Union leaders urge Wantagh schools to rescind RJ Painting contract, cite wage and insurance concerns

Union representatives and a resident urged the Wantagh Union Free School District Board of Education to withdraw a recently awarded cooperative bid for painting and repairs to RJ Painting Inc., saying the bid could not legally cover prevailing wages and that the company lacked required insurance and certifications. District officials said the bid had been reviewed and that further responses were forthcoming.

The complaint began during public comment when resident Joseph Petrone said parents in the community were “concerned about this R and J contractor” and raised worries about the contractor’s background and worker pay. Raymond Festa, representing District Council 9 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, told the board the award took effect July 1 and urged the board to “reverse course” because the bid was “below cost and legally noncompliant.” He said the bid was $39.93 an hour and argued that the true legal cost, after prevailing wages and employer contributions, was “approximately $110.81.” Festa also said RJ Painting lacked an EPA renovator certification at the time bids were due and did not carry the contract’s required umbrella insurance for elevated work above 10 feet.

Festa cited procurement and labor rules and court precedents in urging rejection, saying: "New York State Finance Law 1 63 9 f ... a contract must be awarded to a responsible bidder" and pointing to agency guidance that allows rejection of “suspiciously low” bids that cannot meet wage obligations. He also referenced past DOL findings of wage violations tied to the contractor in other projects and questioned the bidder’s ability to meet apprentice-dispatch requirements.

Allen Foley, also speaking for District Council 9, said Eastern Suffolk BOCES and other local entities had rejected the company’s bids and repeated claims that the company had a history of prevailing-wage violations. Foley said some protested bidders have received no response from the district and that documentation provided to other agencies shows gaps in insurance and certification coverage at the time of bidding.

Superintendent McNamara first acknowledged the public comments and invited Assistant Superintendent for Business Mr. Cedrone to explain the district’s procurement process. Cedrone said, “State law controls the competitive bidding process that districts need to follow. It is awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. It does require the payment of prevailing wage.” He added that compliance with prevailing wage is an obligation of the contractor and that the district had vetted the items raised since bids opened in March and had legal review under way. “The answers that they’re referring to ... are forthcoming,” Cedrone said.

The board did not take immediate action on the contract during the meeting; union speakers said the contract had already taken effect July 1 and urged the board to reassign the award to the next lowest responsible and compliant bidder. District officials said they had reviewed the raised concerns and that formal responses would be provided following legal review.

Why this matters: the contract covers building maintenance work in district facilities, and alleged noncompliance with prevailing-wage or insurance requirements could expose the district to legal and financial risk and affect worker protections. Unions say the district has a legal and moral duty to ensure public funds go to responsible contractors; district staff said procurement rules were followed and that further clarification would be provided.