GDOT, email exchange with spokesperson Natalie Dale, Re; 2018’s SB445
Read from bottom to top…
dak
_______
Natalie Dale January 24, 2019 5:21 PM
In reading your response, I followed back up with our construction folks. First, I need to correct what I said with regard to the 30-day window between submissions and award. There is an approximately 10-day window between the bid submission deadline and bid review. If at the time of bid review, a contractor does not have its affidavit, the bid will not even be considered as part of the bid review.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2019, at 3:18 PM, D.A. King wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Natalie,
Thank you for your speedy reply.
I see that the hearing I watched on senate archive video was in fact not Sen Gooch explaining an amendment, but as you note, he was explaining the bill for the first time with the language in question already in the bill. My mistake. But it does not change the fact that SB445 serves to exclude GDOT and its potential contractors from the language of 13-10-91 in its requirement that bids on projects be considered only if they include a signed E-Verify affidavit.
The language of Section 3 of SB445 changes that process to “prior to award of any contract” – which would allow bids to be made and accepted for consideration without the mandated E-Verify affidavit. Two entirely different schedules. Your response “to make clear, NO project can be awarded, NO contract can be signed, NO work can be event started without the sworn affidavit under the language in SB 445” does not address that fact.
There was no constructive reason to add Section 3, as the law already required and carefully described the mandated affidavit process with the intent of not allowing bids from contractors who were not already E-Verify users.
I only referenced Day 40 in the context of the final passage of SB445 – not an amendment.
Thanks again for your timely reply.
D.A. King
On Jan 24, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Dale, Natalie wrote:
The language referenced in your questions was part of the original bill (verbatim) numbered as Section 2 (see hyperlink for original version http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20172018/173852.pdf) as introduced by Senator Gooch. The Day 40 amendment you referenced dealt with the ability of certain municipalities to restrict truck weights on certain corridors.
With respect to the language with which you are concerned. That section did not change OCGA 13-10-91 but clarified in Title 32 when the signed, notarized affidavit had to be received by the Department. Those affidavits are physical documents while all other bid documents are electronically submitted. To make clear, NO project can be awarded, NO contract can be signed, NO work can be event started without the sworn affidavit under the language in SB 445. The language in the bill only accounts for a potential delay between the one document being sent in the mail and the others be submitting electronically. There is generally a 30-day period between bid submissions and bid awards. Any contract who fails to provide the signed affidavit will still be disqualified from being awarded the project.
From: D.A. King
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:50 PM
To: Dale, Natalie
Subject: Resend/Re: Repeat address error apology. The previous media request Re; SB445 (2018) .
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Natalie,
You may remember me from your time in the senate offices. I have worked on immigration-related bills under the Gold Dome since 2005. OCGA 13-10-91 is code that I helped produce and upgrade several times.
I am writing a piece for Insider Advantage Georgia that will highlight SB445, which passed the General Assembly last year on day 40. That bill was amended in the Senate Transportation Committee by Senator Steve Gooch, in part, with the addition of Section 3. In his remarks before presenting the amendment Senator Gooch told the room that “this is a department bill.” He also remarked that it was “a housekeeping bill.”
Section 3 inserted that day removes the requirement for GDOT in OCGA 13-10-91 that contractors must submit a sworn affidavit attesting to use of E-Verify before their bids may be considered by public employers.
Q: Was SB445 indeed the work of the GDOT?
Q: Was the Gooch amendment done at the direction of GDOT liaisons or management?
Q: Does the Commissioner fully understand the ramifications concerning illegal labor of changing the law to give GDOT a carve-out on the pre-bid E-Verify requirements in the contracting process?
My write-up will explain in detail the result of the Gooch amendment (Section 3) and allowing potential GDOT contractors to bid, win bids – and hire workers for a job – before they swear to use of E-Verify and the connection to the potential for use of illegal labor on GDOT contracts.
Q: Does GDOT have any comment on that potential, please? Will you please outline the reasoning for the Section 3 amendment if indeed it was a GDOT-pushed amendment?
My deadline is Friday, noon-ish. I expect the piece to run Monday or Tuesday.
Thank you in advance for your response.
D.A. King
404-316-6712
OCGA 13-10-91
(b) (1) A public employer shall not enter into a contract for the physical performance of services unless the contractor registers and participates in the federal work authorization program. Before a bid for any such service is considered by a public employer, the bid shall include a signed, notarized affidavit from the contractor attesting to the following:
(A) The affiant has registered with, is authorized to use, and uses the federal work authorization program;
(B) The user identification number and date of authorization for the affiant;
(C) The affiant will continue to use the federal work authorization program throughout the contract period; and
(D) The affiant will contract for the physical performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with subcontractors who present an affidavit to the contractor with the same information required by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 23, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Dale, Natalie wrote:
I never received an email requesting information . Please resend .
Thank you !
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2019, at 6:10 PM, D.A. King wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
