According to Act 407 of 2016, a contractor of record is not required in which scenario?

In the context of Act 407 of 2016, the determination that a contractor of record is not required to perform work in a facility hinges on the specific provisions outlined within the legislation. The emphasis is on when a contractor is deemed necessary versus when their involvement can be waived.

In this case, the correct choice suggests that the act permits certain work to be done without the necessity of having a contractor of record involved. This flexibility is particularly relevant in scenarios where the nature of the work, or the entity performing it, does not necessitate the formal oversight or registration of a contractor.

Essentially, the law recognizes that not all work within a facility requires formal contractor oversight. This acknowledgment facilitates a more accessible approach to managing minor tasks or maintenance that may not need the administrative burden that comes alongside having a designated contractor of record. The other scenarios, such as work conducted by associations, partnerships, or colleges, could still be subject to different requirements within the act, particularly if they involve larger projects or specific regulatory compliance stipulations that necessitate a contractor's involvement.