interstate? CDL holders? All CMVs?
This Federal rule covers both, driver of CMVs in interstate commerce, and also any drivers who operate a vehicle transportation a quantity of hazardous materials requiring placarding under 49 CFR Part 172 or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73.
If a CMV driver is employed by a State or a political subdivision of a State (e.g. county, city, township, etc.), FMCSA safety regulations do not apply, even if the driver is engaged in interstate transportation. But, if a CMV driver employed by a State or a political subdivision of a State is operating a vehicle that requires a CDL, the applicable State traffic laws would govern (e.g., Maryland’s prohibition on the use of hand-held phones). The States have 3 years to implement by State law the disqualification provision.
6. What is required of the employer in terms of company policy or training?
The rule does not require motor carriers to establish written policies in terms of company policy or training programs for their drivers. However, employers are prohibited from allowing or requiring their drivers to use hand-held mobile phones. A motor carrier may establish policies or practices that make it clear that the employer does not require or allow hand-held mobile telephone use while driving a CMV in interstate commerce. The carrier is responsible for its drivers’ conduct.
7. Is dialing a phone number allowed under this rule?
No. Dialing a mobile telephone while operating a CMV in interstate commerce is prohibited by the rule. A driver can initiate, answer, or terminate a call by touching a single button on a mobile telephone, earpiece, steering wheel, or instrument panel – comparable to using vehicle controls or instrument panel functions, such as the radio or climate control system.
8. Can a driver reach for a mobile telephone even if he/she intends to use the hands-free function?
No. In order to comply with this rule, a driver must have his or her mobile telephone located where the driver is able to initiate, answer, or terminate a call by touching a single button while the driver is in the seated driving position and properly restrained by a seat belt. If the mobile telephone is not close to the driver and operable while the driver is restrained by properly installed and adjusted seat belts, then the driver is considered to be reaching for the mobile phone, which is prohibited by the rule.
9. Are tow trucks exempt?
No. The interstate operation of tow trucks that meet the definition of a CMV are not exempt. Tow trucks, however, are exempt when responding to police emergencies in accordance with 49 CFR 390.23(a)(3).
2012 Legislative Session Begins
January 2012
January 2012
The 2012 Legislative Session officially began on January 4, and AGC of NH is ready to dive into the new session. We have several committee meetings scheduled throughout January, the Association’s committees will be meeting to review proposed legislation, take positions, and recommend actions for AGC of NH to take. This year’s bills run the gamut from highway related to human resources to environment to building. Suffice to say, AGC of NH will be busy this session.
Ahead on the schedule is the first meeting of the newly formed Highway Committee, the reformatted Building Committee, the Human Resources, and the Environment Committee. The Legislative Committee met in the beginning of the month to review all the bills that could impact the commercial construction industry either positively or negatively. Following their review, the bills were introduced to the various committees they had ties to.
The Association staff is busy as well. Our full-time lobbyist has already attended a number of hearings, and the Board of Directors has listed the top bills for 2012. Check out the January 23 issue of the AGC of NH newsletter for a look at the top bills.
Ahead on the schedule is the first meeting of the newly formed Highway Committee, the reformatted Building Committee, the Human Resources, and the Environment Committee. The Legislative Committee met in the beginning of the month to review all the bills that could impact the commercial construction industry either positively or negatively. Following their review, the bills were introduced to the various committees they had ties to.
The Association staff is busy as well. Our full-time lobbyist has already attended a number of hearings, and the Board of Directors has listed the top bills for 2012. Check out the January 23 issue of the AGC of NH newsletter for a look at the top bills.
Invest In Your Business - Attend AGC of America's 93rd Annual Convention
January 2012
January 2012
AGC of America is holding their 93rd Annual Convention on March 13- 17 in Honolulu, Hawaii. This year’s convention is all about investing in your business, and includes many programs and events for networking and learning the latest in the industry. Attendees will hear from Former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, John Hofmeister, founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, and many more during the convention.
What better way to spend a week learning about BIM and hearing from industry leaders than in warm, sunny Hawaii? For more information, and to register, go to http://convention.agc.org.
What better way to spend a week learning about BIM and hearing from industry leaders than in warm, sunny Hawaii? For more information, and to register, go to http://convention.agc.org.
Flag Training Now Available
January 2012
January 2012
AGC of NH is now offering its “Train the Trainer” Flagger Training Course. The four hour course will be held on February 10, beginning at 8:30 AM. The course will cover flagging procedures including NH DOT regulations on flag person training, proper use of paddles and flags, placement of flaggers on the job site, qualities of a good flag person, equipment, and proper placement of signs. AGC of NH is designed for flagging & traffic control companies, or companies that wish to have their own in-house flagging staff.
Designated trainers are required to complete a flagging course at least every four years. If your company’s flag trainer is coming up on the expiration date, now is the perfect time to have him or her re-trained. Participants will receive a packet of information they can use during their own flag training courses.
Members who include payment upon registration receive a discounted price of $65. Members who are invoiced will be charged $75. The non-member price is $110. Non-members must pay upon registration. To see the flyer and register please go to the training page. Call the chapter office at (603) 225-2701 for more information.
Designated trainers are required to complete a flagging course at least every four years. If your company’s flag trainer is coming up on the expiration date, now is the perfect time to have him or her re-trained. Participants will receive a packet of information they can use during their own flag training courses.
Members who include payment upon registration receive a discounted price of $65. Members who are invoiced will be charged $75. The non-member price is $110. Non-members must pay upon registration. To see the flyer and register please go to the training page. Call the chapter office at (603) 225-2701 for more information.
New! Committee Meeting Dates Available Online!
January 2012
January 2012
Committee members can now view upcoming committee meetings online through AGC of NH’s website calendar. Located under the Events tab, the monthly calendar shows the meeting dates, times, and locations for each committee (if a meeting is scheduled for that month). The calendar also shows important legislative dates, and Association office closures.
2011 Davis Bacon Wage Rates
December 2011
December 2011
What’s It All About: Davis Bacon Wages were most recently re-calculated in 2011, and these rates are now included in projects involving federal funding. Members have notified AGC of NH of increases in the wages, and major differences between counties. The method of calculation for these rates has long been questioned. Often times, the Department of Labor does not receive many responses to its survey, which results in a biased picture of wage rates. Furthermore, if the majority of respondents for a particular classification are union, the union wage is used as the prevailing wage.
What AGC is Working On: AGC of NH has been contacted by AGC of America to look at the trends of Davis Bacon Wage rates in New Hampshire. In response, AGC of NH compared 2010 and 2011 rates across all counties for Highway, Heavy, and Building classifications. The comparison shows that the Highway division has the highest frequency of rate increases. AGC of NH’s next step will be to meet with New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Labor about the rate increases.
The Association believes that wage rates should be calculated in a more uniform manner.
Davis Bacon Comparison
What AGC is Working On: AGC of NH has been contacted by AGC of America to look at the trends of Davis Bacon Wage rates in New Hampshire. In response, AGC of NH compared 2010 and 2011 rates across all counties for Highway, Heavy, and Building classifications. The comparison shows that the Highway division has the highest frequency of rate increases. AGC of NH’s next step will be to meet with New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Labor about the rate increases.
The Association believes that wage rates should be calculated in a more uniform manner.
Davis Bacon Comparison
AGC of America Questions DOL Use of PLA
October 2011
October 2011
Following the release of the Sources Sought Notice for the Manchester Job Corps project, AGC of America has contacted the Department of Labor (DOL) about their inclusion of a project labor agreement (PLA). In a letter dated October 7, the Association asks the Department to explain their reasoning for including a government mandated PLA in the project. AGC of America reiterates the letter sent in 2009, which questioned the use of a PLA during the initial bidding process.
In 2009, the DOL cancelled the bid solicitation citing the need to conduct further research on the use of a PLA. AGC of America is now questioning what further research was conducted in the past two years that led them to the decision to include a PLA in this second solicitation. From the letter, “AGC is unaware of any PLA feasibility study conducted in the project area since the 2009 solicitation cancellation. If such a study were conducted in a reliable manner, surely the research would have included an effort to obtain input from such significant industry players as AGC of New Hampshire …, and its member contractors; to our knowledge … no such effort was made.”
In addition to lack of research, AGC of America also questioned the PLA negotiation. The Sources Sought Notice states that the Department of Labor will negotiate the terms of the PLA. AGC of America believes that if a PLA must be in place, the employers who employ the workers should be the ones negotiating the terms of the PLA. These parties have a vested interest in creating and maintaining a stable employment relationship. If the Department moves forward with negotiating the PLA on its own, does it have sufficient staff that has experience negotiating terms of a PLA? The Association would also like to know if the individual negotiating the PLA has any past or current relationships and/or experience with the labor unions and union representatives against whom they will be negotiating the PLA for this project.
AGC of America also included a copy of their original 2009 letter, requesting answers to the questions in that letter as well, as no responses were received in 2009. AGC of NH supports this letter, and hopes that the Department will respond with answers. The full letter is available below. AGC of NH will continue to keep members updated on this issue as more information becomes available.
PLA Manchester Job Corps Letter
In 2009, the DOL cancelled the bid solicitation citing the need to conduct further research on the use of a PLA. AGC of America is now questioning what further research was conducted in the past two years that led them to the decision to include a PLA in this second solicitation. From the letter, “AGC is unaware of any PLA feasibility study conducted in the project area since the 2009 solicitation cancellation. If such a study were conducted in a reliable manner, surely the research would have included an effort to obtain input from such significant industry players as AGC of New Hampshire …, and its member contractors; to our knowledge … no such effort was made.”
In addition to lack of research, AGC of America also questioned the PLA negotiation. The Sources Sought Notice states that the Department of Labor will negotiate the terms of the PLA. AGC of America believes that if a PLA must be in place, the employers who employ the workers should be the ones negotiating the terms of the PLA. These parties have a vested interest in creating and maintaining a stable employment relationship. If the Department moves forward with negotiating the PLA on its own, does it have sufficient staff that has experience negotiating terms of a PLA? The Association would also like to know if the individual negotiating the PLA has any past or current relationships and/or experience with the labor unions and union representatives against whom they will be negotiating the PLA for this project.
AGC of America also included a copy of their original 2009 letter, requesting answers to the questions in that letter as well, as no responses were received in 2009. AGC of NH supports this letter, and hopes that the Department will respond with answers. The full letter is available below. AGC of NH will continue to keep members updated on this issue as more information becomes available.
PLA Manchester Job Corps Letter