23 C.F.R. § 633.102

Applicability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The required contract provisions and the required proposal notices apply to all Federal-aid construction contracts other than Appalachian construction contracts.

(b) Form FHWA-1273, “Required Contract Provisions, Federal-aid Construction Contracts,” contains required contract provisions and required proposal notices that are required by regulations promulgated by the FHWA or other Federal agencies. The required contract provisions of Form FHWA-1273 shall be physically incorporated in each Federal-aid highway construction contract other than Appalachian construction contracts (see § 633.104 for availability of form).

(d) The required contract provisions contained in Form FHWA-1273 shall apply to all work performed on the contract by the contractor's own organization and to all work performed on the contract by piecework, station work, or by subcontract.

(e) The contractor shall insert in each subcontract, except as excluded by law or regulation, the required contract provisions contained in Form FHWA-1273 and further require their inclusion in any lower tier subcontract that may in turn be made. The required contract provisions of Form FHWA-1273 shall not be incorporated by reference in any case. The prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the requirements contained in the provisions of Form FHWA-1273.

(f) The State highway agency (SHA) shall include the notices concerning certification of nonsegregated facilities and implementation of the Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act, pursuant to 40 CFR part 15, in all bidding proposals for Federal-aid highway construction projects. As the notices are reproduced in Form FHWA-1273, the SHA may include Form FHWA-1273 in its entirety to meet this requirement.

[52 FR 36920, Oct. 2, 1987, as amended at 69 FR 7118, Feb. 13, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2013 · leading case: Frank Bros., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., Frank Busalacchi, Sec'y, & Marilyn Kuick, Chief Eeo/labor Compliance, 409 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frank Bros., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., Frank Busalacchi, Sec'y, & Marilyn Kuick, Chief Eeo/labor Compliance, 409 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2005). “§ 113 ; 23 C.F.R. § 633.102 . In order to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors and subcontractors subject to the Act’s prevailing wage provisions, such as Frank Bros.”

Internatl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Bd. of Defiance Cty. Commrs., 2013 Ohio 5198 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “113; 23 C.F.R. 633.102. To show compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors and subcontractors who are subject to the federal wage provisions must give weekly payroll records to the Department of Labor.”

Frank Bros. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (W.D. Wis. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 23 C.F.R. § 633.102 (b) (stating that “required contract provisions contained in Form FHWA-1273 shall be physically incorporated in each Federal-aid highway construction contract”).”

Frank Bros., Inc. v. WI Dept Trans (7th Cir. 2005). “§ 113 ; 23 C.F.R. § 633.102 . In order to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors and subcontractors subject to the Act’s pre- vailing wage provisions, such as Frank Bros.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.