Mr. Stergio,
We represent a company that has had 10 compliance reviews from the 2019 CSAL list. All have proceeded as expected, but one review seems to be going off the rails. In the end of July, the CO contacted me to notify me that the desk audit was complete - the desk audit response was submitted on February 22, 2021. The CO stated that she found no areas of discrimination, but noted technical deficiencies in the veterans and disabled submissions that, according to her, warranted a conciliation agreement. We requested the opportunity to supplement the record to satisfy her concerns regarding compliance with the alleged deficiencies. The CO gave us a week, after I told her I would be on vacation. We made a timely submission, and the CO said her decision still stands, with no explanation. She is now sending multiple requests for more information and documents (with deadlines of 1-3 days), including a complete copy of the applicant log unredacted for the entire review period. In light of DIR 2018-08, we have asked for the basis for seeking the additional information given that there are no discrimination concerns, and she has simply told us she can review what she needs to in order to conduct a complete review even if there are not indicators of discrimination. We do not believe that the regulations of other directives and guidance support her position.

Multiple attempts to get legal representation from disability law for several unresolved complaints to include but not limited to accessibility and discrimination constant submission of documents only to turn around get ignored or blocked

THE CONCERN

That after filing Complaint 1 and 2 on April 21st and April 22nd respectively, I have not received a confirmation of receipt of the Complaint, yet Procedurally, OFCCP should have reached out by now (within 10 days of filing).

NATURE OF COMPLAINT 1

Mateega versus Triple Canopy. That contrary to Federal Contracting Rules and Regulations prohibiting Discrimination based on National Origin, Respondents/Subcontractors Triple Canopy, paid me lower wages via an "independent contractor agreement", YET, the Agency Contract from U.S. Army 'INSCOM' stipulated a GS-12 Pay Grade Level.

The Office of Personnel Management "OPM" together with U.S. Army INSCOM knew that they needed and could hire Ugandans at this Civil Service Grade. It is clearly laid out in 5 CFR Part 7 Section 8.3.

The only conceivable reason as to why Respondents violated this and other Federal Contracting Rules and possibly Title VII, was because they COULD and Ugandans could not do anything- they were powerless and vulnerable.

NOTE. Similarly situated American GS-12 were paid accordingly. Clearly, this was and remains disparate treatment.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT 2

Mateega versus Triple Canopy, Respondent 1, and others. This is a REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT that seeks the redress of ALL Ugandan Guards who were employed by ANY and ALL U.S. Companies Contracted or Subcontracted by the U.S. Government in Iraq and Afghanistan ("Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Enduring Freedom" etc).

At the heart of this Complaint is that there is a Prima Facie case of a much wider pattern of impropriety that existed regarding the pay of Ugandans under these deployments.

The basis is (a) the fact that there is evidence- as earlier discussed, that rather than pay Guards under the GS-12 Pay Grade Level, Subcontractor Triple Canopy paid them much less ($700 and $2100 rather than $5000 or thereabouts a month), and

(b) the fact that in 2009 a Congressional Bipartisan Committee on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan found that Ugandan Guards were being paid $700 rather than the stipulated $1700 by the Prime Contract.