Luca Calarailli is a distinguished figure in the construction industry, blending deep expertise in architectural design with a forward-thinking approach to regulatory technology. As a passionate advocate for innovation, he has spent years helping firms navigate the intersection of physical builds and the complex legal frameworks that govern modern labor. With the March 19 deadline for Ohio’s E-Verify mandate approaching, he provides essential guidance for contractors facing a shifting landscape of employment eligibility.
This interview explores the logistical hurdles of the new federal verification requirements, strategies for mitigating substantial financial and operational penalties, and the delicate balance of maintaining a robust workforce in an industry heavily reliant on immigrant labor. We also delve into the nuances of contract language for subcontractors and why centralized compliance is the most effective shield against regulatory scrutiny.
As contractors prepare for the March 19 deadline for public works and nonresidential projects, what logistical steps should they prioritize? How can they update internal onboarding without disrupting hiring timelines?
The most immediate priority is registering for the federal E-Verify system and integrating it into a three-day window following the hire date. To avoid disrupting hiring timelines, firms should move to a digital-first onboarding process where the I-9 and E-Verify checks are triggered simultaneously. A common administrative bottleneck occurs when employers wait for “perfect” documents; instead, they should train HR to accept any valid combination of List A, B, or C documents immediately upon hire. By establishing a clear, step-by-step workflow—starting with registration, followed by staff training, and ending with a dry-run audit—companies can ensure they are not scrambling when the deadline hits. This proactive stance prevents the chaos of last-minute compliance that often leads to missed deadlines or incomplete records.
With penalties reaching $25,000 and threats of state bidding bans, how should firms evaluate their current liability? What protocols should be in place to handle a final nonconfirmation, and how does a company demonstrate good-faith compliance?
Firms must realize that the stakes go beyond just a fine; multiple willful violations can lead to a two-year ban on state bidding or even the permanent revocation of a business license. To evaluate liability, contractors should conduct internal audits of their current I-9 forms to identify gaps before the state does. When a “final nonconfirmation” occurs, the protocol must be immediate: the employer is generally required to terminate the individual’s employment to remain compliant with federal law. To demonstrate good-faith compliance, maintain a detailed “compliance binder” that logs your training sessions, system screenshots, and any correspondence with federal agencies. This paper trail shows regulators that you are not a “bad actor,” but a firm making every reasonable effort to follow the rules during this learning curve.
Given that immigrants comprise a major portion of the construction workforce, how can builders balance verification requirements with the need to fill vacant roles? What strategies help maintain a stable labor pool?
In an industry where 34% of trade workers are immigrants—and up to 61% in specific trades—the labor shortage of 349,000 workers makes every hiring decision critical. Builders should focus on transparency and education, explaining to potential hires that E-Verify is a mandatory tool for confirmation, not a barrier to entry for those with valid status. It is vital to avoid over-screening or “document abuse,” such as demanding specific green cards when other valid ID exists, as this can lead to discrimination charges. By standardizing the process, you create a sense of fairness and security for the workforce, which helps retain talent in a highly competitive market. Using the system correctly actually protects the worker’s right to work as much as it protects the employer’s right to hire.
Since E-Verify is a supplemental tool rather than a replacement for traditional I-9 forms, how can companies avoid the trap of neglecting physical documentation? What are the risks of over-relying on electronic checks?
One of the biggest misconceptions is that the digital system does all the work, but federal law still requires the physical completion and retention of I-9 forms. The risk of over-reliance on E-Verify is that a firm might pass a digital check but fail a physical audit due to missing signatures or expired documents on the hard copies. Training for hiring managers must emphasize a “dual-track” approach: the physical inspection of original documents remains the foundation, while E-Verify acts as the secondary electronic confirmation. We must treat the I-9 as the legal source of truth and E-Verify as the verification bridge to the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records. If the physical paperwork is sloppy, the digital check won’t save you from a heavy fine during a Department of Labor inspection.
Third-party staffing agencies and subcontractors often introduce layers of liability for a prime contractor. What specific language should be included in vendor contracts to ensure compliance?
While the Ohio law aims to protect contractors from their subcontractors’ errors, you should never assume you are fully shielded from the fallout of a worksite raid. Vendor contracts must include “flow-down” provisions that explicitly require the subcontractor or staffing agency to use E-Verify and perform regular I-9 audits. You should include indemnification clauses that hold the vendor financially responsible for any fines or legal fees resulting from their non-compliance. However, be careful not to overstep by reviewing their employees’ private I-9 forms directly, as this creates significant privacy and joint-employer liability risks. Instead, require a signed certification or “Attestation of Compliance” every quarter to ensure they are holding up their end of the bargain.
Regarding the choice between managing compliance at the project level versus using a centralized lead, why is a single compliance officer typically more effective? What specific metrics should this leader track?
Decentralizing compliance leads to “compliance drift,” where different project managers interpret rules differently, creating a patchwork of inconsistencies that regulators love to flag. A single E-Verify lead ensures that every hire, regardless of the job site, is processed with the same level of scrutiny and professional care. This lead should track key metrics such as the “time-to-verification” (ensuring it’s within 3 days), the percentage of “tentative nonconfirmations” resolved, and the expiration dates of work authorizations for current employees. Centralization allows for a high-level view of the firm’s risk profile and ensures that the company stays ahead of shifting mandates in the 25 states that currently have E-Verify rules. It turns a chaotic administrative task into a streamlined, professional business function.
What is your forecast for the expansion of E-Verify mandates within the construction industry?
I expect that E-Verify will soon become the universal standard for the construction industry nationwide, moving well beyond the current 25 states. We are seeing a trend where both state legislatures and local municipalities, such as Hernando County in Florida, are independently tightening the screws on workforce verification. This “bottom-up” regulatory pressure, combined with federal enforcement priorities, means that any firm wishing to work on public infrastructure or large-scale private developments will eventually have no choice but to enroll. Within the next five years, I believe E-Verify will be as standard and expected in a contractor’s toolkit as OSHA safety certifications or general liability insurance. The era of “looking the other way” is effectively over, and the firms that thrive will be those that embrace these digital compliance tools early.
