|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
AMCOR INC. & E.E. LECHNER
DDATE:
19880204
TTEXT:
~1
[1] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20210
DATE: February 4, 1988
CASE NO. SCA-855
IN THE MATTER OF
AMCOR, INC., A CORPORATION
AND E. E. LECHNER, AN INDIVIDUAL,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR
ORDER
This case is before me on Respondents' application for relief
from being placed on the list of ineligible bidders pursuant to
Section 5(a) of the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 41
U.S.C. [secs] 351-358 (1982), and the rules and regulations
thereunder, 29 C.F.R. [secs] 6.15-6.21 and Part 8 (1987). /FN/ See
Amcor, Inc. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1986).
Respondents have submitted an application for relief from
debarment and counsel for the Administrator has submitted a notice
that it does not oppose Respondents' application. The record does
not establish that the violations by Respondent [1]
/FN/ The Deputy Secretary has been designated by the Secretary to
perform the functions of the Board of Service Contract Appeals
pending the appointment of a duly constituted Board. 29 C.F.R.
[sec] 8.0 (1987); Department of Labor Executive Level Conforming
Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-619 (November 6, 1986). [1]
~2
[2] were willful or culpable and it appears that at the time of
these events, Respondents already had demonstrated a long history
of generally satisfactory compliance with the Act, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) having characterized Respondents'
history as "punctilious compliance or trivial violations of no
significance, which were promptly rectified". ALJ Decision at 8.
The violations found here which totaled $5,296.76 were certainly
insignificant compared to Respondents' contracts which totaled
almost $12,000,000 at the time these violations were assessed. Cf.
In the Matter of Associated Cleaning Consultants, etc., 83-SCA-77,
Decision of the Deputy Secretary, December 10, 1987, slip op. at
11-12.
Upon consideration of the Respondents' application and
Administrator's notice and the full record before me, I find that
Respondents should be relieved of the sanction of Section 5(a) of
the Service Contract Act. 41 U.S.C. [sec] 354(a)11 (1982).
SO ORDERED.
[Dennis E. Whitfield]
Deputy Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C. [2]
]]>
|
