Service Contract Act safety standards

Yes — any contract with the United States or the District of Columbia for more than $2,500 whose principal purpose is to furnish services in the United States through service employees must include the Service Contract Act safety stipulation. The rule is stated in 1925.1(a).

• This excludes contracts at or below $2,500 except as the Act’s section 7 provides.
• The stipulation covers services performed in buildings, surroundings, or under working conditions provided by the contractor or subcontractor.

The stipulation requires that no part of the services covered by the Act will be performed in buildings or surroundings or under working conditions provided by the contractor or subcontractor that are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to service employees' health or safety. This requirement is set out in 1925.1(a).

• The clause is meant to ensure employers provide safe, sanitary working environments for service employees under covered contracts.

Investigators and Department of Labor officers will treat failure to comply with the safety and health measures in 1925.2 as creating working conditions that are "unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of service employees" under the Act. See 1925.1(b)(1).

• That means noncompliance with 1925.2 can be the basis for enforcement or settlement actions under the Service Contract Act.

No — the standards in Part 1925 are for ordinary employment situations and do not preclude the need for additional standards in situations of extraordinary hazard. This is stated in 1925.1(d).

• If work presents extraordinary hazards, extra protective measures beyond Part 1925 may be required.
• The Part also does not claim to list every possible unsanitary or hazardous condition; other conditions may be found hazardous based on evidence.

No — complying with the standards in Part 1925 does not relieve anyone from obligations to comply with any stricter standard such as state or local laws or collective bargaining agreements, per 1925.1(e).

• Employers must follow federal Part 1925 and any more stringent requirements that apply.

Yes — the stipulation covers services performed in buildings, surroundings, or under working conditions provided by or under the control or supervision of the contractor or any subcontractor, as described in 1925.1(a).

• That means both prime contractors and subcontractors can be responsible for ensuring conditions are not unsanitary or hazardous for service employees.

Yes — Department of Labor officers evaluating investigations may consider failures to comply with 1925.2 in determining whether there have been violations and in setting the terms for settlement of issues without administrative or judicial litigation, as described in 1925.1(b).

• Noncompliance can therefore be a basis for negotiated settlements as well as formal enforcement.

The "[Reserved]" notation in 1925.1(c) means there is currently no regulatory text in that subsection; it is reserved for potential future use. It does not change the effect of the other subsections.

• Employers should rely on the active subsections such as (a), (b), (d), and (e) for current requirements.

Employers must recognize that Part 1925's standards may not be enough for extraordinary hazards and should implement additional measures as necessary to protect workers, consistent with 1925.1(d).

• Evaluate the specific hazards and apply additional industry or task-specific standards where appropriate.
• Documentation and competent-person assessments help justify and guide extra precautions.

Failing to comply with the safety and health measures in 1925.2 will be considered by investigators and Department of Labor officers to result in working conditions that are unsanitary or hazardous under the Act, but context and evidence still matter for enforcement decisions per 1925.1(b)(1).

• Investigators will evaluate the actual conditions and facts when deciding whether there has been a violation or when negotiating settlements.

The stricter standard applies; complying with Part 1925 does not relieve an employer from any obligation to comply with stricter state or local laws, as stated in 1925.1(e).

• Employers performing service contracts must follow the federal minimums and any applicable stricter state, local, or contractual requirements.

The text of 1925.1(a) requires that contracts whose principal purpose is furnishing services in the United States through service employees are covered; in practice, this means the main objective of the contract must be to provide services (not to sell goods).

• If the core objective and majority of contract work involve service employees doing services in the U.S., the SCA stipulation applies.
• Agencies and courts may examine the contract's terms and work performed to determine whether services are the principal purpose.

No — while investigators will consider failure to comply with 1925.2 as evidence that conditions are unsanitary or hazardous per 1925.1(b)(1), other evidence and standards may also establish hazardous conditions under 1925.1(d).

• Investigators can rely on additional industry standards, other OSHA regulations, or factual evidence of hazards.

Following manufacturer's instructions is helpful, but employers must still comply with any applicable standards that are stricter (federal, state, local, or contractual), as noted in 1925.1(e).

• For example, if a construction-related OSHA standard imposes specific controls (e.g., silica controls), those apply even when manufacturer's guidance is followed. See the respirable crystalline silica interpretation at Integrated water delivery systems for how tool-specific controls can be required under other OSHA standards.

Additional guidance and applicable fall-protection rules would apply; Part 1925 allows for recognition of extraordinary hazards and does not preclude the need for other applicable standards. See 1925.1(d).

• For construction-type exposures around pool edges, OSHA has given specific fall-protection guidance in the interpretation "Fall protection at pool edges" at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1998-06-08-0, which clarifies when conventional fall protection is required.

Yes — contractors must follow applicable OSHA standards that may be stricter or more specific than Part 1925 when the work triggers those rules, as explained in 1925.1(e).

• For example, if construction activities generate respirable crystalline silica, the construction silica standard and its Table 1 controls (including requirements about integrated water delivery systems) apply; see OSHA's interpretation on Integrated water delivery systems.

Yes — investigators may consider failure to meet the safety and health measures in 1925.2 and also recognize that other OSHA standards or interpretations may establish additional requirements or evidence of hazardous conditions under 1925.1(b).

• This means construction standards such as those interpreted in the letters provided (e.g., silica or fall protection letters) can inform enforcement when the contracted work is construction-type work.

Yes — if the contract’s principal purpose is to furnish services in the United States through service employees and the work (including outdoor cleaning or landscaping) is performed in buildings, surroundings, or under working conditions provided by the contractor or subcontractor, the SCA safety stipulation applies as required by 1925.1(a).

• The employer must ensure those outdoor work conditions are not unsanitary or hazardous for service employees.

Yes — Part 1925 does not cover all hazardous conditions, and other working conditions may be found unsanitary or hazardous based on evidence, per 1925.1(d).

• Investigators can rely on industry practices, other OSHA standards, letters of interpretation, or documented hazards to determine whether working conditions are dangerous.

Contractors must comply with any stricter safety requirements in a collective bargaining agreement in addition to Part 1925; compliance with Part 1925 alone does not relieve obligations to stricter contractual terms under 1925.1(e).

• When contract or union terms are more protective, follow those stricter provisions and document compliance.

Department of Labor investigators and officers evaluate, review, and analyze investigations and determine whether violations of the Service Contract Act's safety and health requirements occurred, and they may set terms for settlement without administrative or judicial litigation as described in 1925.1(b).

• They consider noncompliance with 1925.2 as evidence of unsanitary or hazardous conditions and use that in enforcement or settlement negotiations.