|
Locate a Long
Island NECA Contractor
NECA
Home Page
Drug-Free Work Place
Joint
Apprenticeship &Training Committee
EIB
Nassau and Suffolk Counties
National
Electrical Installation Standards
Bureau
of Labor Statistics
International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IBEW
- Local 25
Electrical
Contractors Industry Connections
LIPA
Commercial & Industrial Trade Ally
NYS
Wicks Law
New
York State Dept. of Labor
Wage
Rates
Nassau/Suffolk:
●
Residential
●
Generic
|
|
NYS Wicks Law
The
Long Island Chapter supports the Wicks Law because:
 |
The
public's interest is protected |
 |
It
is cost effective |
 |
It
prevents special interests from corrupting the bidding process |
This is why it
was written into State Law!
The Law in
Brief
The Wicks Law
was enacted in 1924 by the New York State Legislature. It mandates
separately bid contracts for Construction, Electrical, HVAC and Plumbing
on publicly funded projects over $50,000.
Single vs.
Separate Prime Contracting:
A National
Study by Professor Brian E. Becker, Ph.D.
School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo
Position Favoring Separate Prime Contracts
The proponents of separate prime bidding policies argue that such a
policy results in lower costs and better quality projects. They claim that
bid costs are lower because there is more competition for each prime
contract. First, better specialty contractors are attracted to separate
prime jobs because they will not have their bids shopped by a general
contractor and they can count on prompt payment from the public owner when
their work is completed. Second, the bidding is open to all qualified
contractors rather than a few subcontractors favored by a particular
general contractor. Furthermore, they point to evidence from states where
both single and separate bids are taken on the same project, which
indicates that separate prime bids were uniformly lower than single prime
bids.
As for the cost of additional plans, the proponents of separate prime
contracts point out that the separate detailed plans for each contractor
are in fact a positive feature of the system since it encourages more
accurate planning at the design stage and prevents “short cuts” during
the construction phase. Finally, they note that when change orders and
claims do occur, they are more expensive on a single prime project since
the cost includes a general contractor’s markup. This is particularly
true in cases where smaller general contractors are little more than
brokers in a transaction between the public owner and the specialty
contractors doing the real work on the job.
Those in favor of separate prime contracting agree that management and
coordination of the construction process is a crucial issue in this
debate, but it is the absence of capable management by public owners that
is the problem, not the bidding process. On projects where problems
develop, it is not the self-serving and litigious attitudes of the
separate prime contractors that cause delays, but rather the inadequate
design that requires construction through change orders or the absence of
capable construction management by the public owner. The supporters of
separate prime bidding argue that if public owners do not have such staff
capability, they should contract for these services with a construction
manager or architect who will not have the inherent conflict-of-interest
posed by the general contractor in a single prime system.
The results from prior research are mixed. Some earlier state studies show
that separate prime contracting results in lower bid costs, and as a
result lower total construction costs. Other studies report evidence
indicating that separate prime contracting has higher direct and indirect
costs. Based on a statistical analysis of project bid and final costs from
a national sample of state construction projects, this study finds
separate prime contracting to have lower direct project costs. Comparing
final project costs to estimated costs, separate prime jobs were more than
5 percent cheaper than single prime jobs, and the overwhelming share of
that difference (83 percent) was due to relatively lower bid costs. This
same pattern of results was observed in individual state analyses in both
New York and California.
A Closer Look
At Wage Laws
An
eye-opening study offers compelling data to show adverse economic impact
of repeal of wage laws. The study, titled “The Adverse Economic Impact
from Repeal of the Prevailing Wage Law,” was authored by the Dept. of
Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Analyzing data for 1993 through 2002, the authors found “no
statistically significant difference in mean cost of construction between
the eight wage law states and four states without such statutes.”
“Their work is the most comprehensive and well documented study of this
subject that COCKSHAW’s has uncovered in a long time.”
Email us

|
|
NECA Notes
|
Founded
in 1901
120 US Chapters
8 NYS Chapters
70,000 Firms
650,000 Electricians
.
|

History
of the Long Island Chapter
President's
Message
Chapter
Manager's Message
National
Electrical Benefit Fund
Long
Island Works Coalition
Forms
|