Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IBEW urges city review of $23M fiber project, citing licensing and prevailing wage concerns
Summary
A representative from IBEW Local 11 asked Carson City Council to order an immediate review of the workforce plan for a $23 million municipal fiber‑optic contract with HP Communications, saying the contractor's plan to use only laborers may violate electrical contractor classifications, prevailing wage, apprenticeship, and safety rules; staff agreed to meet with the union.
A business agent for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11 told the Carson City Council on March 17 that the city should reconsider workforce compliance on its $23,000,000 municipal fiber‑optic network project.
Chris Longoria told the council the contract was procured under a C‑10 electrical contractor classification but that HP Communications "has stated its intent to perform 100% of the work using laborers only." He described that approach as inconsistent with the procurement terms and standard industry practice and said it raised "serious concerns regarding worker misclassification under California prevailing wage law, failure to meet apprenticeship utilization requirements, potential contractor licensing violations, and importantly, safety and quality risk on a critical public infrastructure project."
Longoria asked the council to exercise its authority as the awarding body to direct an immediate review of the contractor's workforce plan to ensure compliance with the original RFP and state labor law. He warned of potential DIR investigations, withholding of funds and civil penalties if issues are not addressed.
The mayor directed the city manager and assistant city manager to meet with Longoria and the union to discuss the concerns; the city said staff would follow up. No formal council action was taken at the meeting.
What's next: city staff and the union are to meet for a follow‑up discussion; the council's role as awarding body was noted but no directive to halt work was recorded on the public record.
