Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations, 15698-15805 [2022-05346]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15698
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Parts 1, 3, and 5
RIN 1235–AA40
Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts Regulations
Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor
(Department) proposes to amend
regulations issued under the DavisBacon and Related Acts that set forth
rules for the administration and
enforcement of the Davis-Bacon labor
standards that apply to Federal and
federally assisted construction projects.
As the first comprehensive regulatory
review in nearly 40 years, the
Department believes that revisions to
these regulations are needed to provide
greater clarity and enhance their
usefulness in the modern economy.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments on this notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on or
before May 17, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) 1235–AA40, by either of
the following methods:
• Electronic Comments: Submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Address written submissions
to: Division of Regulations, Legislation,
and Interpretation, Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room S–3502, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Instructions: Response to this NPRM
is voluntary. The Department requests
that no business proprietary
information, copyrighted information,
or personally identifiable information be
submitted in response to this NPRM.
Commenters submitting file attachments
on https://www.regulations.gov are
advised that uploading text-recognized
documents—i.e., documents in a native
file format or documents which have
undergone optical character recognition
(OCR)—enable staff at the Department to
more easily search and retrieve specific
content included in your comment for
consideration.
Anyone who submits a comment
(including duplicate comments) should
understand and expect that the
comment will become a matter of public
record and will be posted without
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
change to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided. The Wage and Hour Division
(WHD) posts comments gathered and
submitted by a third-party organization
as a group under a single document ID
number on https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments must be received by 11:59
p.m. on May 17, 2022, for consideration
in this rulemaking; comments received
after the comment period closes will not
be considered.
The Department strongly recommends
that commenters submit their comments
electronically via https://
www.regulations.gov to ensure timely
receipt prior to the close of the comment
period, as the Department continues to
experience delays in the receipt of mail.
Please submit only one copy of your
comments by only one method.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments, go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy DeBisschop, Director, Division of
Regulations, Legislation, and
Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–
3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693–0406 (this is not a toll-free
number). Copies of this proposal may be
obtained in alternative formats (Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt),
a thumb drive, an MP3 file, large print,
braille, audiotape, compact disc, or
other accessible format), upon request,
by calling (202) 693–0675 (this is not a
toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may
dial toll-free 1–877–889–5627 to obtain
information or request materials in
alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation or
enforcement of the agency’s existing
regulations may be directed to the
nearest WHD district office. Locate the
nearest office by calling the WHD’s tollfree help line at (866) 4US–WAGE ((866)
487–9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in
your local time zone, or log onto WHD’s
website at https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/whd/contact/local-offices for a
nationwide listing of WHD district and
area offices.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
In order to provide greater clarity and
enhance their usefulness in the modern
economy, the Department proposes to
update and modernize the regulations at
29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5, which
implement the Davis-Bacon Act and the
Davis-Bacon Related Acts (collectively,
the DBRA). The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or Act), enacted in 1931, requires the
payment of locally prevailing wages and
fringe benefits on Federal contracts for
construction. See 40 U.S.C. 3142. The
DBA applies to workers on contracts
entered into by Federal agencies and the
District of Columbia that are in excess
of $2,000 and for the construction,
alteration, or repair of public buildings
or public works. Congress subsequently
incorporated DBA prevailing wage
requirements into numerous statutes
(referred to as ‘‘Related Acts’’) under
which Federal agencies assist
construction projects through grants,
loans, loan guarantees, insurance, and
other methods.
The Supreme Court has described the
DBA as ‘‘a minimum wage law designed
for the benefit of construction workers.’’
United States v. Binghamton Constr.
Co., 347 U.S. 171, 178 (1954). The Act’s
purpose is ‘‘to protect local wage
standards by preventing contractors
from basing their bids on wages lower
than those prevailing in the area.’’
Universities Research Ass’n, Inc. v.
Coutu, 450 U.S. 754, 773 (1981) (quoting
H. Comm. on Educ. and Lab., Legislative
History of the Davis-Bacon Act, 87th
Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (Comm. Print 1962)).
By requiring the payment of minimum
prevailing wages, Congress sought to
‘‘ensure that Government construction
and federally assisted construction
would not be conducted at the expense
of depressing local wage standards.’’
Determination of Wage Rates Under the
Davis-Bacon & Serv. Cont. Acts, 5 Op.
O.L.C. 174, 176 (1981) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).1
Congress has delegated authority to
the Department to issue prevailing wage
determinations and prescribe rules and
regulations for contractors and
subcontractors on DBA-covered
construction projects.2 See 40 U.S.C.
3142, 3145. It has also directed the
Department, through Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950, to ‘‘prescribe
appropriate standards, regulations and
procedures’’ to be observed by Federal
agencies responsible for the
administration of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts. 5 U.S.C. app. 1, effective
May 24, 1950, 15 FR 3176, 64 Stat. 1267.
These regulations, which have been
updated and revised periodically over
time, are primarily located in parts 1, 3,
1 Available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/olc/opinions/1981/06/31/op-olc-v005p0174_0.pdf.
2 The DBA and the Related Acts apply to both
prime contracts and subcontracts of any tier
thereunder. In this NPRM, as in the regulations
themselves, where the terms ‘‘contracts’’ or
‘‘contractors’’ are used, they are intended to include
reference to subcontracts and subcontractors of any
tier.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
and 5 of title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
The Department last engaged in a
comprehensive revision of the
regulations governing the DBA and the
Related Acts in a 1981–1982
rulemaking.3 Since that time, Congress
has expanded the reach of the DavisBacon labor standards significantly,
adding numerous new Related Act
statutes to which these regulations
apply. The Davis-Bacon Act and now 71
active Related Acts 4 collectively apply
to an estimated $217 billion in Federal
and federally assisted construction
spending per year and provide
minimum wage rates for an estimated
1.2 million U.S. construction workers.5
The Department expects these numbers
to continue to grow as Federal and State
governments seek to address the
significant infrastructure needs of the
country, including, in particular, the
energy and transportation infrastructure
necessary to mitigate climate change.6
In addition to the expansion of the
prevailing wage rate requirements of the
DBA and the Related Acts, the Federal
contracting system itself has undergone
significant changes since the 1981–1982
rulemaking. Federal agencies have
dramatically increased spending
through interagency Federal schedules
such as the Multiple Award Schedule
(MAS). Contractors have increased their
use of single-purpose entities, such as
joint ventures and teaming agreements,
in construction contracts with Federal,
State and local governments. Federal
procurement regulations have been
overhauled and consolidated in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),
which contains a subsection on the
Davis-Bacon Act and related contract
clauses. See 48 CFR 22.400 et seq. Court
and agency administrative decisions
have developed and clarified myriad
aspects of the laws governing Federal
procurement.
During the past 40 years, the
Department’s DBRA program also has
continued to evolve. Where the program
initially was focused on individual
project-specific wage determinations,
contracting agencies now incorporate
the Department’s general wage
determinations for the construction type
3 See 46 FR 41444 (NPRM); 47 FR 23644 (final
rule); 48 FR 19532 (revised final rule).
4 The Department maintains a list of the Related
Acts at [cite website address].
5 These estimates are discussed below in section
V (Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review et al.).
6 See Executive Order 14008, Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, § 206 (Jan. 27,
2021), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/
executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-athome-and-abroad/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
in the locality in which the construction
project is to occur. The program also
now uniformly uses wage surveys to
develop general wage determinations,
eliminating an earlier practice of
developing wage determinations based
solely on other evidence about the
general level of unionization in the
targeted area. In a 2006 decision, the
Department’s Administrative Review
Board (ARB) identified several surveyrelated wage determination procedures
then in effect as inconsistent with the
regulatory language that had resulted
from the 1981–1982 rulemaking. See
Mistick Construction, ARB No. 04–051,
2006 WL 861357, at *5–7 (Mar. 31,
2006).7 As a consequence of these
developments, the use of averages of
wage rates from survey responses has
increasingly become the methodology
used to issue new wage
determinations—notwithstanding the
Department’s long-held interpretation
that the DBA allows the use of such
averages only as a methodology of last
resort.
The Department has also received
significant feedback from stakeholders
and others since the last comprehensive
rulemaking. In a 2011 report, the
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reviewed the Department’s wage
survey and wage determination process
and found that the Department was
often behind schedule in completing
wage surveys, leading to a backlog of
wage determinations and the use of outof-date wage determinations in some
areas.8 The report also identified
dissatisfaction among regulated parties
regarding the rigidity of the
Department’s county-based system for
identifying prevailing rates,9 and
missing wage rates requiring an overuse
of ‘‘conformances’’ for wage rates for
specific job classifications.10 A 2019
report from the Department’s Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) made
similar findings regarding out-of-date
wage determinations.11
Ensuring that construction workers
are paid the wages required under the
DBRA also requires effective
7 Decisions of the ARB from 1996 to the present
are available on the Department’s website at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/arb/decisions.
8 See Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–11–152,
Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Changes Needed
to Improve Wage Survey (2011) (2011 GAO Report),
at 12–19, available at: https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-11-152.
9 Id. at 23–24.
10 Id. at 32–33.
11 See Department of Labor, Office of the
Inspector General, Better Strategies Are Needed to
Improve the Timeliness and Accuracy of DavisBacon Act Prevailing Wage Rates (2019) (OIG
Report), at 10, available at: https://
www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/
04-19-001-Davis%20Bacon.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15699
enforcement in addition to an efficient
wage determination process. In the last
decade, enforcement efforts at the
Department have resulted in the
recovery of more than $213 million in
back wages for over 84,000 workers.12
But the Department has also
encountered significant enforcement
challenges. Among the most critical of
these is the omission of DBRA contract
clauses from contracts that are clearly
covered by the DBRA. In one recent
case, a contracting agency agreed with
the Department that a blanket purchase
agreement (BPA) it had entered into
with a contractor had mistakenly
omitted the Davis-Bacon clauses and
wage determination—but the
contracting agency’s struggle to rectify
the situation led to a delay of 8 years
before the workers were paid the wages
they were owed.
The Department now seeks to address
a number of these outstanding
challenges in the program while also
providing greater clarity in the DBRA
regulations and enhancing their
usefulness in the modern economy. In
this rulemaking, the Department
proposes to update and modernize the
regulations implementing the DBRA at
29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5. In some of
these revisions, the Department has
determined that changes it made in the
1981–1982 rulemaking were mistaken or
ultimately resulted in outcomes that are
increasingly in tension with the DBA
statute itself. In others, the Department
seeks to expand further on procedures
that were introduced in that last major
revision, or to propose new procedures
that will increase efficiency of
administration of the DBRA and
enhance protections for covered
construction workers. On all the
proposed changes, the Department seeks
comment and participation from the
many stakeholders in the program.
The proposed rule includes several
elements targeted at increasing the
amount of information available for
wage determinations and speeding up
the determination process. In a proposal
to amend § 1.3 of the regulations, the
Department outlines a new methodology
to expressly give the WHD
Administrator authority and discretion
to adopt State or local wage
determinations as the Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage where certain specified
criteria are satisfied. Such a change
would help improve the currentness
and accuracy of wage determinations, as
many states and localities conduct
12 Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–21–13, Fair
Labor Standards Act: Tracking Additional
Complaint Data Could Improve DOL’s Enforcement
(2020) (2020 GAO Report), at 39, available at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-13.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15700
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
surveys more frequently than the
Department and have relationships with
stakeholders that may facilitate the
process and foster more widespread
participation. This proposal would also
increase efficiency and reduce
confusion for the regulated community
where projects are covered by both
DBRA and local or State prevailing wage
laws and contractors are already
familiar with complying with the local
or State prevailing wage requirement.
The Department also proposes
changes, in § 1.2, to the definition of
‘‘prevailing wage,’’ and, in § 1.7, to the
scope of data considered to identify the
prevailing wage in a given area. To
address the overuse of weighted average
rates, the Department proposes to return
to the definition of ‘‘prevailing wage’’ in
§ 1.2 that it used from 1935 to 1983.13
Currently, a single wage rate may be
identified as prevailing in the area only
if it is paid to a majority of workers in
a classification on the wage survey;
otherwise a weighted average is used.
The Department proposes to return
instead to the ‘‘three-step’’ method that
was in effect before 1983. Under that
method (also known as the 30-percent
rule), in the absence of a wage rate paid
to a majority of workers in a particular
classification, a wage rate will be
considered prevailing if it is paid to at
least 30 percent of such workers. The
Department also proposes to return to a
prior policy on another change made
during the 1981–1982 rulemaking
related to the delineation of wage survey
data submitted for ‘‘metropolitan’’ or
‘‘rural’’ counties in § 1.7(b). Through
this change, the Department seeks to
more accurately reflect modern labor
force realities, to allow more wage rates
to be determined at smaller levels of
geographical aggregation, and to
increase the sufficiency of data at the
statewide level.
Proposed revisions to §§ 1.3 and 5.5
are aimed at reducing the need for the
use of ‘‘conformances’’ where the
Department has received insufficient
data to publish a prevailing wage for a
classification of worker—a process that
currently is burdensome on contracting
agencies, contractors, and the
Department. The proposed revisions
would create a new procedure through
which the Department may identify
(and list on the wage determination)
wage and fringe benefit rates for certain
classifications for which WHD received
insufficient data through its wage
survey program. The procedure should
reduce the need for conformances for
classifications for which conformances
are often required.
The Department also proposes to
revise § 1.6(c)(1) to provide a
mechanism to regularly update certain
non-collectively bargained prevailing
wage rates based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Employment Cost Index.14
The mechanism is intended to keep
such rates more current between
surveys so that they do not become outof-date and fall behind prevailing rates
in the area.
The Department also seeks to
strengthen enforcement in several
critical ways. The proposed rule seeks
to address the challenges caused by the
omission of contract clauses. In a
manner similar to its rule under
Executive Order 11246 (Equal
Employment Opportunity), the
Department proposes to designate the
DBRA contract clauses in § 5.5(a) and
(b), and applicable wage determinations,
as effective by ‘‘operation of law’’
notwithstanding their mistaken
omission from a contract. This proposal
is an extension of the retroactive
modification procedures that were put
into effect in § 1.6 by the 1981–1982
rulemaking, and it promises to expedite
enforcement efforts to ensure the timely
payment of prevailing wages to all
workers who are owed such wages
under the relevant statutes.
In addition, the Department proposes
to include new anti-retaliation
provisions in the Davis-Bacon contract
clauses in new paragraphs at
§§ 5.5(a)(11) (DBRA) and 5.5(b)(5)
(Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act), and in a new section of
part 5 at § 5.18. The new language is
intended to ensure that workers who
raise concerns about payment practices
or assist agencies or the Department in
investigations are protected from
termination or other adverse
employment actions.
Finally, to reinforce the remedies
available when violations are
discovered, the Department proposes to
clarify and strengthen the crosswithholding procedure for recovering
back wages. The proposal does so by
including new language in the
withholding contract clauses at
§§ 5.5(a)(2) (DBRA) and 5.5(b)(3)
(Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act) to clarify that crosswithholding may be accomplished on
contracts held by agencies other than
the agency that awarded the contract.
The proposal also seeks to create a
mechanism through which contractors
will be required to consent to cross-
13 The 1981–1982 rulemaking went into effect on
April 29, 1983. 48 FR 19532.
14 Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
eci.toc.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
withholding for back wages owed on
contracts held by different but related
legal entities in appropriate
circumstances—if, for example, those
entities are controlled by the same
controlling shareholder or are joint
venturers or partners on a Federal
contract. The proposed revisions
include, as well, a harmonization of the
DBA and Related Act debarment
standards.
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory History
The Davis-Bacon Act, as enacted in
1931 and subsequently amended,
requires the payment of minimum
prevailing wages determined by the
Department of Labor to laborers and
mechanics working on Federal contracts
in excess of $2,000 for the construction,
alteration, or repair, including painting
and decorating, of public buildings and
public works. See 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.
Congress has also included the DavisBacon requirements in numerous other
laws, known as the Davis-Bacon Related
Acts (the Related Acts and, collectively
with the Davis-Bacon Act, the DBRA),
which provide Federal assistance for
construction projects through grants,
loans, loan guarantees, insurance, and
other methods. Congress intended the
Davis-Bacon Act to ‘‘protect local wage
standards by preventing contractors
from basing their bids on wages lower
than those prevailing in the area.’’
Coutu, 450 U.S. at 773 (quoting H.
Comm. on Educ. and Lab., Legis.
History of the Davis-Bacon Act, 87th
Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (Comm. Print 1962)).
The Copeland Act, enacted in 1934,
added the requirement that contractors
working on Davis-Bacon projects must
submit weekly certified payrolls for
work performed on the contract. See 40
U.S.C. 3145. The Copeland Act also
prohibited contractors from inducing
any worker to give up any portion of the
wages due to them on such projects. See
18 U.S.C. 874. In 1962, Congress passed
the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act, which, as amended,
requires an overtime payment of
additional half-time for hours worked
over forty in the workweek by laborers
and mechanics, including watchmen
and guards, on Federal contracts or
federally assisted contracts containing
Federal prevailing wage standards. See
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
As initially enacted, the DBA did not
take into consideration the provision of
fringe benefits to workers. In 1964,
Congress expanded the Act to require
the Department to include an analysis of
fringe benefits as part of the wage
determination process. The amendment
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
requires contractors and subcontractors
to provide fringe benefits (such as
vacation pay, sick leave, health
insurance, and retirement benefits), or
the cash equivalent thereof, to their
workers at the level prevailing for the
labor classification on projects of a
similar character in the locality. See Act
of July 2, 1964, Public Law 88–349, 78
Stat 238.
Congress has delegated broad
rulemaking authority under the DBRA
to the Department of Labor. The DBA,
as amended, contemplates regulatory
and administrative action by the
Department to determine the prevailing
wages that must be paid and to
‘‘prescribe reasonable regulations’’ for
contractors and subcontractors. 40
U.S.C. 3142(b); 40 U.S.C. 3145. Congress
also, through Reorganization Plan No.
14 of 1950, directed the Department to
‘‘prescribe appropriate standards,
regulations and procedures’’ to be
observed by Federal agencies
responsible for the administration of the
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. 5 U.S.C.
app. 1.
The Department promulgated its
initial regulations implementing the Act
in 1935 and has since periodically
revised them. See U.S. Department of
Labor, Regulations No. 503 (Sept. 30,
1935). In 1938, these initial regulations,
which set forth the procedures for the
Department to follow in determining
prevailing wages, were included in part
1 of Title 29 of the new Code of Federal
Regulations. See 29 CFR 1.1 et seq.
(1938). The Department later added
regulations to implement the payroll
submission and anti-kickback
provisions of the Copeland Act—first in
part 2 and then relocated to part 3 of
Title 29. See 6 FR 1210 (Mar. 1, 1941);
7 FR 687 (Feb. 4, 1942); 29 CFR part 2
(1942); 29 CFR part 3 (1943). After
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, the
Department issued regulations setting
forth procedures for the administration
and enforcement of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts in a new part 5. 16 FR 4430
(May 12, 1951); 29 CFR part 5. The
Department made significant revisions
to the regulations in 1964, and again in
the 1981–1982 rulemaking.15
15 See 29 FR 13462 (Sept. 30, 1964); 46 FR 41444–
70 (NPRM parts 1 and 5) (Aug. 14, 1981); 47 FR
23644–79 (final rule parts 1, 3, and 5) (May 28,
1982). The Department also proposed a significant
revision of parts 1 and 5 of the regulations in 1979
and issued a final rule in 1981. See 44 FR 77026
(NPRM Part 1); 44 FR 77080 (NPRM part 5); 46 FR
4306 (final rule part 1); 46 FR 4380 (final rule part
5). That 1981 final rule, however, was delayed and
subsequently replaced by the 1981–1982
rulemaking. The 1982 final rule was delayed by
litigation and re-published with amendments in
1983. 48 FR 19532 (Apr. 29, 1983).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
While the Department has made
periodic revisions to the regulations in
recent years, such as to better protect
the personal privacy of workers, 73 FR
77511 (Dec. 19, 2008); to remove
references to the ‘‘Employment
Standards Administration,’’ 82 FR 2225
(Jan. 9, 2017); and to adjust Federal civil
money penalties, 81 FR 43450 (July 1,
2016), 83 FR 12 (Jan. 2, 2018), 84 FR 218
(Jan. 23, 2019), the Department has not
engaged in a comprehensive review and
revision since the 1981–1982
rulemaking.
B. Overview of the Davis-Bacon Program
The Wage and Hour Division (WHD),
an agency within the U.S. Department of
Labor, administers the Davis-Bacon
program for the Department. WHD
carries out its responsibilities in
partnership with the Federal agencies
that enter into direct DBA-covered
contracts for construction and/or
administer Federal assistance that is
covered by the Related Acts to State and
local governments and other funding
recipients. The State and local
governmental agencies and authorities
also have important responsibilities in
administering Related Act program
rules, as they manage programs through
which covered funding flows or the
agencies themselves directly enter into
covered contracts for construction.
The DBRA program includes three
basic components in which these
government entities have
responsibilities: (1) Wage surveys and
wage determinations; (2) contract
formation and administration; and (3)
enforcement and remedies.
1. Wage Surveys and Determinations
The DBA delegates to the Secretary of
Labor the responsibility to determine
the wage rates that are ‘‘prevailing’’ for
each classification of covered laborers
and mechanics on similar projects ‘‘in
the civil subdivision of the State in
which the work is to be performed.’’ 40
U.S.C. 3142(b). WHD carries out this
responsibility for the Department
through its wage survey program, and
derives the prevailing wage rates from
survey information that responding
contractors and other interested parties
voluntarily provide. The program is
carried out in accordance with the
program regulations in part 1 of Title 29,
see 29 CFR 1.1 through 1.7, and its
procedures are described in guidance
documents such as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon
Construction Wage Determinations
Manual of Operations’’ (1986) (Manual
of Operations) and ‘‘Prevailing Wage
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15701
Resource Book’’ (2015) (PWRB).16
Although part 1 of the regulations
provides the authority for WHD to
create project-specific wage
determinations, such project wage
determinations, once more common,
now are rarely employed. Instead,
nearly all wage determinations are
general wage determinations issued for
general types of construction (building,
residential, highway, and heavy) and
applicable to a specific geographic area.
General wage determinations can be
incorporated into the vast majority of
contracts and create uniform application
of the DBRA for that area.
2. Contract Formation and
Administration
The Federal agencies that enter into
DBA-covered contracts or administer
Related Act programs have the initial
responsibility to determine whether a
contract is covered by the DBA or one
of the Related Acts and identify the
contract clauses and the applicable
wage determinations that must be
included in the contract. See 29 CFR
1.6(b). In addition to the Department’s
regulations, this process is also guided
by parallel regulations in part 22 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
for those contracts that are subject to the
FAR. See 48 CFR part 22. Federal
agencies also maintain their own
regulations and guidance governing
agency-specific aspects of the process.
See, e.g., 48 CFR subpart 222.4
(Defense); 48 CFR subpart 622.4 (State);
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, HUD Handbook 1344.1,
Federal Labor Standards Requirements
in Housing and Urban Development
Programs (2013).17
Where contracting agencies or
interested parties have questions about
such matters as coverage under the
DBRA or the applicability of the
appropriate wage determination to a
specific contract, they are directed to
submit those questions to the
Administrator of WHD (the
Administrator) for resolution. See 29
CFR 5.13. The Administrator provides
periodic guidance on this process, as
well as other aspects of the DBRA
program, to contracting agencies and
other interested parties, particularly
through All Agency Memoranda
(AAMs) and ruling letters. In addition,
16 The Manual of Operations is a 1986 guidance
document that is still used internally for reference
within WHD. The Prevailing Wage Resource Book
is a 2015 document that is intended to provide
practical information to contracting agencies and
other interested parties, and is available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/
prevailing-wage-resource-book.
17 Available at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/
OCHCO/documents/Work-Schedule-Request.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15702
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the Department maintains a guidance
document, the Field Operations
Handbook (FOH), to provide external
and internal guidance for the regulated
community and for WHD investigators
and staff on contract administration and
enforcement policies.18
During the administration of a DBRAcovered contract, contractors and
subcontractors are required to provide
certified payrolls to the contracting
agency to demonstrate their compliance
with the incorporated wage
determinations on a weekly basis. See
generally 29 CFR part 3. Contracting
agencies have the duty to ensure
compliance by engaging in periodic
audits or investigations of contracts,
including examinations of payroll data
and confidential interviews with
workers. See 29 CFR 5.6. Prime
contractors have the responsibility for
the compliance of all the subcontractors
on a covered prime contract. 29 CFR
5.5(a)(6). WHD conducts investigations
of covered contracts, which include
determining if the DBRA contract
clauses or appropriate wage
determinations were mistakenly omitted
from the contract. See 29 CFR 1.6(f). If
WHD determines that there was such an
omission, it will request that the
contracting agency either terminate and
resolicit the contract or modify it to
incorporate the required clauses or wage
determinations retroactively. Id.
3. Enforcement and Remedies
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
In addition to WHD, contracting
agencies have enforcement authority
under the DBRA. When a contracting
agency’s investigation reveals
underpayments of wages of the DBA or
one of the Related Acts, the Federal
agency generally is required to provide
a report of its investigation to WHD, and
to seek to recover the underpayments
from the contractor responsible. See 29
CFR 5.6(a)(1), 5.7. If violations
identified by the contracting agency or
by WHD through its own investigation
are not promptly remedied, contracting
agencies are required to suspend
payment on the contract until sufficient
funds are withheld to compensate the
workers for the underpayments. 29 CFR
5.9. The DBRA contract clauses also
provide for ‘‘cross-withholding’’ if
sufficient funds are no longer available
on the contract under which the
18 The Field Operations Handbook reflects
policies established through changes in legislation,
regulations, significant court decisions, and the
decisions and opinions of the WHD Administrator.
It is not used as a device for establishing
interpretive policy. Chapter 15 of the FOH covers
the DBRA, including CWHSSA, and is available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-operationshandbook/Chapter-15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
violations took place. Under this
procedure, funds may be withheld from
any other covered Federal contract held
by the same prime contractor in order to
remedy the underpayments on the
contract at issue. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(2),
(b)(3). Contractors that violate the DBRA
may also be subject to debarment from
future Federal contracts. See 29 CFR
5.12.
Where WHD conducts an
investigation and finds that violations
have occurred, it will notify the affected
prime contractor and subcontractors of
the findings of the investigation—
including any determination that
workers are owed wages and whether
there is reasonable cause to believe the
contractor may be subject to debarment.
See 29 CFR 5.11(b). Contractors can
request a hearing regarding these
findings through the Department’s
Office of Administrative Law Judges
(OALJ) and may appeal any ruling by
the OALJ to the Department’s
Administrative Review Board (ARB).
Id.; see also 29 CFR parts 6 and 7 (OALJ
and ARB rules of practice for DavisBacon proceedings). Decisions of the
ARB are final agency actions that may
be reviewable under the Administrative
Procedure Act in Federal district court.
See 5 U.S.C. 702, 704.19
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Legal Authority
The Davis-Bacon Act, as enacted in
1931 and subsequently amended,
requires the payment of certain
minimum ‘‘prevailing’’ wages
determined by the Department of Labor
to laborers and mechanics working on
Federal contracts in excess of $2,000 for
the construction, alteration, or repair,
including painting and decorating, of
public buildings and public works. See
40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. The DBA
authorizes the Secretary of Labor to
develop a definition for the term
‘‘prevailing’’ wage and a methodology
for setting it based on similar projects in
the civil subdivision of the State in
which a covered project will occur. See
40 U.S.C. 3142(b); Bldg. & Constr.
Trades’ Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Donovan, 712
F.2d 611, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
The Secretary of Labor has the
responsibility to ‘‘prescribe reasonable
regulations’’ for contractors and
subcontractors on covered projects. 40
U.S.C. 3145. The Secretary, through
19 In addition to reviewing liability
determinations and debarment, the ARB and the
courts also have jurisdiction to review general wage
determinations. Judicial review, however, is strictly
limited to any procedural irregularities, as there is
no jurisdiction to review the substantive correctness
of a wage determination under the DBA. See
Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U.S. at 177.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, also
has the responsibility to ‘‘prescribe
appropriate standards, regulations and
procedures’’ to be observed by Federal
agencies responsible for the
administration of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts ‘‘[i]n order to assure
coordination of administration and
consistency of enforcement of the labor
standards provisions’’ of the DBRA. 5
U.S.C. app. 1.
The Secretary has delegated authority
to promulgate these regulations to the
Administrator of the WHD and to the
Deputy Administrator of the WHD if the
Administrator position is vacant. See
Secretary’s Order No. 01–2014, 79 FR
77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); Secretary’s Order
No. 01–2017, 82 FR 6653 (Jan. 19, 2017).
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
1. 29 CFR Part 1
The procedural rules providing for the
payment of minimum wages, including
fringe benefits, to laborers and
mechanics engaged in construction
activity covered by the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts are set forth in 29 CFR part
1. The regulations in this part also set
forth the procedures for making and
applying such determinations of
prevailing wage rates and fringe
benefits.
i. Section 1.1
Purpose and Scope
The Department proposes technical
revisions to § 1.1 to update the statutory
reference to the Davis-Bacon Act, now
recodified at 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. The
Department also proposes to eliminate
outdated references to the Deputy Under
Secretary of Labor for Employment
Standards at the Employment Standards
Administration. The Employment
Standards Administration was
eliminated as part of an agency
reorganization in 2009 and its
authorities and responsibilities were
devolved into its constituent
components, including the WHD. See
Secretary’s Order No. 09–2009 (Nov. 6,
2009), 74 FR 58836 (Nov. 13, 2009), 82
FR 2221 (Jan. 9, 2017). The Department
further proposes to revise § 1.1 to reflect
the removal of Appendix A of part 1, as
discussed further below. The
Department also proposes to add new
paragraph (a)(1) to reference the WHD
website (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
whd/government-contracts) on which a
listing of laws requiring the payment of
wages at rates predetermined by the
Secretary of Labor under the DavisBacon Act is currently found.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
ii. Section 1.2
Definitions
(A) Prevailing Wage
The Department proposes to redefine
the term ‘‘prevailing wage’’ in § 1.2 to
return to the original methodology for
determining whether a wage rate is
prevailing. This original methodology
has been referred to as the ‘‘three-step
process.’’
Since 1935, the Secretary has
interpreted the word ‘‘prevailing’’ in the
Davis-Bacon Act to be consistent with
the common understanding of the term
as meaning ‘‘predominant’’ or ‘‘most
frequent.’’ From 1935 until the 1981–
1982 rulemaking, the Department
employed a three-step process to
identify the most frequently used wage
rate for each classification of workers in
a locality. See Regulation 503 section 2
(1935); 47 FR 23644.20 This three-step
process identified as prevailing: (1) Any
wage rate paid to a majority of workers;
and, if there was none, then (2) the wage
rate paid to the greatest number of
workers, provided it was paid to at least
30 percent of workers, and, if there was
none, then (3) the weighted average rate.
The second step is referred to as the
‘‘30-percent rule.’’
The three-step process relegated the
average rate to a final, fallback method
of determining the prevailing wage. In
1962 congressional testimony, Solicitor
of Labor Charles Donahue explained the
reasoning for this sequence in the
determination: An average rate ‘‘does
not reflect a true rate which is actually
being paid by any group of contractors
in the community being surveyed.’’
Instead, ‘‘it represents an artificial rate
which we create ourselves, and which
does not reflect that which a
predominant amount of workers are
paid.’’ 21
In 1982, the Department published a
final rule that amended the definition of
‘‘prevailing wage’’ by eliminating the
second step in the three-step process—
the 30-percent rule. See 47 FR 23644.
The new process required only two
steps: First identifying if there was a
single wage rate paid to more than 50
percent of workers, and then, if not,
relying on a weighted average of all the
wage rates paid. Id. at 23644–45.
In eliminating the 30-percent rule,
however, the Department did not
change its underlying interpretation of
the word ‘‘prevailing’’—that it means
‘‘the most widely paid rate’’ must be the
‘‘definition of first choice’’ for the
20 Implemented
Apr. 29, 1983. See 48 FR 19532.
of the Davis Bacon Act:
Hearings before the Spec. Subcomm. of Lab. of the
H. Comm. on Educ. and Lab., 87th Cong. 811–12
(1962) (testimony of Charles Donahue, Solicitor of
Labor).
21 Administration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
prevailing wage. 47 FR 23645. While the
1982 rule continued to allow the
Department to use an average rate as a
fallback, the Department rejected
commenters’ suggestions that the
weighted average could be used in all
cases. See 47 FR 23644–45. As the
Department explained, this was because
the term ‘‘prevailing’’ contemplates that
wage determinations mirror, to the
extent possible, those rates ‘‘actually
paid’’ to workers. 47 FR 23645.
This interpretation—that the
definition of first choice for the term
‘‘prevailing wage’’ should be an actual
wage rate that is most widely paid—has
now been shared across administrations
for over 85 years. In the intervening
decades, Congress has amended and
expanded the reach of the Act’s
prevailing wage requirements dozens of
times without altering the term
‘‘prevailing’’ or the grant of broad
authority to the Secretary of Labor to
define it.22 In addition, the question was
also reviewed by the Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) at the Department of
Justice, which independently reached
the same conclusions: ‘‘prevailing
wage’’ means the current and
predominant actual rate paid, and an
average rate should only be used as a
last resort. See 5 Op. O.L.C. at 176–77.23
In the 1982 final rule, when the
Department eliminated the 30-percent
rule, it anticipated that this change
would increase the use of artificial
average rates. 47 FR 23648–49.
Nonetheless, the Department believed a
change was preferable because the 30percent threshold could in some cases
not account for up to 70 percent of the
remaining workers. See 46 FR 41444.
The Department also stated that it
agreed with the concerns expressed by
certain commenters that the 30-percent
rule was ‘‘inflationary’’ and gave
‘‘undue weight to collectively bargained
rates.’’ 47 FR 23644–45.
Now, however, after reviewing the
development of the Davis-Bacon Act
program since the 1981–1982
rulemaking, the Department concludes
that eliminating the 30-percent rule
ultimately resulted in an overuse of
average rates. On paper, the weighted
average remains the fallback method to
be used only when there is no majority
22 See, e.g., Act of Mar. 23, 1941, ch. 26, 55 Stat.
53 (1941) (applying the Act to alternative contract
types); Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act of 1962, Public Law 87–581, 76 Stat. 357 (1962)
(requiring payment of overtime on contracts
covered by the Act); Act of July 2, 1964, Public Law
88–349, 78 Stat. 238 (1964) (extending the Act to
cover fringe benefits); 29 CFR 5.1 (referencing 57
Related Acts into which Congress incorporated
Davis-Bacon Act requirements between 1935 and
1978).
23 See note 1, supra.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15703
rate. In practice, though, it has become
a central mechanism to set the
prevailing wage rates included in DavisBacon wage determinations and covered
contracts.
Prior to the 1982 rule change, the use
of averages was relatively rare. In a Ford
Administration study of Davis-Bacon
Act prevailing wage rates in
commercial-type construction in 19
cities, none of the rates were based on
averages because all of the wage rates
were ‘‘negotiated’’ rates, i.e., based on
CBAs that represented a predominant
wage rate in the locality.24 The
Department estimates that prior to the
1982 final rule, as low as 15 percent of
classification rates across all wage
determinations were based on averages.
After the 1982 rule was implemented,
the use of averages may have initially
increased to approximately 26 percent
of all wage determinations.25
The Department’s current use of
weighted averages is now significantly
higher than this 26 percent figure. To
analyze the current use of weighted
averages and the potential impacts of
this rulemaking, the Department
compiled data for select classifications
for 17 recent wage surveys—nearly all of
the completed surveys that WHD began
in 2015 or later. The data show that the
Department’s reliance on average rates
has increased significantly, and now
accounts for 64 percent of the observed
classification determinations in this
recent time period.26
The Department believes that such an
overuse of weighted averages is
24 See Robert S. Goldfarb & John F. Morrall, ‘‘An
Analysis of Certain Aspects of the Administration
of the Davis-Bacon Act,’’ Council on Wage and
Price Stability (May 1976), reprinted in Bureau of
Nat’l Affs., Construction Labor Report, No. 1079, D–
1, D–2 (1976).
25 See Oversight Hearing on the Davis-Bacon Act,
Before the Subcomm. on Lab. Standards of the H.
Comm. on Educ. and Lab., 96th Cong. 58 (1979)
(statement of Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor)
(discussing study of 1978 determinations showing
only 24 percent of classification rates were based
on the 30-percent rule); Jerome Staller,
‘‘Communications to the Editor,’’ Policy Analysis,
Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer 1979), pp. 397–98 (noting
that 60 percent of determinations in the internal
Department 1976 and 1978 studies were based on
the 30-percent rule or the average-rate rule). The
authors of the Council on Wage and Price Stability
study, however, pointed out that the Department’s
figures were for rates that had been based on survey
data, while 57 percent of rates in the mid-1970’s
were based solely on CBAs without the use of
surveys (a practice that the Department no longer
uses to determine new rates). See Robert S. Goldfarb
& John F. Morrall II., ‘‘The Davis-Bacon Act: An
Appraisal of Recent Studies,’’ 34 Indus. & Lab. Rel.
Rev. 191, 199–200 & n.35 (1981). Thus, the actual
percentage of annual classification determinations
that were based on average rule before 1982 may
have been as low as 15 percent, and the percent
based on the average rule after 1982 would have
been expected to be around 26 percent.
26 See below section V (Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review et al.).
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15704
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
inconsistent with both the text and the
purpose of the Act. It is inconsistent
with the Department’s longstanding
interpretation of Congress’s use of the
word ‘‘prevailing’’ in the text of the
Act—including the Department’s
statements in the preamble to the 1982
rule itself that the definition of first
choice for the ‘‘prevailing’’ wage should
be the most widely paid rate that is
actually paid to workers in the relevant
locality. If nearly two-thirds of rates that
are now being published based on
recent surveys are based on a weighted
average, it is no longer fair to say that
it is a fallback method of determining
the prevailing wage.
The use of averages as the dominant
methodology for issuing wage
determinations is also inconsistent with
the recognized purpose of the Act ‘‘to
protect local wage standards by
preventing contractors from basing their
bids on wages lower than those
prevailing in the area.’’ Coutu, 450 U.S.
at 773 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Using an average to
determine the minimum wage rate on
contracts allows a single low-wage
contractor in the area to depress wage
rates on Federal contracts below the
higher rate that may be generally more
prevalent in the community—by
factoring into (and lowering) the
calculation of the average that is used to
set the minimum wage rates on local
Federal contracts.27
To address the increasing tension
between the current methodology and
the purpose and definition of
‘‘prevailing,’’ the Department proposes
to return to the original three-step
process. The Department expects that
re-introducing the 30-percent rule will
reduce the use of average rates roughly
by half—from 63 percent to 31 percent.
The data from the regulatory impact
analysis included with this NPRM
below in section V suggests that
returning to the three-step process will
continue to result in 36 percent of
prevailing wage rates based on the
majority rule, with the balance of 33
percent based on the 30-percent rule,
and 31 percent based on the weighted
average.
This estimated distribution illustrates
why the Department is no longer
persuaded, as it stated in the 1981
NPRM, that the majority rule is more
appropriate than the three-step process
(including the 30-percent rule) because
the 30-percent rule ‘‘ignores the rate
paid to up to 70 percent of the workers.’’
See 46 FR 41444.28 That
characterization ignores that the first
step in the three-step process is still to
adopt the majority rate if there is one.
Under both the three-step process and
the current majority rule, any wage rate
that is paid to a majority of workers
would be identified as prevailing. Under
either method, the weighted average
will be used whenever there is no wage
rate that is paid to more than 30 percent
of employees in the survey response.
The difference between the majority
and the three-step methodologies is
solely in how a wage rate is determined
when there is no majority, but there is
a significant plurality wage rate paid to
between 30 and 50 percent of workers.
In that circumstance, the current
‘‘majority’’ rule uses averages instead of
the rate that is actually paid to that
significant plurality of the survey
population. This is true, for example,
even where the same wage rate is paid
to 45 percent of workers and no other
rate is paid to as high a percentage of
workers. In such circumstances, the
Department believes that a wage rate
paid to between 30 and 50 percent of
workers is clearly more of a
‘‘prevailing’’ wage rate than an average.
The Department has also considered
the other explanations it provided in
1982 for eliminating the 30-percent rule,
including any possible upward pressure
on wages or prices and a perceived
‘‘undue weight’’ given to collectively
bargained rates. These explanations are
no longer persuasive for two
fundamental reasons. First, the concerns
appear to be unrelated to the text of the
statute, and, if anything, contrary to its
legislative purpose. Second, the
Department’s estimates of the effects of
a return to the 30-percent rule suggest
that the concerns are misplaced.
The concerns about inflation at the
time of the 1982 rule were based in part
on a criticism of the Act itself.29 A
27 For example, the 2001 wage determination for
electricians in Eddy County, New Mexico was an
average rate based on responses that included
lower-paid workers that had been brought in from
Texas by a Texas electrical contractor to work on
a single job. As the ARB noted in reviewing a
challenge to the wage determination, the result was
that ‘‘contract labor from Texas, where wages
reportedly are lower, effectively has determined the
prevailing wage for electricians in this New Mexico
county.’’ New Mexico Nat. Elec. Contractors Ass’n,
ARB No. 03–020, 2004 WL 1261216, at * 8 (May 28,
2004).
28 The 30-percent rule can only be characterized
as ‘‘ignoring’’ rates because it is a rule that applies
a mathematical ‘‘mode,’’ in which the only relevant
value is the value of the number that appears most
frequently—instead of a mean (average), in which
the values of all the numbers are averaged together.
Both the 30-percent rule and the majority rule are
modal rules in which the values of the nonprevailing wage rates do not factor into the final
analysis.
29 The GAO issued a report in 1979 urging
Congress to repeal the Act because of ‘‘inflationary’’
concerns. See Gov’t Accountability Office, HRD–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fundamental purpose of the DavisBacon Act was to limit low-bid
contractors from depressing local wage
rates. See 5 U.S. O.L.C. at 176.30 This
purpose necessarily contemplates an
increase in wage rates over what could
otherwise be paid without the
enactment of the statute. Moreover, the
effect of maintaining such a prevailing
rate can just as easily be seen as
guarding against deflationary effects of
the use of low-wage contractors—
instead of resulting in inflation. Staff of
the H. Subcomm. on Lab., 88th Cong.,
Administration of the Davis-Bacon Act,
Rep. of the Subcomm. on Lab. of the
Comm. on Educ. and Lab. (Comm. Print
1963) (1963 House Committee Report),
at 2–3.
The 1982 final rule contained an
economic analysis that suggested that
the elimination of the 30-percent rule
could save $120 million (in 1982
dollars) in construction costs per year
through reduced contract costs.
However, the Department does not
believe that this 40-year old analysis is
reliable or accurate.31 For example, the
analysis did not consider labor market
forces that could prevent contractors
from lowering wage rates in the short
run. The analysis also did not attempt
to address productivity losses or other
costs of setting a lower minimum wage.
For these reasons, the Department does
not believe that the analysis in the 1982
final rule implies that the current
proposed reversion to the 30-percent
rule would have a significant impact on
79–18, The Davis Bacon Act Should be Repealed,
(1979) (1979 GAO Report). Available at: https://
www.gao.gov/assets/hrd-79-18.pdf. The report
argued that even using only weighted averages for
prevailing rates would be inflationary because they
could increase the minimum wage paid on
contracts and therefore result in wages that were
higher than they otherwise would be. The House
Subcommittee on Labor Standards reviewed the
report during oversight hearings in 1979, but
Congress did not amend or repeal the Act, and
instead continued to expand its reach. See, e.g.,
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act, Public Law 101–625, Sec. 811(j)(6), 104 Stat.
4329 (1990); Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, Public Law. No, 110–140, Sec. 491(d), 121
Stat. 1651 (2007); American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, Public Law 111–5, Sec. 1606,
123 Stat. 303 (2009); Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2021, Public Law 116–260, Sec. 9006(b), 134
Stat. 1182 (2021).
30 See note 1, supra.
31 The Department has not attempted to assess the
relative accuracy of this estimate over the decades,
which would be challenging given the dynamic
nature of the construction industry and the
relatively small impact of even $120 million in
savings. The Department at the time acknowledged
that its estimate had been heavily criticized by
commenters and was only a ‘‘best guess’’—in part
because it could not foresee how close a correlation
there would be between the wage rates that are
actually paid on covered contracts and the wage
determinations that set the Davis-Bacon minimum
wages. 47 FR 23648.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
contract costs. Even if the Department
were to rely on this analysis as an
accurate measure of impact, such
savings (adjusted to 2019 dollars) would
only amount to approximately twotenths of a percent of total estimated
covered contract costs.
The Department also does not believe
that the proposed reversion to the 30percent rule would have any noticeable
impact on overall national inflation
numbers.32 An illustrative analysis in
section V.D. shows returning to the 30percent rule will significantly reduce
the reliance on the weighted average
method to produce prevailing wage
rates. Under the 30-percent rule, some
prevailing wage determinations may
increase and others decrease, but the
magnitude of these changes will,
overall, be negligible. Additionally,
recent research shows that wage
increases, particularly at the lower end
of the distribution, do not cause
significant economy-wide price
increases.33 The Department thus does
not believe that any limited net wage
increase for the approximately 1.2
million covered workers (less than 1
percent of the total national workforce)
will significantly increase prices or have
any appreciable effect on the macro
economy.
Further, since the DBA legislates that
minimum wages must be paid to
workers on construction projects, the
effect of such requirement is not a
permissible basis for departing from the
longstanding interpretation of the plain
meaning of the term ‘‘prevailing.’’ The
‘‘basic purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act
is to protect the wages of construction
workers even if the effect is to increase
costs to the [F]ederal [G]overnment.’’
32 The 1979 GAO report about the DBA noted that
‘‘minimum wage rates [such as the Davis-Bacon Act
prevailing wage requirements] tend to have an
inflationary effect on . . . the national economy as
a whole.’’ 1979 GAO Report, HRD–79–18 at 76, 83–
84.
33 See, e.g., J.P. Morgan, Why Higher Wages Don’t
Always Lead to Inflation (Feb. 7, 2018), available
at: https://www.jpmorgan.com/commercialbanking/insights/higher-wages-inflation; Daniel
MacDonald & Eric Nilsson, The Effects of Increasing
the Minimum Wage on Prices: Analyzing the
Incidence of Policy Design and Context, Upjohn
Institute working paper; 16–260 (June 2016),
available at https://research.upjohn.org/up_
workingpapers/260/; Nguyen Viet Cuong, Do
Minimum Wage Increases Cause Inflation?
Evidence from Vietnam, ASEAN Economic Bulletin
Vol. 28, No. 3 (2011), pp. 337–59, available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41445397; Magnus
Jonsson & Stefan Palmqvist, Do Higher Wages Cause
Inflation?, Sveriges Riksbank Working Paper Series
159 (Apr. 2004), available at: https://
archive.riksbank.se/Upload/WorkingPapers/WP_
159.pdf; Kenneth M. Emery & Chih-Ping Chang, Do
Wages Help Predict Inflation?, Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, Economic Review First Quarter
1996 (1996), available at: https://www.dallasfed.org/
∼/media/documents/research/er/1996/er9601a.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep’t, AFL–CIO
v. Donovan, 543 F. Supp. 1282, 1290
(D.D.C. 1982). Congress has considered
cost concerns, and enacted and
expanded the DBA notwithstanding
them. Id. at 1290–91; 1963 House
Committee Report at 2–3;
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5
U.S.C. app. 1.34 Thus, even if concerns
about an inflationary effect on
government contract costs or
speculative effects on the national
macro economy were used to justify
eliminating the 30-percent rule, the
Department does not believe such
reasoning now provides either a factual
or legal basis to maintain the current
majority rule.
The Department is also no longer
persuaded that the 30-percent rule gives
undue weight to collectively bargained
rates. The underlying concern at the
time was that identification of a single
prevailing wage could give more weight
to union rates that more often tend to be
the same across companies. If this
occurs, however, it is a function of the
plain meaning of the statutory term
‘‘prevailing,’’ which, as both the
Department and OLC have concluded,
refers to a predominant single wage rate,
or a modal wage rate. The same weight
is given to collectively bargained rates
whether the Department chooses a 50percent or 30-percent threshold. The
Department accordingly now
understands the concerns voiced at the
time to be concerns about the potential
outcome (of more wage determinations
based on union rates) instead of
concerns about any actual weight given
to union rates by the choice of the
modal threshold. To choose a threshold
because the outcome would be more
beneficial to non-union contractors—as
the Department seems to have suggested
it was doing in 1982—does not have any
basis in the statute. Donovan, 543 F.
Supp. at 1291, n.16 (noting that the
Secretary’s concern about weight to
collectively bargained rates ‘‘bear[s] no
relationship to the purposes of the
statute’’).
Regardless, the Department’s
regulatory impact analysis does not
suggest that a return to the 30-percent
rule would give undue weight to
collectively bargained rates. Among a
sample of rates considered in an
illustrative analysis, one-third of all
34 In his message accompanying Reorganization
Plan No. 14, President Truman noted that ‘‘[s]ince
the principal objective of the plan is more effective
enforcement of labor standards, it is not probable
that it will result in savings. But it will provide
more uniform and more adequate protection for
workers through the expenditures made for the
enforcement of the existing legislation.’’ 5 U.S.C.
app. 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15705
rates (or about half of rates currently
established based on weighted averages)
would shift to a different method.
Among these rates that would be set
based on a new method, the majority
would be based on non-collectively
bargained rates. Specifically, in the V.D.
illustration, Department estimates that
the use of single wage rates that are not
the product of collective bargaining
agreements would increase from 12
percent to 36 percent of all wage rates—
an overall increase of 24 percentage
points. The use of single wage rates that
are based on collective bargaining
agreements will increase from 25
percent to 34 percent—an overall
increase of 9 percentage points.35
The Department has also considered,
but decided against, proposing to use
the median wage rate as the
‘‘prevailing’’ rate. The median, like the
average (mean), is a number that can be
unrelated to the wage rate paid with the
greatest frequency to employees
working in the locality. Using either the
median or the average as the primary
method of determining the prevailing
rate is not consistent with the meaning
of the term ‘‘prevailing.’’ Accord 47 FR
23645. The Department is therefore
proposing to return to the three-step
process and the 30-percent rule, and is
not proposing as alternatives the use of
either the median or mean as the
primary or sole methods for making
wage determinations.
(1) Former Subsection § 1.2(a)(2)
In a non-substantive change, the
Department proposes to move the
language currently at § 1.2(a)(2) that
explains the interaction between the
definition of prevailing wage and the
sources of information in § 1.3. Under
the proposed rule, that language (altered
to update the cross-reference to the
definition of prevailing wage) would
now appear in § 1.3.
35 See below section V (Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review et al.). As
discussed in the regulatory impact analysis, the
Department found that fringe benefits currently do
not prevail in slightly over half of the classificationcounty observations it reviewed—resulting in no
required fringe benefit rate for that classification.
This would be largely unchanged under the
proposed reversion to the 3-step process, with
nearly half of classification rates still not requiring
the payment of fringe benefits. Only about 13
percent of fringe rates would shift from no fringes
or an average rate to a modal prevailing fringe rate.
Overall under the estimate, the percentage of fringe
benefit rates based on collective bargaining
agreements would increase from 25 percent to 34
percent. The percentage of fringe benefit rates not
based on collective bargaining rates would increase
from 3 percent to 7 percent.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15706
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(2) Variable Rates That Are Functionally
Equivalent
The Department also proposes to
amend the regulations on compiling
wage rate information at § 1.3 to allow
for variable rates that are functionally
equivalent to be counted together for the
purpose of determining whether a single
wage rate prevails under the proposed
definition of ‘‘prevailing wage’’ in § 1.2.
The Department generally followed this
proposed approach until after the 2006
decision of the ARB in Mistick
Construction. 2006 WL 861357.
Historically, the Department has
considered wage rates included in
survey data that may not be exactly the
same to be functionally equivalent—and
therefore counted as the same—as long
as there was an underlying logic that
explained the difference between them.
For example, some workers may
perform work under the same labor
classification for the same contractor or
under the same collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) on projects in the same
geographical area being surveyed and
get paid different wages based on the
time of day that they performed work—
e.g., a ‘‘night premium.’’ In that
circumstance, the Department would
count the normal and night-premium
wage rates to be the ‘‘same wage’’ rate
for purposes of calculating whether that
wage rate prevailed under the majority
rule that is discussed in the section
above. Similarly, where workers in the
same labor classification were paid
different ‘‘zone rates’’ for work on
projects in different zones covered by
the same CBA, the Department
considered those rates as compensating
workers for the burden of traveling or
staying away from home and did not
reflect fundamentally different
underlying wage rates for the work
actually completed. Variable zone rates
would therefore be considered the
‘‘same wage’’ for the purpose of
determining the prevailing wage rate.
In another example, the Department
took into consideration ‘‘escalator
clauses’’ in CBAs that may have
increased wage rates across the board at
some point during the survey period.
Wages for workers working under the
same CBA could be reported differently
on a survey based on the week their
employer used in responding to the
wage survey rather than an actual
difference in prevailing wages. The
Department has historically treated such
variable rates the same for the purposes
of determining the prevailing wages
paid to laborers or mechanics in the
survey area. The Department has also
considered wage rates to be the same
where workers made the same
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
combination of basic hourly rates and
fringe rates, even if the basic hourly
rates (and also the fringe rates) differed
slightly.
In these circumstances, where the
Department has treated certain variable
rates as the same, it has generally
chosen one of the variable rates to use
as the prevailing rate. In the case of rates
that are variable because of an escalatorclause issue, it uses the most current
rate under the collective bargaining
agreement. Similarly, where the
Department identified combinations of
hourly and fringe rates as the ‘‘same,’’
the Department identified one specific
hourly rate and one specific fringe rate
that prevailed, following the guidelines
in 29 CFR 5.24, 5.25, and 5.30.
In 2006, the ARB strictly interpreted
the regulatory language of § 1.2(a) in a
way that has limited some of these
practices. See Mistick Constr., 2006 WL
861357, at *5–7. The decision affirmed
the Administrator’s continued use of the
escalator-clause rule, but found the use
of the same combination of basic hourly
and fringe rates did not amount to
exactly the ‘‘same’’ wage and thus
violated the use of the term ‘‘same
wage’’ in § 1.2(a). The ARB also viewed
the flexibility shown to collective
bargaining agreements as inconsistent
with the ‘‘purpose’’ of the 1982 final
rule, which the Administrator had
explained was in part to avoid giving
‘‘undue weight’’ to collectively
bargained rates. The ARB held that the
Administrator could not consider
variable rates under a collective
bargaining agreement to be the ‘‘same
wage’’ under § 1.2(a) as written—and
therefore, if there was no strictly ‘‘same
wage’’ that would prevail under the
majority rule, the Administrator would
have to use the fallback weighted
average on the wage determination.
The ARB’s conclusion in Mistick—
particularly its determination that even
wage data reflecting the same aggregate
compensation but slight variations in
the basic hourly rate and fringe benefit
rates did not reflect the ‘‘same wage’’ as
that term was used under the current
regulations—could be construed as a
determination that wage rates need to be
identical ‘‘to the penny’’ in order to be
regarded as the ‘‘same wage,’’ and that
nearly any variation in wage rates, no
matter how small and regardless of the
reason for the variation, might need to
be regarded as reflecting different,
unique wage rates.
The ARB’s decision in Mistick limited
the Administrator’s methodology for
determining a prevailing rate, thus
contributing to the increased use of
weighted average rates. As noted above,
however, both the Department and OLC
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
have agreed that averages should
generally only be used as a last resort.
As the OLC opinion noted, the use of an
average is difficult to justify
‘‘particularly in cases where it coincides
with none of the actual wage rates being
paid.’’ 5 Op. O.L.C. at 177 (emphasis in
original).36 In discussing those cases,
OLC quoted from the 1963 House Report
summarizing extensive congressional
oversight hearings of the Act. The report
had concluded that ‘‘[u]se of an average
rate would be artificial in that it would
not reflect the actual wages being paid
in a local community,’’ and ‘‘such a
method would be disruptive of local
wage standards if it were utilized with
any great frequency.’’ Id.37 To the extent
that an inflexible, ‘‘to the penny’’
approach to determining if wage data
reflects the ‘‘same wage’’ promotes the
use of average rates even when wage
rate variations are exceedingly slight
and are based on practices reflecting
that the rates, while not identical, are
functionally equivalent, such an
approach would be inconsistent with
these authorities and the statutory
purpose they reflect.
For these reasons, and particularly
because a mechanical, ‘‘to the penny’’
approach ultimately undermines rather
than promotes the determination of
actual prevailing wage rates, the
Department believes that it is consistent
with the language and purpose of the
statute to treat slight variations in wages
as the same rate in appropriate
circumstances.
As reflected in Mistick, the existing
regulation does not clearly authorize the
use of functionally equivalent wages to
determine the local prevailing wage. See
2006 WL 861357, at *5–7. Accordingly,
the Department proposes to amend § 1.3
to include a new paragraph at § 1.3(e)
that would permit the Administrator to
count wage rates together—for the
purpose of determining the prevailing
wage—if the rates are functionally
equivalent and the variation can be
explained by a CBA or the written
policy of a contractor.
Such flexibility would not be
unlimited. Some variations within the
same CBA clearly amount to different
rates. For example, when a CBA
authorizes the use of ‘‘market recovery
rates’’ that are lower than the standard
rate in order to win a bid, under certain
circumstances those rates may not be
appropriate to combine together with
the CBA’s standard rate as ‘‘functionally
equivalent’’ because frequent use of
such a rate could suggest (though does
36 See
37 See
note 1, supra.
1963 House Committee Report, supra, at 7–
8.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
not necessarily compel) a conclusion
that the CBA’s regular rate may not be
prevailing in the area.
The Department welcomes comments
on all aspects of this proposal regarding
proposed changes to the definition of
‘‘prevailing wage’’ in § 1.2 and to the
regulation governing the obtaining and
compiling of wage rate information in
§ 1.3.
(B) Area
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
The core definition of ‘‘area’’ in § 1.2
largely reproduces the specification in
the Davis-Bacon Act statute, prior to its
2002 re-codification, that the prevailing
wage should be based on projects of a
similar character in the ‘‘city, town,
village, or other civil subdivision of the
State in which the work is to be
performed.’’ See 40 U.S.C. 276a(a)
(2002).
The rule’s geography-based definition
of area applies to federally assisted
projects covered by the Davis-Bacon
Related Acts as well as projects covered
by the DBA itself. Some of the Related
Acts have used different terminology to
identify the appropriate ‘‘area’’ for a
wage determination, including the terms
‘‘locality’’ and ‘‘immediate locality.’’ 38
However, the Department has long
concluded that these terms are best
interpreted and applied consistent with
the methodology for determining the
area under the original DBA. See
Virginia Segment C–7, METRO, WAB
71–4, 1971 WL 17609, at *3–4 (Dec. 7,
1971).39
The Department proposes to revise
the definition of area to address projects
that span multiple counties and to
address highway projects specifically.
Under WHD’s current methodology, if a
project spans more than one county, the
contracting officer is instructed to attach
wage determinations for each county to
the project and contractors may be
required to pay differing wage rates to
the same employees when their work
crosses county lines. This policy was
reinforced in 1971 when the Wage
38 See, e.g., National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.
1715c(a) (locality); Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 1440(g),
5310(a) (locality); Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1372 (immediate locality); FederalAid Highway Acts, 23 U.S.C. 113(a) (immediate
locality).
39 The Wage Appeals Board (WAB) was the
Department’s administrative appellate entity from
1964 until 1996, when it was eliminated and the
Administrative Review Board was created and
provided jurisdiction over appeals from decisions
of the Administrator and the Department’s
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) under a number
of statutes, including the Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts. 61 FR 19978 (May 3, 1996). WAB decisions
from 1964 to 1996 are available on the Department’s
website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/
public/dba_sca/references/caselists/wablist.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Appeals Board (WAB) found that, under
the terms of the then-applicable
regulations, there was no basis to
provide a single prevailing wage rate for
a project occurring in Virginia, the
District of Columbia, and Maryland. See
Virginia Segment C–7, METRO, 1971
WL 17609.
Critics of this policy have pointed out
that workers are very often hired and
paid a single wage rate for a project,
and—unless there are different city or
county minimum wage laws—workers’
pay rates often do not change as they
move between tasks in different
counties. The 2011 report by the GAO,
for example, quoted a statement from a
contractor association representative
that requiring different wage rates for
the same workers on the same multicounty project is ‘‘illogical.’’ See 2011
GAO Report at 24.40
While requiring different prevailing
wage rates for work by the same worker
on the same project may be consistent
with the current regulations, the DBA
and Related Act statutes themselves do
not address multi-jurisdictional
projects. Issuing and applying a single
project wage determination for such
projects is not inconsistent with the text
of the DBA. Nor is it inconsistent with
the purpose of the DBA, which is to
protect against the depression of local
wage rates caused by competition from
low-bid contractors from outside of the
locality.
Accordingly, the Department
proposes adding language in the
definition of ‘‘area’’ in § 1.2 that would
expressly authorize WHD to issue
project wage determinations with a
single rate for each classification, using
data from all of the relevant counties in
which a project will occur. The
Department solicits comments on
whether this procedure should be
mandatory for multi-jurisdictional
projects or available at the request of the
contracting agency or an interested
party, if WHD determines that such a
project wage determination would be
appropriate.
The Department’s other proposed
change to the definition of ‘‘area’’ in
§ 1.2 is to allow the use of State highway
districts or similar transportation
subdivisions as the relevant wage
determination area for highway projects.
Although there is significant variation
between states, most states maintain
civil subdivisions responsible for
certain aspects of transportation
planning, financing, and maintenance.41
note 8, supra.
generally Am. Assoc. of State Highway and
Transp. Offs., Transportation Governance and
Financing: A 50-State Review of State Legislatures
15707
These districts tend to be organized
within State departments of
transportation or otherwise through
State and County governments.
Using State highway districts as a
geographic unit for wage determinations
would be consistent with the DavisBacon Act’s specification that wage
determinations should be tied to a ‘‘civil
subdivision of a State.’’ State highway
districts were considered to be
‘‘subdivisions of a State’’ at the time the
term was used in the original DavisBacon Act. See Wight v. Police Jury of
Par. of Avoyelles, La., 264 F. 705, 709
(5th Cir. 1919) (describing the creation
of highway districts as ‘‘governmental
subdivisions of the [S]tate’’).
In identifying the appropriate
geographic area of a wage
determination, the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1956 (FAHA), one of the Related
Acts, uses the term ‘‘immediate
locality’’ instead of ‘‘civil subdivision.’’
23 U.S.C. 113. However, the FAHA
requires the application of prevailing
wage rates in the immediate locality to
be ‘‘in accordance with’’ the DBA, id.,
and, as noted above, WHD has long
applied these alternative definitions of
area in the Related Acts in a manner
consistent with the ‘‘civil subdivision’’
language in the original Act.
The Department also notes that
Congress, in enacting the FAHA,
envisioned that the Federal aid would
be provided in a manner that sought to
complement and cooperate with State
departments of transportation. See
Frank Bros. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of
Transp., 409 F.3d 880, 887–89 (7th Cir.
2005). As State highway or
transportation districts often plan,
develop, and oversee federally financed
highway projects, the provision of a
single wage determination for each
district would simplify the procedure
for incorporating Federal financing into
these projects.
As such, the Department proposes to
authorize WHD to adopt State highway
districts as the geographic area for
determining prevailing wages on
highway projects, where appropriate.
(C) Type of Construction (or
Construction Type)
The Department proposes to define
‘‘type of construction’’ or ‘‘construction
type’’ to mean the general category of
construction as established by the
Administrator for the publication of
general wage determinations. The
proposed language also provides
examples of types of construction,
40 See
41 See
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and Departments of Transportation (2016), available
at: https://www.financingtransportation.org/pdf/50_
state_review_nov16.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15708
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
including building, residential, heavy,
and highway, consistent with the four
construction types the Department
currently uses in general wage
determinations, but does not exclude
the possibility of other types. The terms
‘‘type of construction’’ or ‘‘construction
type’’ are already used elsewhere in part
1 to refer to these general categories of
construction, as well as in wage
determinations themselves. As used in
this part, the terms ‘‘type of
construction’’ and ‘‘construction type’’
are synonymous and interchangeable.
The Department believes that including
this definition would provide additional
clarity for these references, particularly
for members of the regulated
community who might be less familiar
with the term.
(D) Other Definitions
The Department proposes additional
conforming edits to 29 CFR 1.2 in light
of proposed changes to 29 CFR 5.2. As
part of these conforming edits, the
Department proposes to revise the
definition of ‘‘agency’’ (and add a subdefinition of ‘‘Federal agency’’) to
mirror the definition proposed and
discussed below in § 5.2. The
Department also proposes to add to § 1.2
new defined terms also proposed in
parts 3 and 5, including ‘‘employed’’,
‘‘type of construction (or construction
type),’’ and ‘‘United States or the
District of Columbia.’’ For further
discussion on these proposed terms, see
the corresponding discussion in § 3.2
and 5.2 below.
(E) Paragraph Designations
The Department is also proposing to
amend §§ 1.2, 3.2, and 5.2 to remove
paragraph designations of defined terms
and instead to list defined terms in
alphabetical order. The Department
proposes to make conforming edits
throughout parts 1, 3, and 5 in any
provisions that currently reference
lettered paragraph definitions.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
iii. Section 1.3 Obtaining and
Compiling Wage Rate Information
(A) 29 CFR 1.3(b)
The Department proposes to switch
the order of § 1.3(b)(4) and (5) for
clarity. This nonsubstantive change
would simply group together the
subparagraphs in § 1.3(b) that apply to
wage determinations generally, and
follow those subparagraphs with one
that applies only to Federal-aid highway
projects under 23 U.S.C. 113.
(B) 29 CFR 1.3(d)
As part of its effort to modernize the
regulations governing the determination
of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
the Department is considering whether
to revise § 1.3(d), regarding when survey
data from Federal or federally assisted
projects subject to Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements
(hereinafter ‘‘Federal project data’’) may
be used in determining prevailing wages
for building and residential construction
wage determinations. The Department is
not proposing any specific revisions to
§ 1.3(d) in this NPRM, but rather is
seeking comment on whether this
regulatory provision—particularly its
limitation on the use of Federal project
data in determining wage rates for
building and residential construction
projects—should be revised.
For approximately 50 years
(beginning shortly after the DBA was
enacted in 1931 and continuing until
the 1981–1982 rulemaking), the
Department used Federal project data in
determining prevailing wage rates for all
categories of construction, including
building and residential construction.
The final rule promulgated in May 1982
codified this practice with respect to
heavy and highway construction,
providing in new § 1.3(d) that ‘‘[d]ata
from Federal or federally assisted
projects will be used in compiling wage
rate data for heavy and highway wage
determinations.’’ 42 The Department
explained that ‘‘it would not be
practical to determine prevailing wages
for ‘heavy’ and ‘highway’ construction
projects if Davis-Bacon covered projects
are excluded in making wage surveys
because such a large portion of those
types of construction receive Federal
financing.’’ 43
With respect to building and
residential construction, however, the
1982 final rule concluded that such
construction often occurred without
Federal financial assistance subject to
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements, and that to invariably
include Federal project data in
calculating prevailing wage rates
applicable to building and residential
construction projects therefore would
‘‘skew[ ] the results upward,’’ contrary
to congressional intent.44 The final rule
therefore provided in § 1.3(d) that ‘‘in
compiling wage rate data for building
and residential wage determinations,
the Administrator will not use data from
Federal or federally assisted projects
subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements unless it is determined
that there is insufficient wage data to
determine the prevailing wages in the
42 See Final Rule, Procedures for
Predetermination of Wage Rates, 47 FR 23644 (May
28, 1982).
43 Id.
44 See Donovan, 712 F.2d at 620.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
absence of such data.’’ 29 CFR 1.3(d). In
subsequent litigation, the D.C. Circuit
upheld § 1.3(d)’s limitation on the use of
Federal project data as consistent with
the DBA’s purpose and legislative
history—if not necessarily its plain
text—and therefore a valid exercise of
the Administrator’s broad discretion to
administer the Act.45
As a result of § 1.3(d)’s limitation on
the use of Federal project data in
calculating prevailing wage rates
applicable to building and residential
construction, WHD first attempts to
calculate a prevailing wage based on
non-Federal project survey data at the
county level—i.e., survey data that
includes data from private projects or
projects funded by State and local
governments without assistance under
the DBRA, but excludes data from
Federal or federally assisted projects
subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements. See 29 CFR 1.3(d), 1.7(a);
Manual of Operations at 38; Coal. for
Chesapeake Hous. Dev., ARB No. 12–
010, 2013 WL 5872049, at *4 (Sept. 25,
2013) (Chesapeake Housing). If there is
insufficient non-Federal project survey
data for a particular classification in that
county, then WHD considers survey
data from Federal projects in the county
if such data is available.
Under the current regulations, WHD
expands the geographic scope of data
that it considers when it is making a
county wage determination when data is
insufficient at the county level. This
procedure is described below in the
discussion of the ‘‘scope of
consideration’’ regulation at § 1.7. For
wage determinations for federally
funded building and residential
construction projects, WHD currently
integrates Federal project data into this
procedure at each level of geographic
aggregation in the same manner it is
integrated at the county level: If the
combined Federal and non-Federal
survey data received from a particular
county is insufficient to establish a
prevailing wage rate for a classification
in a county, then WHD attempts to
calculate a prevailing wage rate for that
county based on non-Federal wage data
from a group of surrounding counties.
See 29 CFR 1.7(a), (b). If non-Federal
project survey data from the
surrounding-county group is
insufficient, then WHD includes Federal
project data from all the counties in that
county group. If both non-Federal
project and Federal project data for a
surrounding-county group is still
insufficient to determine a prevailing
wage rate, then, for classifications that
have been designated as ‘‘key’’
45 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
at 621–22.
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
classifications, WHD may expand to a
‘‘super group’’ of counties or even to the
statewide level. See Chesapeake
Housing, 2013 WL 5872049, at *6;
PWRB, Davis-Bacon Surveys, at 6.46 At
each stage of data expansion for
building and residential wage
determinations, WHD first attempts to
determine prevailing wages based on
non-Federal project data; however, if
there is insufficient non-Federal data,
WHD will consider Federal project data.
As reflected in the plain language of
§ 1.3(d) as well as WHD’s
implementation of that regulatory
provision, the current formulation of
§ 1.3(d) does not prohibit all uses of
Federal project data in establishing
prevailing wage rates for building and
residential construction projects subject
to Davis-Bacon requirements; rather it
limits the use of such data to
circumstances where ‘‘there is
insufficient wage data to determine the
prevailing wages in the absence of such
data.’’ 29 CFR 1.3(d). WHD often uses
Federal project data in calculating
prevailing wage rates applicable to
residential construction due to
insufficient non-Federal project survey
data submissions. By contrast, because
WHD’s surveys of building construction
typically have a higher participation
rate than residential surveys, WHD uses
Federal project data less frequently in
calculating prevailing wage rates
applicable to building construction
projects covered by the DBRA. For
example, the 2011 GAO Report analyzed
4 DBA surveys and found that over twothirds of the residential rates for 16 key
job classifications (such as carpenter
and common laborer) included Federal
project data because there was
insufficient non-Federal project data,
while only about one-quarter of the
building wage rates for key
classifications included Federal project
data. 2011 GAO Report, at 26.47
Notwithstanding the use of Federal
project data in calculating prevailing
wage rates for building and residential
construction, the Department recognizes
that some interested parties may believe
that § 1.3(d) imposes an absolute barrier
to the use of Federal project data in
determining prevailing wage rates. As a
result, survey participants may not
submit Federal project data in
connection with WHD’s surveys of
building and residential construction—
thereby reducing the amount of data
that WHD receives in response to its
building and residential surveys. The
Department strongly encourages robust
participation in Davis-Bacon prevailing
46 See
47 See
note 16, supra.
note 8, supra.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
wage surveys, including building and
residential surveys, and it therefore
urges interested parties to submit
Federal project data in connection with
building and residential surveys with
the understanding that such data will be
used in calculating prevailing wage
rates if insufficient non-Federal project
data is received. In the absence of such
Federal project data, for example, a
prevailing wage rate may be calculated
at the surrounding-county group or even
statewide level when it would have
been calculated based on a smaller
geographic area if more Federal project
data had been submitted.
Although increased submission of
such Federal project data thus could be
expected to contribute to more robust
wage determinations even without any
change to § 1.3(d), the Department
recognizes that revisions to § 1.3(d) may
nonetheless be warranted. Specifically,
the Department is interested in
comments regarding whether to revise
§ 1.3(d) in a way that would permit
WHD to use Federal project data more
frequently when it calculates building
and residential prevailing wages. For
example, particularly given the
challenges that WHD has faced in
achieving high levels of participation in
residential wage surveys—and given the
number of residential projects that are
subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards
under Related Acts administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development—it may be appropriate to
expand the amount of Federal project
data that is available to use in setting
prevailing wage rates for residential
construction.
There may also be other specific
circumstances that particularly warrant
greater use of Federal project data. More
generally, if the current limitation on
the use of Federal project data were
removed from § 1.3(d), WHD could in
all circumstances establish Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage rates for building and
residential construction based on all
usable wage data in the relevant county
or other geographic area, without regard
to whether particular wage data was
‘‘Federal’’ and whether there was
‘‘insufficient’’ non-Federal project data.
Alternatively, § 1.3(d) could be revised
in order to provide a definition of
‘‘insufficient wage data,’’ thereby
providing increased clarity regarding
when Federal project data may and may
not be used in establishing prevailing
wage rates for building or residential
construction. The Department
specifically invites comments on these
and any other issues regarding the use
of Federal project data in developing
building and residential wage
determinations.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15709
(C) 29 CFR 1.3(f)—Frequently
Conformed Rates
The Department is also proposing
changes relating to the publication of
rates for labor classifications for which
conformance requests are regularly
submitted when such classifications are
missing from wage determinations. The
Department’s proposed changes to this
subsection are discussed below in part
III.B.1.xii (‘‘Frequently conformed
rates’’), together with proposed changes
to § 5.5(a)(1).
(D) 29 CFR 1.3(g)–(j)—Adoption of
State/Local Prevailing Wage
Determinations
The Department proposes to add new
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) to § 1.3 to
permit the Administrator, under
specified circumstances, to determine
Davis-Bacon wage rates by adopting
prevailing wage rates set by State and
local governments.
About half of the States, as well as
many localities, have their own
prevailing wage laws (sometimes called
‘‘little’’ Davis-Bacon laws).48
Additionally, a few states have
processes for determining prevailing
wages in public construction even in the
absence of such State laws.49
Accordingly, the Administrator has long
taken prevailing wage rates set by States
and localities into account when making
wage determinations. Under the current
regulations, one type of information that
the Administrator may ‘‘consider[ ]’’ in
determining wage rates is ‘‘[w]age rates
determined for public construction by
State and local officials pursuant to
State and local prevailing wage
legislation.’’ 29 CFR 1.3(b)(3).
Additionally, for wage determinations
on federally-funded highway
construction projects, the Administrator
is required by statute and regulation to
‘‘consult[ ]’’ with ‘‘the highway
department of the State’’ in which the
work is to be performed, and to ‘‘give
due regard to the information thus
obtained.’’ 23 U.S.C. 113(b); 29 CFR
1.3(b)(4).
In reliance on these provisions, WHD
has sometimes adopted and published
certain states’ highway wage
determinations in lieu of conducting
wage surveys in certain areas.
According to a 2019 report by the
Department’s Office of the Inspector
General (OIG), WHD used highway wage
48 A list of such states, and the thresholds for
coverage, can be found here: Dollar Threshold
Amount for Contract Coverage, U.S. Dep’t of Lab.,
Wage and Hour Div., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
whd/state/prevailing-wages (last updated Jan.
2021).
49 These states include Iowa, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15710
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
determinations from 15 states between
fiscal years 2013 and 2017. See 2019
OIG Report at 10.50
The OIG report expressed concern
about the high number of out-of-date
Davis-Bacon wage rates, particularly
non-union rates, noting, for example,
that some published wage rates were as
many as 40 years old. Id. at 5. The OIG
report further noted that at the time, 26
states and the District of Columbia had
their own prevailing wage laws, and
recommended that WHD ‘‘should
determine whether it would be
statutorily permissible and
programmatically appropriate to adopt
[S]tate or local wage rates other than
those for highway construction.’’ Id. at
10–11. WHD indicated to OIG that in
the absence of a regulatory revision, it
viewed adoption of State rates for nonhighway construction as in tension with
the definition of prevailing wage in
§ 1.2(a) and the ARB’s Mistick decision.
Id. at 10.
The Department shares OIG’s concern
regarding outdated wage rates. Outdated
and/or inaccurate wage determinations
are inconsistent with the intent of the
Davis-Bacon labor standards, which aim
to ensure that laborers and mechanics
on covered projects are paid locally
prevailing wages and fringe benefits.
Wage rates that are significantly out-ofdate do not reflect this intent and could
even have the effect of depressing wages
if covered contractors pay no more than
an artificially-low prevailing wage rate
that has not been adjusted over time to
continue to reflect the wages paid to
workers in a geographic area.
Accordingly, the Department agrees
with OIG that, where appropriate,
adoption of more current wage
determinations made by states and
localities would be consistent with the
DBA’s purpose. States often conduct
wage surveys far more frequently than
WHD.51 Furthermore, if a State or
locality is already engaged in efforts to
determine prevailing wages—and if the
State’s methods are reliable, rigorous,
and transparent—similar activities
conducted by WHD on a less regular
basis can be duplicative and an
inefficient use of survey respondents’
50 See
note 11, supra.
states, such as Minnesota, conduct
surveys annually. See Prevailing Wage: Annual
Statewide Survey, Minn. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,
https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employmentpractices/prevailing-wage-annual-statewide-survey
(last visited Nov. 17, 2021). Others use a different
frequency; for example, Nevada conducts a survey
every 2 years. See Nevada’s 2021–2023 Prevailing
Wage Survey Released, Nev. Dep’t of Bus. & Indus.,
https://business.nv.gov/News_Media/Press_
Releases/2021/Labor_Commissioner/
Nevada%E2%80%99s_2021-2023_Prevailing_
Wage_Survey_Released/ (last visited Nov. 17, 2021).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
51 Some
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
efforts and WHD’s scarce resources.
Relatedly, states and localities that
regularly update their own wage
determinations may have ongoing
relationships with stakeholders in the
relevant geographic areas that facilitate
that process. In contrast, WHD may lack
similarly strong relationships with those
stakeholders given the relative
infrequency with which it surveys any
given area. Thus, many states and
localities may be in a position to ensure
greater participation in wage surveys,
which can improve wage survey
accuracy.
The Department believes that a
regulatory revision would best ensure
that WHD can incorporate State and
local wage determinations where doing
so would further the purposes of the
Davis-Bacon labor standards. As noted
above, the current regulations permit
WHD to ‘‘consider’’ State or local
prevailing wage rates among a variety of
sources of information used to make
wage determinations, and require WHD
to give ‘‘due regard’’ to information
obtained from State highway
departments for highway wage
determinations. See 29 CFR 1.3(b)(3)–
(4). However, they also provide that any
information WHD considers when
making wage determinations must ‘‘be
evaluated in the light of [the prevailing
wage definition set forth in] § 1.2(a).’’ 29
CFR 1.3(c). While some States and
localities’ definitions of prevailing wage
mirror the Department’s regulatory
definition, many others’ do not.52
Because the current regulations at
§§ 1.2(a) and 1.3(c), as well as the ARB’s
decision in Mistick, suggest that any
information (such as State or local wage
rates) that WHD obtains and
‘‘consider[s]’’ under § 1.3(b) must be
filtered through the definition of
‘‘prevailing wage’’ in § 1.2, the
Department is proposing a regulatory
change to clarify that WHD may adopt
State or local prevailing wage
determinations under certain
circumstances even where the State or
locality’s definition of prevailing wage
differs from the Department’s.
Additionally, the Department’s
regulations apply numerous
requirements and constraints to WHD’s
own wage determinations, such as those
concerning geographic scope, see § 1.7,
and the type of project data that may be
52 For example, Washington uses a definition
similar to the Department’s current majority rule.
See Wash. Rev. Code § 39.12.010(1) (2021).
Wyoming, in contrast, uses a method that mirrors
the three-step process in this proposed rule. Wyo.
Stat. Ann. §§ 27–4–401–413 (2021). Other states use
CBA rates as a starting point. N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 13–
4–10–17 (2021); N.M. Code R. § 11.1.2.12 (2021);
N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 220–224 (McKinney 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
used, see § 1.3(d). Like the definition of
prevailing wage, analogous
requirements under State and local
prevailing wage laws vary. Although, as
noted above, the Department’s
regulations permit WHD to ‘‘consider’’
State and local determinations and to
give ‘‘due regard’’ to State rates for
highway construction, the current
regulations do not specifically address
whether WHD may adopt State or local
rates derived using methods and
requirements that differ from those used
by WHD.
Accordingly, and in light of the
advantages of adopting State and local
rates discussed above, the Department is
proposing to add a new paragraph,
§ 1.3(g), which would explicitly permit
WHD to adopt prevailing wage rates set
by State or local officials, even where
the methods used to derive such rates,
including the definition of the
prevailing wage, may differ in some
respects from the methods the
Administrator uses under the DBA and
the regulations in 29 CFR part 1. The
proposal would permit WHD to adopt
such wage rates provided that the
Administrator, after reviewing the rate
and the processes used to derive the
rate, concludes that they meet certain
listed criteria. The criteria, which are
explained further below, are intended to
allow WHD to adopt State and local
prevailing wage rates where appropriate
while also ensuring that adoption of
such rates is consistent with the
statutory requirements of the DavisBacon Act and does not create arbitrary
distinctions between jurisdictions
where WHD makes wage determinations
by using its own surveys and
jurisdictions where WHD makes wage
determinations by adopting adopt State
or local rates.
Importantly, the proposed rule
requires the Administrator to make an
affirmative determination that the
enumerated criteria have been met in
order to adopt a State or local wage rate,
and to do so only after careful review of
both the rate and the process used to
derive the rate. This makes clear that if
the proposed rule is finalized, the
Department may not simply accept State
or local data with little or no review.
Such actions would be inconsistent
with the Secretary’s statutory
responsibility to ‘‘determine[ ]’’ the
wages that are prevailing. 40 U.S.C.
3142(b). Adoption of State or local rates
after appropriate review, however, is
consistent with the authority Congress
granted to the Department in the DavisBacon Act. The DBA ‘‘does not
prescribe a method for determining
prevailing wages.’’ Chesapeake
Housing, 2013 WL 5872049, at *4.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Rather, the statute ‘‘delegates to the
Secretary, in the broadest terms
imaginable, the authority to determine
which wages are prevailing.’’ Donovan,
712 F.2d at 616. The D.C. Circuit has
explained that the DBA’s legislative
history reflects that Congress
‘‘envisioned that the Secretary could
establish the method to be used’’ to
determine DBA prevailing wage rates.
Id. (citing 74 Cong. Rec. 6,516 (1931)
(remarks of Rep. Kopp) (‘‘A method for
determining the prevailing wage rate
might have been incorporated in the
bill, but the Secretary of Labor can
establish the method and make it known
to the bidders.’’)).
Reliance on prevailing wage rates
calculated by State or local authorities
for similar purposes is a permissible
exercise of this broad statutory
discretion. In areas where states or
localities are already gathering reliable
information about prevailing wages in
construction, it may be inefficient for
the Department to use its limited
resources to perform the same tasks. As
a result, the Department is proposing to
use State and local wage determinations
under specified circumstances where,
based on a review and analysis of the
processes used in those wage
determinations, the Administrator
determines that such use would be
appropriate and consistent with the
DBA. Such resource-driven decisions by
Federal agencies are permissible. See,
e.g., Hisp. Affs. Project v. Acosta, 901
F.3d 378, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
(upholding Department’s decision not to
collect its own data but instead to rely
on a ‘‘necessarily . . . imprecise’’
estimate given that data collection
under the circumstances would have
been ‘‘very difficult and resourceintensive’’); Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P. v.
Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 61–62 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (agency’s use of ‘‘imperfect[ ]’’
data set was permissible under the
Administrative Procedure Act).
The Department is proposing to
permit the adoption of State and local
rates for all types of construction. The
FHWA’s independent statutory
obligation for the Department to
consider and give ‘‘due regard’’ to
information obtained from State
highway agencies for highway wage
determinations does not prohibit WHD
from adopting State or local
determinations, either for highway
construction or for other types of
construction, where appropriate. Rather,
this language imposes a minimum
requirement for the Secretary to consult
with states and consider their wage
determinations for highway
construction. See Virginia, ex rel.,
Comm’r, Virginia Dep’t of Highways and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Transp. v. Marshall, 599 F.2d 588, 594
(4th Cir. 1979) (‘‘Section 113(b) requires
that the Secretary ‘consult’ and give
‘due regard’ to the information thus
obtained.’’). In sum, the FHWA’s
requirement sets a floor for reliance on
State data for highway construction, not
a ceiling, and does not foreclose reliance
on State or local data for other types of
construction.
The criteria the Department proposes
for the adoption of State or local rates,
which are included in proposed new
paragraph § 1.3(h), are as follows:
First, the State or local government
must set prevailing wage rates, and
collect relevant data, using a survey or
other process that generally is open to
full participation by all interested
parties. This requirement ensures that
WHD will not adopt a prevailing wage
rate where the process to set the rate
artificially favors certain entities, such
as union or non-union contractors.
Rather, the State or local process must
reflect a good-faith effort to derive a
wage that prevails for similar workers
on similar projects within the relevant
geographic area within the meaning of
the Davis-Bacon Act statutory
provisions. The use of the language
‘‘survey or other process’’ in the
proposed regulatory text is intended to
permit the Administrator to incorporate
wage determinations from States or
localities that do not necessarily engage
in surveys but instead use a different
process for gathering information and
setting prevailing wage rates, provided
that this process meets the required
criteria.53
Second, the State or local wage rate
must reflect both a basic hourly rate of
pay as well as any locally prevailing
bona fide fringe benefits, each of which
can be calculated separately. Thus,
under the proposed rule, WHD must be
able to confirm during its review
process that both figures are prevailing
for the relevant classification(s), and
must be able to list each figure
separately on its wage determinations.
This reflects the statutory requirement
that a prevailing wage rate under the
Davis-Bacon Act must include fringe
benefits, 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B); 29 CFR
5.20, and that ‘‘the Secretary is obligated
to make a separate finding of the rate of
contribution or cost of fringe benefits.’’
29 CFR 5.25(a). This requirement also
would ensure that WHD could
53 For example, a few states determine prevailing
wage rates through stakeholder negotiations that
typically involve labor and employer groups. The
proposed rule does not foreclose acceptance of rates
set using such a process providing that the process
is generally open to full participation by all
interested parties and that the other required
criteria are met.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15711
determine the basic or regular rate of
pay in order to determine compliance
with the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) and
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Third, the State or local government
must classify laborers and mechanics in
a manner that is recognized within the
field of construction. The Department
recognizes that differences in industry
practices mean that the precise types of
work done and tools used by workers in
particular classifications may not be
uniform across states and localities. For
example, in some areas, a significant
portion of work involving the
installation of heating, ventilation, and
air-conditioning (HVAC) duct work may
be done by an HVAC Technician,
whereas in other areas such work may
be more typically performed by a Sheet
Metal Worker. Indeed, unlike in the case
of the Service Contract Act (SCA), WHD
does not maintain a directory of
occupations for the Davis-Bacon Act.
However, under this proposed rule, in
order for WHD to adopt a State or
locality’s wage rate, the State or
locality’s classification system must be
in a manner recognized within the field
of construction. This standard is
intended to ensure that the
classification system does not result in
lower wages than are appropriate by, for
example, assigning duties associated
with skilled classifications to a
classification for a general laborer.
Finally, the State or local
government’s criteria for setting
prevailing wage rates must be
substantially similar to those the
Administrator uses in making wage
determinations under 29 CFR part 1.
The proposed regulation provides a
non-exclusive list of factors to guide this
determination, including, but not
limited to, the State or local
government’s definition of prevailing
wage; the types of fringe benefits it
accepts; the information it solicits from
interested parties; its classification of
construction projects, laborers, and
mechanics; and its method for
determining the appropriate geographic
area(s). Thus, the more similar a State or
local government’s methods are to those
used by WHD, the greater likelihood
that their corresponding wage rate(s)
will be accepted. While the proposed
regulation lists the above factors as
guidelines, it ultimately directs that the
Administrator’s determination in this
regard will be based on the totality of
the circumstances. The reservation of
such discretion in the Administrator
intends to preserve the Administrator’s
ability to make an overall determination
regarding whether adoption of a State or
local wage rate is consistent with both
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15712
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the language and purpose of the DBA,
and thereby is consistent with the
statutory directive for the Secretary (in
this case, via delegation to the
Administrator), to determine the
prevailing wage. See 40 U.S.C. 3142(b).
Proposed § 1.3(g) permits the
Administrator to adopt State or local
wage rates with or without
modification. This is intended to
encompass situations where the
Administrator reviews a State or local
wage determination and determines that
although the State or local wage
determination might not satisfy the
above criteria as initially submitted, it
would satisfy those criteria with certain
modifications. For example, the
Administrator may obtain from the State
or local government the State or
locality’s wage determinations and the
wage data underlying those
determinations, and, provided the data
was collected in accordance with the
criteria set forth earlier (such as that the
survey was fully open to all
participants) may determine, after
review and analysis, that it would be
appropriate to use the underlying data
to adjust or modify certain
classifications or construction types, or
to adjust the wage rate for certain
classifications. Consistent with the
Secretary’s authority to make wage
determinations, the regulation permits
the Administrator to modify a State or
local wage rate as appropriate while still
generally relying on it as the primary
source for a wage determination. For
instance, before using State or local
government wage data to calculate
prevailing wage rates under the DBA,
the Administrator could regroup
counties, apply the definition of
‘‘prevailing wage’’ set forth in § 1.2,
disregard data for workers who do not
qualify as laborers or mechanics under
the DBA, and/or segregate data based on
the type of construction involved. It is
anticipated that the Administrator
would cooperate with the State or
locality to make the appropriate
modifications to any wage rates.
The Department also proposes to add
a new paragraph § 1.3(i), which would
explain that in order for WHD to adopt
a State or local government prevailing
wage rate, the Administrator must
obtain the wage rates and any relevant
supporting documentation and data
from the State or local entity, and
provides instructions for submission.
Finally, the Department proposes to
add a new paragraph § 1.3(j), which
would explain that nothing in the
additional proposed sections described
above precludes the Administrator from
considering State or local prevailing
wage rates in a more holistic fashion,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
consistent with § 1.3(b)(3), or from
giving due regard to information
obtained from State highway
departments, consistent with § 1.3(b)(4),
as part of the Administrator’s process of
making prevailing wage determinations
under 29 CFR part 1. For example,
under this proposed rule, as under the
current regulations, if a State or locality
were to provide the Department with
the underlying data that it uses to
determine wage rates, even if the
Administrator determines not to adopt
the wage rates themselves, the
Administrator may consider or use the
data as part of the process to determine
the prevailing wage within the meaning
of 29 CFR 1.2, provided that the data is
timely received and otherwise
appropriate. The purpose of the
proposed additional language is to
clarify that the Administrator may,
under certain circumstances, adopt
State or local wage rates, and use them
in wage determinations, even if the
process and rules for State or local wage
determinations differs from the
Administrator’s. These proposed
revisions therefore address the concerns
WHD voiced to OIG that the current
regulations, and in particular the
definition of prevailing wage as
interpreted by the ARB in Mistick, could
preclude, or at least be in tension with,
such an approach.
iv. Section 1.4 Report of Agency
Construction Programs
Section 1.4 currently provides that, to
the extent practicable, agencies that use
wage determinations under the DBRA
shall submit an annual report to the
Department outlining proposed
construction programs for the coming
year. The reports described in § 1.4
assist WHD in its multi-year planning
efforts by providing information that
may guide WHD’s decisions regarding
when to survey wages for particular
types of construction in a particular
locality. These reports are an effective
way for the Department to know where
Federal and federally assisted
construction will be taking place, and
therefore where updated wage
determinations will be of most use.
Notwithstanding the importance of
these reports to the program, contracting
agencies have not regularly provided
them to the Department. As a result,
after careful consideration, the
Department proposes to remove the
language in the regulation that currently
allows agencies to submit reports only
‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ Instead, as
proposed, § 1.4 would require Federal
agencies to submit the construction
reports.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Department also now proposes to
adopt certain elements of two prior
AAMs addressing these reports. In 1985,
WHD updated its guidance regarding
the agency construction reports,
including by directing that Federal
agencies submit the annual report by
April 10 each year and providing a
recommended format for such agencies
to submit the report. See AAM 144 (Dec.
27, 1985). In 2017, WHD requested that
Federal agencies include in the reports
proposed construction programs for an
additional 2 fiscal years beyond the
upcoming year. See AAM 224 (Jan. 17,
2017). The proposed changes to § 1.4
would codify these guidelines as part of
the regulations.
The Department also proposes new
language requiring Federal agencies to
include notification of any expected
options to extend the terms of current
construction contracts. The Department
is proposing this change because—like a
new contract—the exercise of an option
requires the incorporation of the most
current wage determination. See AAM
157 (Dec. 9, 1992); see also 48 CFR
22.404–12(a). Receiving information
concerning expected options to extend
the terms of current construction
contracts therefore will help the
Department assess where updated wage
determinations are needed for Federal
and federally assisted construction,
which will in turn contribute to the
effectiveness of the overall Davis-Bacon
wage survey program. The Department
also proposes that Federal agencies
include the estimated cost of
construction in their reports, as this
information also will help the
Department prioritize areas where
updated wage determinations will have
the broadest effects.
In addition, the Department proposes
to require that Federal agencies include
in the annual report a notification of any
significant changes to previously
reported construction programs. In turn,
the Department proposes eliminating
the current directive that agencies notify
the Administrator mid-year of any
significant changes in their proposed
construction programs. Such
notification would instead be provided
in Federal agencies’ annual reports.
Finally, the Department proposes
deleting the reference to the Interagency
Reports Management Program as the
requirements of that program were
terminated by the General Services
Administration (GSA) in 2005. See 70
FR 3132 (Jan. 19, 2005).
The Department does not believe that
these proposed changes will result in
significant burdens on contracting
agencies, as the proposed provisions
request only information already on
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
hand. Furthermore, any burden
resulting from the new proposal should
be offset by the proposed elimination of
the current directive that agencies notify
the Administrator of any significant
changes in a separate mid-year report.
However, the Department also seeks
comment on any alternative methods
through which the Department may
obtain the information and eliminate the
need to require the agency reports.
v. Section 1.5 Publication of General
Wage Determinations and Procedure for
Requesting Project Wage Determinations
The Department proposes a number of
revisions to § 1.5 to clarify the
applicability of general wage
determinations and project wage
determinations. Except as noted below,
these revisions are consistent with
longstanding Department practice and
subregulatory guidance.
First, the Department proposes to retitle § 1.5, currently titled ‘‘Procedure
for requesting wage determinations,’’ as
‘‘Publication of general wage
determinations and procedure for
requesting project wage
determinations.’’ The proposed revision
better reflects the content of the section
as well as the distinction between
general wage determinations, which the
Department publishes for broad use, and
project wage determinations, which are
requested by contracting agencies on a
project-specific basis.
Additionally, the Department
proposes to add language to § 1.5(a) to
explain that a general wage
determination contains, among other
information, a list of wage rates
determined to be prevailing for various
classifications of laborers and
mechanics for specified type(s) of
construction in a given area. Likewise,
the Department proposes to add
language to § 1.5(b) to explain
circumstances under which an agency
may request a project wage
determination, namely, where (1) the
project involves work in more than one
county and will employ workers who
may work in more than one county; (2)
there is no general wage determination
in effect for the relevant area and type
of construction for an upcoming project;
or (3) all or virtually all of the work on
a contract will be performed by one or
more classifications that are not listed in
the general wage determination that
would otherwise apply, and contract
award or bid opening has not yet taken
place. The first of these three
circumstances conforms to the proposed
revision to the definition of ‘‘area’’ in
§ 1.2 discussed above that would permit
the issuance of project wage
determinations for multi-county projects
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
where appropriate. The latter two
circumstances reflect the Department’s
existing practice. See PWRB, DavisBacon Wage Determinations, at 4–5.
The Department also proposes to add
language to § 1.5(b) clarifying that
requests for project wage determinations
may be sent by means other than the
mail, such as email or online
submission, as directed by the
Administrator. Additionally, consistent
with the Department’s current practice,
the Department proposes to add
language to § 1.5(b) requiring that when
requesting a project wage determination
for a project that involves multiple types
of construction, the requesting agency
must attach information indicating the
expected cost breakdown by type of
construction. See PWRB, Davis-Bacon
Wage Determinations, at 5. The
Department also proposes to clarify that
in addition to submitting the
information specified in the regulation,
a party requesting a project wage
determination must submit all other
information requested in the Standard
Form (SF) 308.
Finally, the Department proposes to
clarify the term ‘‘agency’’ in § 1.5. In
proposed § 1.5(b)(2) (renumbered,
currently § 1.5(b)(1)), which describes
the process for requesting a project wage
determination, the Department proposes
to delete the word ‘‘Federal’’ that
precedes ‘‘agency.’’ This proposed
deletion, and the resulting incorporation
of the definition of ‘‘agency’’ from § 1.2,
clarifies that, as already implied
elsewhere in § 1.5, non-Federal agencies
may request project wage
determinations. See, e.g., § 1.5(b)(3)
(proposed § 1.5(b)(4)) (explaining that a
State highway department under the
Federal-Aid Highway Acts may be a
requesting agency).
vi. Section 1.6 Use and Effectiveness
of Wage Determinations
(A) Organizational, Technical and
Clarifying Revisions
The Department proposes to
reorganize, rephrase, and/or re-number
several regulatory provisions and text in
§ 1.6. These proposed revisions include
adding headings to paragraphs and
subparagraphs for clarity; changing the
order of some of the paragraphs and
subparagraphs so that discussions of
general wage determinations precede
discussions of project wage
determinations, reflecting the fact that
general wage determinations are (and
have been for many years) the norm,
whereas project wage determinations
are the exception; adding the word
‘‘project’’ before ‘‘wage determinations’’
in locations where the text refers to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15713
project wage determinations but could
otherwise be read as referring to both
general and project wage
determinations; using the term
‘‘revised’’ wage determination to refer
both to cases where a wage
determination is modified, such as due
to updated CBA rates, and cases where
a wage determination is re-issued
entirely (referred to in the current
regulatory text as a ‘‘supersedeas’’ wage
determination), such as after a new
wage survey; consolidating certain
subsections that discuss revisions to
wage determinations to eliminate
redundancy and improve clarity;
revising the regulation so that it
references the publication of a general
wage determination (consistent with the
Department’s current practice of
publishing wage determinations online),
rather than publication of notice of the
wage determination (which the
Department previously did in the
Federal Register); and using the term
‘‘issued’’ to refer, collectively, to the
publication of a general wage
determination or WHD’s provision of a
project wage determination.
The Department also proposes minor
revisions to clarify that there is only one
appropriate use for wage determinations
that are no longer current—which are
referred to in current regulatory text as
‘‘archived’’ wage determinations, and
the Department now proposes to
describe as ‘‘inactive’’ to conform to the
terminology currently used on the
System for Award Management
(SAM.gov). That permissible
circumstance is when the contracting
agency initially failed to incorporate the
correct wage determination into the
contract and subsequently must
incorporate the correct wage
determination after contract award or
the start of construction (a procedure
that is discussed in § 1.6(f)). In that
circumstance, even if the wage
determination that should have been
incorporated at the time of the contract
award has since become inactive, it is
still the correct wage determination to
incorporate into the contract.
The Department also proposes that
agencies should notify the
Administrator prior to engaging in
incorporation of an inactive wage
determination, and that agencies may
not incorporate the inactive wage
determination if the Administrator
instructs otherwise. While the current
regulation requires the Department to
‘‘approv[e]’’ the use of an inactive wage
determination, the proposed change
permits the contracting agency to use an
inactive wage determination under
these limited circumstances as long as it
has notified the Administrator and has
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15714
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
not been instructed otherwise. The
proposed change is intended to ensure
that contracting agencies incorporate
omitted wage determinations promptly
rather than waiting for approval.
The Department also proposes
revisions to § 1.6(b) to clarify when
contracting agencies must incorporate
multiple wage determinations into a
contract. The proposed language states
that when a construction contract
includes work in more than one area (as
the term is defined in § 1.2), and no
multi-county project wage
determination has been obtained (as
contemplated by the proposed revisions
to § 1.2), the applicable wage
determination for each area must be
incorporated into the contract so that all
workers on the project are paid the
wages that prevail in their respective
areas, consistent with the DBA. The
Department also proposes language
stating that when a construction
contract includes work in more than one
type of construction (as the Department
has proposed to define the term in
§ 1.2), the contracting agency must
incorporate the applicable wage
determination for each type of
construction where the total work in
that category of construction is
substantial. This accords with the
Department’s longstanding guidance
published in AAM 130 (Mar. 17, 1978)
and AAM 131 (July 14, 1978).54 The
Department intends to continue
interpreting the meaning of
‘‘substantial’’ in subregulatory
guidance.55 The Department requests
comments on the above proposals,
including potential ways to improve the
standards for when and how to
54 AAM 130 states that where a project ‘‘includes
construction items that in themselves would be
otherwise classified, a multiple classification may
be justified if such construction items are a
substantial part of the project . . . [but] a separate
classification would not apply if such construction
items are merely incidental to the total project to
which they are closely related in function,’’ and
construction is incidental to the overall project.
AAM 130, p. 2, n.1. AAM 131 similarly states that
multiple schedules are issued if ‘‘the construction
items are substantial in relation to project cost[s].’’
However, it, it further explains that ‘‘[o]nly one
schedule is issued if construction items are
‘incidental’ in function to the overall character of
a project . . . and if there is not a substantial
amount of construction in the second category.’’
AAM 131, p. 2.
55 Most recently, on December 14, 2020, the
Administrator issued AAM 236, which states that
‘‘[w]hen a project has construction items in a
different category of construction, contracting
agencies should generally apply multiple wage
determinations when the cost of the construction
exceeds either $2.5 million or 20 percent of the total
project costs,’’ but that WHD will consider
‘‘exceptional situations’’ on a case-by-case basis.
AAM 236, pp. 1–2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
incorporate multiple wage
determinations into a contract.
The Department also proposes to add
language to § 1.6(b) clarifying and
reinforcing the responsibilities of
contracting agencies, contractors, and
subcontractors with regard to wage
determinations. Specifically, the
Department proposes to clarify in
§ 1.6(b)(1) that contracting agencies are
responsible for making the initial
determination of the appropriate wage
determination(s) for a project. In
§ 1.6(b)(2), the Department proposes to
clarify that contractors and
subcontractors have an affirmative
obligation to ensure that wages are paid
to laborers and mechanics in
compliance with the DBRA labor
standards.
The Department also proposes to
revise language in § 1.6(b) that currently
states that the Administrator ‘‘shall give
foremost consideration to area practice’’
in resolving questions about ‘‘wage rate
schedules.’’ In the Department’s
experience, this language has created
unnecessary confusion because
stakeholders have at times interpreted it
as precluding the Administrator from
considering other factors when
resolving questions about wage
determinations. Specifically, the
Department has long recognized that
when ‘‘it is clear from the nature of the
project itself in a construction sense that
it is to be categorized’’ as either
building, residential, heavy, or highway
construction, ‘‘it is not necessary to
resort to an area practice’’ to determine
the proper category of construction.
AAM 130, at 2; see also AAM 131, at 1
(‘‘area practice regarding wages paid
will be taken into consideration together
with other factors,’’ when ‘‘the nature of
the project in a construction sense is not
clear.’’); Chastleton Apartments, WAB
No. 84–09, 1984 WL 161751, at *4 (Dec.
11, 1984) (because the ‘‘character of the
structure in a construction sense
dictates its characterization for DavisBacon wage purposes,’’ where there was
a substantial amount of rehabilitation
work being done on a project similar to
a commercial building in a construction
sense, it was ‘‘not necessary to
determine whether there [was] an
industry practice to recognize’’ the work
as residential construction). The
regulatory reference to giving ‘‘foremost
consideration to area practice’’ in
determining which wage determination
to apply to a project arguably is in
tension with the Department’s
longstanding position, and has resulted
in stakeholders contending on occasion
that WHD or a contracting agency must
in every instance conduct an exhaustive
review of local area practice as to how
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
work is classified, even if the nature of
the project in a construction sense is
clear. The revised language would
resolve this perceived inconsistency and
would streamline determinations
regarding construction types by making
clear that while the Administrator
should continue considering area
practice, the Administrator may
consider other relevant factors,
particularly the nature of the project in
a construction sense. This proposed
regulatory revision also would better
align the Department’s regulations with
the FAR, which does not call for
‘‘foremost consideration’’ to be given to
area practice in all circumstances, but
rather provides, consistent with AAMs
130 and 131, that ‘‘[w]hen the nature of
a project is not clear, it is necessary to
look at additional factors, with primary
consideration given to locally
established area practices.’’ 48 CFR
22.404–2(c)(5).
In § 1.6(e), the Department proposes
to clarify that if, prior to contract award
(or, as appropriate, prior to the start of
construction), the Administrator
provides written notice that the bidding
documents or solicitation included the
wrong wage determination or schedule,
or that an included wage determination
was withdrawn by the Department as a
result of an Administrative Review
Board decision, the wage determination
may not be used for the contract,
without regard to whether bid opening
(or initial endorsement or the signing of
a housing assistance payments contract)
has occurred. Current regulatory text
states that under such circumstances,
notice of such errors is ‘‘effective
immediately’’ but does not explain the
consequences of such effect. The
proposed language is consistent with
the Department’s current practice and
guidance. See Manual of Operations at
35.
In § 1.6(g), the Department proposes
to clarify that under the Related Acts, if
Federal funding or assistance is not
approved prior to contract award (or the
beginning of construction where there is
no contract award), the applicable wage
determination must be incorporated
retroactive to the date of the contract
award or the beginning of construction;
the Department proposes to delete
language indicating that a wage
determination must be ‘‘requested,’’ as
such language appears to contemplate a
project wage determination, which in
most situations will not be necessary as
a general wage determination will
apply. The Department also proposes to
revise § 1.6(g) to clarify that it is the
head of the applicable Federal agency
who must request any waiver of the
requirement that a wage determination
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
provided under such circumstances be
retroactive to the date of the contract
award or the beginning of construction.
The current version of § 1.6(g) uses the
term ‘‘agency’’ and is therefore
ambiguous as to whether it refers to the
Federal agency providing the funding or
assistance or the State or local agency
receiving it. The proposed clarification
that this term refers to Federal agencies
reflects both the Department’s current
practice and its belief that it is most
appropriate for the relevant Federal
agency, rather than a State or local
agency, to bear these responsibilities,
including assessing, as part of the
waiver request, whether nonretroactivity would be necessary and
proper in the public interest based on
all relevant considerations.
(B) Requirement To Incorporate Most
Recent Wage Determinations Into
Certain Ongoing Contracts
The Department’s longstanding
position has been to require that
contracts and bid solicitations contain
the most recently issued revision to a
wage determination to be applied to
construction work to the extent that
such a requirement does not cause
undue disruption to the contracting
process. See 47 FR 23644, 23646 (May
28, 1982); United States Army, ARB No.
96–133, 1997 WL 399373, at *6 (July 17,
1997) (‘‘The only legitimate reason for
not including the most recently issued
wage determination in a contract is
based upon disruption of the
procurement process.’’). Under the
current regulations, a wage
determination is generally applicable for
the duration of a contract once
incorporated. See 29 CFR 1.6(c)(2)(ii)
and (c)(3)(vi). For clarity, the
Department proposes to add language to
§ 1.6(a) to state this affirmative
principle.
The Department also proposes to add
a new section, § 1.6(c)(2)(iii), to clarify
two circumstances where this general
principle does not apply. First, the
Department proposes to explain that the
most recent version of any applicable
wage determination(s) must be
incorporated when a contract or order is
changed to include additional,
substantial construction, alteration, and/
or repair work not within the scope of
work of the original contract or order—
or to require the contractor to perform
work for an additional time period not
originally obligated, including where an
agency exercises an option provision to
unilaterally extend the term of a
contract. This proposed change is
consistent with the Department’s
guidance, case law, and historical
practice, under which such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
modifications are considered new
contracts. See United States Army, 1997
WL 399373, at *6 (noting that DOL has
consistently ‘‘required that new DBA
wage determinations be incorporated
. . . when contracts are modified
beyond the obligations of the original
contract’’); Iowa Dep’t of Transp., WAB
No. 94–11, 1994 WL 764106, at *5 (Oct.
7, 1994) (‘‘A contract that has been
‘substantially’ modified must be treated
as a ‘new’ contract in which the most
recently issued wage determination is
applied.’’); AAM 157 (Dec. 9, 1992)
(explaining that exercising an option
‘‘requires a contractor to perform work
for a period of time for which it would
not have been obligated . . . under the
terms of the original contract,’’ and as
such, ‘‘once the option . . . is exercised,
the additional period of performance
becomes a new contract’’). Under these
circumstances, the most recent version
of any wage determination(s) must be
incorporated as of the date of the change
or, where applicable, the date the
agency exercises its option to extend the
contract’s term. These circumstances do
not include situations where the
contractor is simply given additional
time to complete its original
commitment or where the additional
construction, alteration, and/or repair
work in the modification is merely
incidental.
Additionally, modern contracting
methods frequently involve a contractor
agreeing to perform construction as the
need arises over an extended time
period, with the quantity and timing of
the construction not known when the
contract is awarded.56 Examples of such
contracts would include, but are not
limited to: A multi-year indefinitedelivery-indefinite-quantity (IDIQ)
contract to perform repairs to a Federal
facility when needed; a long-term
contract to operate and maintain part or
all of a facility, including repairs and
renovations as needed; 57 or a schedule
contract or blanket purchase agreement
whereby a contractor enters into an
agreement with a Federal agency to
provide certain products or services
(either of which may involve work
subject to Davis-Bacon coverage, such as
installation) or construction at agreedupon prices to various agencies or other
government entities, who can order
from the schedule at any time during
56 Depending on the circumstances, these types of
contracts may be principally for services and
therefore subject to the SCA, but contain substantial
segregable work that is covered by the DBA. See 29
CFR 4.116(c)(2).
57 The Department of Defense, for example, enters
into such arrangements pursuant to the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative, 10 U.S.C. 2871, et
seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15715
the contract. The extent of the required
construction, the time, and even the
place where the work will be performed
may be unclear at the time such
contracts are awarded.
Particularly when such contracts are
lengthy, using an outdated wage
determination from the time of the
underlying contract award is contrary to
the text and purpose of the DBA because
it does not sufficiently ensure that
workers are paid prevailing wages.
Additionally, in the Department’s
experience, agencies are sometimes
inconsistent as to how they incorporate
wage determination revisions into these
types of contracts. Some agencies do so
every time additional Davis-Bacon work
is obligated, others do so annually,
others only incorporate applicable wage
determinations at the time the original,
underlying contract is awarded, and
sometimes no wage determination is
incorporated at all. This inconsistency
can prevent the payment of prevailing
wages to workers and can disrupt the
contracting process.
Accordingly, the Department
proposes to require, for these types of
contracts, that contracting agencies
incorporate the most up-to-date
applicable wage determination(s)
annually on each anniversary date of a
contract award or, where there is no
contract, on each anniversary date of the
start of construction, or another similar
anniversary date where the agency has
sought and received prior approval from
the Department for the alternative date.
This proposal is consistent with the
rules governing wage determinations
under the SCA, which require that the
contracting agency obtain a wage
determination prior to the ‘‘[a]nnual
anniversary date of a multi-year contract
subject to annual fiscal appropriations
of the Congress.’’ See 29 CFR
4.4(a)(1)(v). Additionally, consistent
with the discussion above, if an option
is exercised for one of these types of
contracts, the most recent version of any
wage determination(s) would need to be
incorporated as of the date the agency
exercises its option to extend the
contract’s term (subject to the
exceptions set forth in proposed
§ 1.6(c)(2)(ii)), even if that date did not
coincide with the anniversary date of
the contract. When any construction
work under such a contract is obligated,
the most up-to-date wage
determination(s) incorporated into the
underlying contract must be included in
each task order, purchase order, or any
other method used to direct
performance. Once an applicable wage
determination revision is included in
such an order, that revision would
generally be applicable until the
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15716
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
construction items originally called for
by that order are completed, even if the
completion of that work extends beyond
the twelve-month period following the
most recent anniversary date of the
underlying contract. By proposing this
revision, the Department seeks to ensure
that workers are being paid prevailing
wages within the meaning of the Act,
provide certainty and predictability to
agencies and contractors as to when,
and how frequently, wage rates in these
types of contracts can be expected to
change, and bring consistency to
agencies’ application of the DBA. The
Department has also included language
noting that contracting and ordering
agencies remain responsible for
ensuring that the applicable updated
wage determination(s) is included in
task orders, purchase orders, or other
similar contract instruments that are
issued under the master contract.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(C) 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1)—Periodic
Adjustments
The Department proposes to add a
provision to 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1) to
expressly provide a mechanism to
regularly update certain noncollectively bargained prevailing wage
rates. Such rates (both base hourly
wages and fringe benefits) would be
updated between surveys so that they
do not become out-of-date and fall
behind wage rates in the area.
(1) Background
Based on the data that it receives
through its prevailing wage survey
program, WHD generally publishes two
types of prevailing wage rates on the
Davis-Bacon wage determinations that it
issues: (1) Modal rates (under the
current majority rule, wage rates that are
paid to a majority of workers in a
particular classification), and (2)
weighted average rates, which are
published whenever the wage data
received by WHD reflects that no single
wage rate was paid to a majority of
workers in the classification. See 29
CFR 1.2(a)(1).
Under the current majority rule,
modal majority wage rates typically
reflect collectively bargained wage rates.
When a CBA rate prevails on a general
wage determination, WHD updates that
prevailing wage rate based on periodic
wage and fringe benefit increases in the
CBA. Manual of Operations at 74–75;
see also Mistick Construction, 2006 WL
861357, at *7 n.4.58 However, when the
prevailing wage is set through the
58 WHD similarly updates weighted average rates
based entirely on collectively bargained rates
(currently designated as ‘‘UAVG’’ rates) using
periodic wage and fringe benefit increases in the
CBAs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
weighted average method based on noncollectively bargained rates or a mix of
collectively bargained rates and noncollectively bargained rates, or when a
non-collectively bargained rate prevails,
such wage rates (currently designated as
‘‘SU’’ rates) on general wage
determinations are not updated between
surveys, and therefore can become outof-date. This proposal would expand
WHD’s practice of updating collectively
bargained rates between surveys to
include updating non-collectively
bargained rates.
While the goal of WHD is to conduct
surveys in each area every 3 years,
because of the resource intensive nature
of the wage survey process and the vast
number of survey areas, many years can
pass between surveys conducted in any
particular area. The 2011 GAO Report
found that, as of 2010, while 36 percent
of ‘‘nonunion-prevailing rates’’ 59 were 3
years old or less, almost 46 percent of
these rates were 10 or more years old.
2011 GAO Report at 18.60 As a result of
lengthy intervals between Davis-Bacon
surveys, the real value of the effectivelyfrozen rates erodes as compensation in
the construction industry and the cost of
living rise. The resulting decline in the
real value of prevailing wage rates may
adversely affect construction workers
the DBA was intended to protect. See
Coutu, 450 U.S. at 771 (‘‘The Court’s
previous opinions have recognized that
‘[o]n its face, the Act is a minimum
wage law designed for the benefit of
construction workers.’ ’’ (citations
omitted)).
This issue is one that program
stakeholders raised with the GAO.
According to several union and
contractor officials interviewed in the
2011 report, the age of the Davis-Bacon
‘‘nonunion-prevailing rates’’ means they
often do not reflect actual prevailing
wages. 2011 GAO Report at 18.61 As a
result, the officials said it is ‘‘more
difficult for both union and nonunion
contractors to successfully bid on
Federal projects because they cannot
recruit workers with artificially low
wages but risk losing contracts if their
bids reflect more realistic wages.’’ Id.
Regularly updating these rates would
alleviate this situation and better protect
workers’ wage rates. The Department
anticipates that updated rates would
59 ‘‘Nonunion-prevailing rates,’’ as used in the
GAO report, is a misnomer, as it refers to weighted
average rates that, as noted, are published whenever
the same wage rate is not paid to a majority of
workers in the classification, including when much
or even most of the data reflects union wages, just
not that the same union wage was paid to a majority
of workers in the classification.
60 See note 8, supra.
61 See note 8, supra.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
also better reflect construction industry
compensation in communities where
federally funded construction is
occurring.
This proposal to update noncollectively bargained rates is consistent
with, and builds upon, the current
regulatory text at 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1),
which provides that wage
determinations ‘‘may be modified from
time to time to keep them current.’’ This
regulatory provision provides legal
authority for updating wage rates, and it
has been used as a basis for updating
collectively bargained prevailing wage
rates based on CBA submissions
between surveys. See Manual of
Operations at 74–75. In this rule, the
Department proposes to extend this
practice to non-collectively bargained
rates based on ECI data. The Department
believes that ‘‘chang[ed]
circumstances’’—including an increase
in weighted average rates—and the lack
of an express mechanism to update noncollectively bargained rates between
surveys under the existing regulations
support this proposed ‘‘extension of
current regulation[s]’’ to better
effectuate the DBRA’s purpose. Motor
Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,
42 (1983); see also In re Permian Basin
Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 780
(1968) (Court ‘‘unwilling to prohibit
administrative action imperative for the
achievement of an agency’s ultimate
purposes’’ absent ‘‘compelling evidence
that such was Congress’ intention’’).
This proposal is consistent with the
Department’s broad authority under the
statute to ‘‘establish the method to be
used’’ to determine DBA prevailing
wage rates. Donovan, 712 F.2d at 63.
The Department believes that the new
periodic adjustment proposal will ‘‘on
balance result in a closer approximation
of the prevailing wage’’ for these rates
and therefore is an appropriate
extension of the current regulation. Id.
at 630 (citing American Trucking Ass’ns
v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 387 U.S. 397,
416 (1967)).
This proposed new provision is
particularly appropriate because it seeks
to curb a practice the DBA and Related
Acts were enacted to prevent: Payment
of ‘‘substandard’’ wages (here, out-ofdate non-collectively bargained rates) on
covered construction projects that are
less than current wages for similar work
prevailing in the private sector.
Regularly increasing non-collectively
bargained weighted average and
prevailing rates that are more than 3
years old would be consistent with the
DBA’s purpose of protecting local wage
standards.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15717
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
As proposed, the periodic adjustment
provision would help effectuate the
DBA’s purpose by updating significantly
out-of-date non-collectively bargained
wage rates, including thousands of wage
rates that were published decades ago,
that have not been updated since, and
that therefore likely have fallen behind
currently prevailing local rates. As of
September 30, 2018, over 7,100 noncollectively bargained wage rates, or 5.3
percent of the 134,738 total unique
non-collectively bargained rates, like
other rates that the Secretary has
determined to prevail, generally
increase over time like other
construction compensation measures.
See, e.g., Table A (showing recent
annual rates of union and non-union
construction wage increases in the
United States); Table B (showing
Employment Cost Index changes from
2001 to 2020).
published rates at that time, had not
been updated in 11 to 40 years. See
2019 OIG Report at 3, 5. Updating such
out-of-date construction wages would
better align with the DBRA’s main
objective.
Tethering the proposed periodic
updates to existing non-collectively
bargained prevailing wage rates is
intended to keep such rates more
current in the interim period between
surveys. It is reasonable to assume that
TABLE A—CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY (CPS) WAGE GROWTH BY UNION STATUS—CONSTRUCTION
Median weekly earnings
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Members of
unions
Non-union
Members of
unions
(%)
Non-union
(%)
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
$1,099
1,168
1,163
1,220
1,257
1,254
$743
780
797
819
868
920
........................
6
0
5
3
0
........................
5
2
3
6
6
Average ....................................................................................................
........................
........................
3
4
Source: Current Population Survey, Table 43: Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union affiliation, occupation,
and industry, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat43.htm (last modified Jan. 22, 2021).
Note: Limited to workers in the construction industry.
TABLE B—EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX
(ECI), 2001–2020, TOTAL COMPENSATION OF PRIVATE WORKERS IN
CONSTRUCTION, AND EXTRACTION,
FARMING, FISHING, AND FORESTRY
OCCUPATIONS
[Average 12-month percent changes (rounded
to the nearest tenth)]
Average %
change
Year
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
4.5
3.5
3.9
4.5
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.7
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.4
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://
www.bls.gov/web/eci/eci-constant-realdollar.pdf.
(2) Periodic Adjustment Proposal
This proposal seeks to update noncollectively bargained rates that are 3 or
more years old by adjusting them
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
regularly based on total compensation
data to keep pace with current
construction wages and benefits.
Specifically, the Department proposes to
add language to § 1.6(c)(1) to expressly
permit adjustments to non-collectively
bargained rates on general wage
determinations based on U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost
Index (ECI) data or its successor data.
The Department’s proposal provides
that non-collectively bargained rates
may be adjusted based on ECI data no
more frequently than once every 3 years,
and no sooner than 3 years after the date
of the rate’s publication, continuing
until the next survey results in a new
general wage determination. This
proposed interval would be consistent
with WHD’s goal to increase the
percentage of Davis-Bacon wage rates
that are 3 years old or less. Under the
proposal, non-collectively bargained
rates (wages and fringe benefits) would
be adjusted from the date the rate was
originally published and brought up to
their present value. Going forward
under the proposed 30-percent rule, any
non-collectively bargained prevailing or
weighted average rates published after
this rule became effective would be
updated if they were not re-surveyed
within 3 years after publication. The
Department anticipates implementing
this new regulatory provision by issuing
general wage determination
modifications.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Department believes that ECI data
is appropriate for these proposed rate
adjustments because the ECI tracks both
wages and benefits, and may be used as
a proxy for construction compensation
changes over time. Therefore, the
Department proposes to use a
compensation growth rate based on the
change in the ECI total compensation
index for construction, extraction,
farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations to adjust non-collectively
bargained rates (both base hourly and
fringe benefit rates) published in 2001
or after.62
In addition, because updating noncollectively bargained rates would be
resource-intensive, the Department does
not anticipate making all initial
adjustments to such rates that are 3 or
more years old simultaneously, but
rather anticipates that such adjustments
would be made over a period of time
(though as quickly as is reasonably
possible). Similarly, particularly due to
the effort involved, the process of
adjusting non-collectively bargained
rates that are 3 or more years old is
62 Because this particular index is unavailable
prior to 2001, the Department proposes to use the
compensation growth rate based on the change in
the ECI total compensation index for the goodsproducing industries (which includes the
construction industry) to bring the relatively small
percentage of non-collectively bargained rates
published before 2001 up to their 2000 value. The
Department would then adjust the rates up to the
present value using the ECI total compensation
index for construction, extraction, farming, fishing,
and forestry occupations.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15718
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
unlikely to begin until approximately 6
months to a year after a final rule
implementing this proposal becomes
effective.
The Department seeks comments on
this proposal, and invites comments on
alternative data sources to adjust noncollectively bargained rates. The
Department considered proposing to use
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) but
considers this data source to be a less
appropriate index to use to update noncollectively bargained rates because the
CPI measures movement of consumer
prices as experienced by day-to-day
living expenses, unlike the ECI, which
measures changes in the costs of labor
in particular. The CPI does not track
changes in wages or benefits, nor does
it reflect the costs of construction
workers nationwide. The Department
nonetheless invites comments on use of
the CPI to adjust non-collectively
bargained rates.
(D) 29 CFR 1.6(f)
Section 1.6(f) addresses post-award
determinations that a wage
determination has been wrongly omitted
from a contract. The Department’s
proposed changes to this subsection are
discussed below in part III.B.3.xx
(‘‘Post-award determinations and
operation-of-law’’), together with
proposed changes to §§ 5.5 and 5.6.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
vii. Section 1.7 Scope of Consideration
The Department’s existing regulations
in § 1.7 address two related concepts.
The first is the level of geographic
aggregation of wage data that should be
the default for making a wage
determination. The second is how the
Department should expand that level of
geographic aggregation when it does not
have sufficient wage survey data to
make a wage determination at the
default level. The Department is
considering whether to update the
language of § 1.7 to more clearly
describe WHD’s process for expanding
the geographic scope of survey data, and
whether to modify the regulations by
eliminating the current bar on mixing
wage data from ‘‘metropolitan’’ and
‘‘rural’’ counties when the geographic
scope is expanded.
(A) Background
With regard to the first concept
addressed in § 1.7, the default level of
geographic aggregation, the DBA
specifies that the relevant geographic
area for determining the prevailing wage
is the ‘‘civil subdivision of the State’’
where the contract is performed. 40
U.S.C. 3142(b). For many decades now,
the Secretary has used the county as the
default civil subdivision for making a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
wage determination. The Department
codified this procedure in the 1981–
1982 rulemaking in § 1.7(a), in which it
stated that the relevant area for a wage
determination will ‘‘normally be the
county.’’ 29 CFR 1.7(a); see 47 FR
23644, 23647 (May 28, 1982).
The use of the county as the default
‘‘area’’ means that in making a wage
determination the Administrator first
considers the wage survey data WHD
has received from projects of a ‘‘similar
character’’ in a given county. See 40
U.S.C. 3142(b). If there is sufficient
county-level data for a ‘‘corresponding
class[ ]’’ of covered workers (e.g.,
laborers, painters, etc.) working on those
projects, the Administrator then makes
a determination of the prevailing wage
rate for that class of workers. Id; 29 CFR
1.7(a). This has a practical corollary for
contracting agencies—in order to
determine what wages apply to a given
construction project, the agency needs
to identify the county (or counties) in
which the project will be constructed
and obtain the wage determination for
the correct type of construction for that
county (or counties) from SAM.gov.
The second concept currently
addressed in § 1.7 is the procedure that
WHD follows when it does not receive
sufficient survey wage data at the
county level to determine a prevailing
wage rate for a given classification of
workers. This process is described in
detail in the 2013 Chesapeake Housing
ARB decision. 2013 WL 5872049. In
short, if there is insufficient data to
determine a prevailing wage rate for a
classification of workers in a given
county, WHD will determine that
county’s wage-rate for that classification
by progressively expanding the
geographic scope of data (still for the
same classification of workers) that it
uses to make the determination. First,
WHD expands to include a group of
surrounding counties at a ‘‘group’’ level.
See 29 CFR 1.7(b) (discussing
consideration of wage data in
‘‘surrounding counties’’); Chesapeake
Housing, 2013 WL 5872049, at *2–3. If
there is still not sufficient data at the
group level, WHD considers a larger
grouping of counties in the State called
a ‘‘supergroup,’’ and thereafter uses data
at a statewide level. See 29 CFR 1.7(c);
Chesapeake Housing, 2013 WL
5872049, at *2–3.63 Currently, WHD
63 As discussed above in part III.B.1.iii.(A), for
residential and building construction, this
expansion of the scope of data considered also
involves the use of data from Federal and federally
assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon labor
standards at each county-grouping level when data
from non-Federal projects is not sufficient. Data
from Federal and federally assisted projects subject
to Davis-Bacon labor standards is used in all
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
identifies county groupings by using
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)
and other related designations from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). See 75 FR 37246 (June 28, 2010).
The current regulations do not define
the term ‘‘surrounding counties’’ that
delineates the initial county grouping
level. However, the provision at § 1.7(b)
that describes ‘‘surrounding counties’’
limits the counties that may be used in
this grouping by excluding the use of
any data from a ‘‘metropolitan’’ county
in any wage determination for a ‘‘rural’’
county, and vice versa. 29 CFR 1.7(b).
To be consistent with the existing
prohibition at § 1.7(b), WHD’s current
practice is to use the OMB designations
(discussed above) to identify whether a
county is metropolitan or rural.64 Under
the current constraints, such a proxy
designation is reasonable, and the
practice has been approved by the ARB.
See Mistick Construction, 2006 WL
861357, at *7–8. Although the language
in § 1.7(b) does not apply explicitly to
the consideration of data above the
surrounding county level, see § 1.7(c),
the Department’s current procedures do
not mix metropolitan and rural county
data at any level in the expansion of
geographic scope, including even at the
statewide level.
(B) Proposals for Use of ‘‘Metropolitan’’
and ‘‘Rural’’ Wage Data
The current language in § 1.7(b)
barring the cross-consideration of
metropolitan and rural wage data was
added to the Department’s regulations
in the 1981–1982 rulemaking. See 47 FR
23644 (May 28, 1982). As the
Department noted in that rulemaking,
the prior practice up until that point
had been to allow the Department to
look to metropolitan wage rates for
nearby rural areas when there was
insufficient data from the rural area to
determine a prevailing wage rate. See id.
at 23647. In explaining the change in
the longstanding policy, the Department
noted commenters had stated that
‘‘importing’’ higher rates from
metropolitan areas caused labor
disruptions where workers were
‘‘unwilling to return to their usual pay
scales after the project was completed.’’
Id. The Department stated that a more
instances to determine prevailing wage rates for
heavy and highway construction.
64 OMB does not specifically identify counties as
‘‘rural’’ and disclaims that its MSA standards
‘‘produce an urban-rural classification.’’ 75 FR
37246, 37246 (June 28, 2010). Nonetheless, because
OMB identifies counties that have metropolitan
characteristics as part of MSAs, the practice of the
WHD Administrator has been to designate counties
as rural if they are not within an OMB-designated
MSA and metropolitan if they are within an MSA.
See Mistick Construction, 2006 WL 861357, at *8.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
appropriate alternative would be to use
data from rural counties in other parts
of the State. See id. To effectuate this,
it imposed the bar on crossconsideration of rural and metropolitan
county data in § 1.7(b).
The Department has received
feedback that that this blanket decision
did not adequately consider the
heterogeneity of commuting patterns
and local labor markets between and
among counties that may be designated
overall as ‘‘rural’’ or ‘‘metropolitan.’’ As
noted in the 2011 GAO report, the DBA
program has been criticized for using
‘‘arbitrary geographic divisions,’’ given
that the relevant regional labor markets,
which are reflective of area wage rates,
‘‘frequently cross county and state
lines.’’ 2011 GAO Report at 24.65 OMB
itself notes that ‘‘[c]ounties included in
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas and many other
counties may contain both urban and
rural territory and population.’’ 75 FR
37246, 37246 (June 28, 2010).
The Department understands the
point articulated in the GAO report that
actual local labor markets are not
constrained by or defined by county
lines—even those lines between
counties identified (by OMB or
otherwise) as ‘‘metropolitan’’ or ‘‘rural.’’
This is particularly the case for the
construction industry, in which workers
tend to commute longer distances than
other professionals—resulting in
geographically larger labor markets. See,
e.g., Keren Sun et al., Hierarchy
Divisions of the Ability to Endure
Commute Costs: An Analysis based on
a Set of Data about Construction
Workers, J. of Econ. & Dev. Stud., Dec.
2020, at 1, 6.66 Even within the
construction industry, workers in
certain trades have greater or lesser
tolerance for longer commutes. Keren
Sun, Analysis of the Factors Affecting
the Commute Distance/Time of
Construction Workers, Int’l J. of Arts &
Humanities, June 2020, at 34–35.67
By excluding a metropolitan county’s
wage rates from consideration in a
determination for a bordering rural
county, the current language in § 1.7(b)
ignores the potential for projects in both
counties to compete for the same supply
of construction workers and be in the
same local construction labor market. In
many cases, the workers working on the
metropolitan county projects may
themselves live across the county lines
in the neighboring rural county and
commute to the urban projects. In such
65 See
note 8, supra.
66 https://jedsnet.com/journals/jeds/Vol_8_No_4_
December_2020/1.pdf.
67 https://ijah.cgrd.org/images/Vol6No1/3.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
cases, under the current bar, the
Department may not be able to use the
wage rates of the same workers to
determine the prevailing wage rate for
projects in the county in which they
live. Instead, WHD would import wage
rates from other ‘‘rural’’-designated
counties, potentially somewhere far
across the State. Such a practice can
result in Davis-Bacon wage rates that are
lower than the wage rates that actually
prevail in a bi-county labor market and
that are based on wage data from distant
locales rather than from neighboring
counties.
For these reasons, the Department
believes that limitations based on binary
rural and metropolitan designations at
the county level can result in geographic
groupings that at times do not fully
account for the realities of relevant
construction labor markets. To address
this concern, the Department has
considered the possibility of using
smaller basic units than the county as
the initial area for a wage
determination—and expanding to labor
market areas that do not directly track
county lines. The Department, however,
has concluded that continuing the
longstanding practice of using counties
as the civil subdivision basis unit is
more administratively feasible.68 As a
result, the Department is now
considering the option of eliminating
the metropolitan-rural bar in § 1.7(b)
and relying instead on other approaches
to determine how to appropriately
expand geographic aggregation when
necessary.
In addition to allowing WHD to
account for actual construction labor
market patterns, this proposal could
have other benefits. It could allow WHD
to publish more rates at the group level
rather than having to rely on data from
larger geographic areas, because it could
increase the number of counties that
may be available to supply data at the
group level. The proposal could also
allow WHD to publish more rates
overall by authorizing the use of both
metropolitan and rural county data
together when it must rely on statewide
data. Combining rural and urban data at
the State level would be a final option
for geographic expansion when
otherwise the data could be insufficient
to identify any prevailing wage at all.69
68 The Department also considered this option in
the 1981–1982 rulemaking, but similarly concluded
that the proposal to use the county as the basic unit
of a wage determination was the ‘‘most
administratively feasible.’’ See 47 FR 23644, 23647
(May 28, 1982).
69 The Department is also considering the option
of more explicitly tailoring the ban on mixing
metropolitan and rural data so that it applies only
at the ‘‘surrounding counties’’ level, but not at the
statewide level or an intermediate level.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15719
The Department believes that the
purposes of the Act are better served by
using such combined statewide data to
determine the prevailing wage, when
the alternative could be to fail to
publish a wage rate at all.
The proposal to eliminate the strict
rural-metropolitan bar would result in a
program that would be more consistent
with the Department’s original practice
between 1935 and the 1981–1982
rulemaking. Reverting to this prior
status quo would be appropriate in light
of the text and legislative history of the
DBA. Congressional hearings shortly
after the passage of the initial 1931 Act
suggest that Congress understood the
DBA as allowing the Secretary to refer
to metropolitan rates where rural rates
were not available—including by
looking to the nearest city when there
was insufficient construction in a
village or ‘‘little town’’ to determine a
prevailing wage. See 75 Cong. Rec.
12,366, 12,377 (1932) (remarks of Rep.
Connery). Likewise, the Department’s
original 1935 regulations directed the
Department to ‘‘the nearest large city’’
when there had been no similar
construction in the locality in recent
years. See Labor Department Regulation
No. 503 section 7(2) (1935).
In light of the above, the Department
solicits comments on its proposal to
allow the Administrator the discretion
to determine reasonable county
groupings, at any level, without the
requirement to make a distinction
between counties WHD designates as
rural or metropolitan.
(C) Proposals for Amending the County
Grouping Methodology
In addition to considering whether to
eliminate the metropolitan-rural proviso
language in § 1.7(b), the Department is
also considering other potential changes
to the methods for describing the county
groupings procedure.
(1) Defining ‘‘Surrounding Counties’’
One potential change is to more
precisely define ‘‘surrounding
counties,’’ as used in § 1.7(b). Because
the term is not currently defined, this
has from time to time led to confusion
among stakeholders regarding whether a
county can be considered
‘‘surrounding’’ if it does not share a
border with the county for which more
data is needed. As noted above, WHD’s
current method of creating
‘‘surrounding county’’ groupings is to
use OMB-designed MSAs to create predetermined county groupings. This
method does not require that all
counties in the grouping share a border
with (in other words, be a direct
neighbor to) the county in need. Rather,
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15720
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
at the ‘‘surrounding county’’ grouping,
WHD will include counties in a group
as long as they are all a part of the same
contiguous area of either metropolitan
or rural counties—even though each
county included may not be directly
adjacent to every other county in the
group.70
For example, in the Chesapeake
Housing case, one ‘‘surrounding
county’’ group that WHD had compiled
included the independent city of
Portsmouth, combined with Virginia
Beach, Norfolk, and Suffolk counties.
2013 WL 5872049, at *1, n.1. That was
appropriate because those jurisdictions
all were part of the same contiguous
OMB-designated metropolitan area, and
each county thus shared a border with
at least one other county in the group—
even if they did not all share a border
with every other county in the group.
See id. at *5–6. Thus, by using the
group, WHD combined data from
Virginia Beach and Suffolk counties at
the ‘‘surrounding counties’’ level, even
though those two counties do not
themselves touch each other.
This grouping strategy—of relying on
OMB MSA designations—has been
found to be consistent both with the
term ‘‘surrounding counties’’ as well as
with the metropolitan-rural limitation
proviso in § 1.7(b). See Mistick, 2006
WL 861357, at *7–8. An OMBdesignated metropolitan statistical area
is, at least by OMB’s definition, made
up entirely of ‘‘metropolitan’’ counties
and thus WHD can group these counties
together without violating the proviso.
See id.; Manual of Operations at 39.
Thus, the Department has used these
OMB designations to put together predetermined groups that can be used as
the same first-level county grouping for
any county within the grouping. While
relying on OMB designations is not the
only way that the Department could
currently group counties together and
comply with the proviso, the
Department recognizes that, if it
eliminates the metropolitan-rural
proviso at § 1.7(b), it could be helpful to
include in its place some further
language to explain or delimit the
meaning of ‘‘surrounding counties’’ in
another way that would be both
70 In addition, in certain limited circumstances,
WHD has allowed the aggregation of counties at the
‘‘surrounding counties’’ level that are not part of a
contiguous grouping of all-metropolitan or all-rural
counties. This has been considered appropriate
where, for example, two rural counties border an
MSA on different sides and do not themselves share
a border with each other or with any other rural
counties. Under WHD’s current practice, those two
rural counties could be considered to be a county
group at the ‘‘surrounding counties’’ level even
though they neither share a border nor are part of
a contiguous group of counties.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
administrable and faithful to the
purpose of the Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts.
The first option would be to eliminate
the metropolitan-rural proviso but not
replace it with a further definition or
limitation for ‘‘surrounding counties.’’
The Department has included this
proposal in the proposed regulatory text
of this NPRM. The term ‘‘surrounding
counties’’ is not so ambiguous and
devoid of meaning that it requires
further definition. Even without some
additional specific limitation, the
Department believes the term could
reasonably be read to require that such
a grouping be of a contiguous grouping
of counties as the Department currently
requires in its use of OMB MSAs (as
described above), with limited
exceptions. Thus, while the elimination
of the proviso would allow a nearby
rural county to be included in a
‘‘surrounding county’’ grouping with
metropolitan counties that it borders, it
would not allow WHD to append a
faraway rural county to a ‘‘surrounding
county’’ group made up entirely of
metropolitan counties with which the
rural county shares no border at all.
Conversely, the term does not allow the
Department to consider a faraway
metropolitan county to be part of the
‘‘surrounding counties’’ of a grouping of
rural counties with which the
metropolitan county shares no border at
all. Although containing such an
inherent definitional limit, this first
option would allow the Department the
discretion to develop new
methodologies of grouping counties at
the ‘‘surrounding county’’ level and
apply them as along as it does so in a
manner that is not arbitrary or
capricious.71
The second option the Department is
considering is to limit surrounding
counties to solely those counties that
share a border with the county for
which additional wage data is sought.
Such a limitation would create a
relatively narrow grouping at the initial
county grouping stage—narrower than
the current practice of using OMB
MSAs. As discussed above, construction
workers tend to commute longer than
other professionals. This potential onecounty-over grouping limitation would
ensure that, in the vast majority of cases,
the ‘‘surrounding county’’ grouping
would not expand outward beyond the
home counties or commuting range of
the construction workers who would
71 For example, the Department could rely on
county groupings in use by State governments for
little Davis-Bacon laws or similar purposes, as long
as they are contiguous county groupings that
reasonably can be characterized as ‘‘surrounding
counties.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
work on projects in the county at issue.
The narrowness of such a limitation
would also be a drawback, as it could
lead to fewer wage rates being set at the
‘‘surrounding counties’’ group level.
Another drawback is that such a
limitation would not allow for the use
of pre-determined county groupings that
would be the same for a number of
counties—because each county may
have a different set of counties with
which it alone shares a border. This
could result in a significant burden on
WHD in developing far more countygrouping rates than it currently does,
and could result in less uniformity in
required prevailing wage rates among
nearby counties.
A third option would be to include
language that would define the
‘‘surrounding counties’’ grouping as a
grouping of counties that are all a part
of the same ‘‘contiguous local
construction labor market’’ or some
comparable definition. In practice, this
methodology could result in similar (but
not identical) groupings as the current
methodology, as the Department could
decide to use OMB designations to
assist in determining what counties are
part of the contiguous local labor
market. Without the strict metropolitanrural proviso, however, this option
would allow the Department to use
additional evidence on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether the OMB
designations—which do not track
construction markets specifically—are
too narrow for a given construction
market. Under this option, the
Department could consider other
measures of construction labor market
integration, including whether
construction workers in general (or
workers in specific construction trades)
typically commute between or work in
two bordering counties or in a cluster of
counties.
This third option also would bring
with it some potential benefits and
drawbacks. On the one hand, the ability
to identify local construction labor
markets would allow the Department to
make pre-determined county groupings
much like it does now. This would
reduce somewhat the burden of the
second option—of calculating a
different county grouping for each
individual county to account for the
counties that border specifically that
county. It would also explicitly
articulate the limitation that the
Department believes is inherent in the
term ‘‘surrounding counties’’—that the
grouping must be limited to a
‘‘contiguous’’ group of counties, with
limited exceptions. On the other hand,
the case-by-case determination of a local
‘‘construction’’ labor market (that might
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
be different from an OMB MSA) could
also be burdensome on WHD. The
definition, however, could allow such a
case-by-case determination but not
require it. Accordingly, if such case-bycase determinations become too
burdensome, WHD could revert to the
adoption of designations from OMB or
some other externally-defined metric.
Finally, the Department recognizes
that even if it retains the metropolitanrural proviso, doing so does not bind
WHD to the current practice of using
OMB-designated county groupings and
other procedures. Under the language of
the current regulation, the Department
retains the authority to make its own
determinations regarding whether a
county is ‘‘metropolitan’’ or ‘‘rural.’’ See
29 CFR 1.7(b). The Department also
retains certain flexibility for
determining how to group counties at
each level and is not limited to using
the OMB designations. As noted above,
the Department also believes that the
plain text of § 1.7(b) does not
necessarily limit it from combining
metropolitan and rural data beyond the
‘‘surrounding counties’’ group level.
(2) Other Proposed Changes to § 1.7
The Department is also considering
other proposed changes to § 1.7. These
include nonsubstantive changes to the
wording of the paragraphs that clarify
that the threshold for expansion in each
one is insufficient ‘‘current wage data.’’
The existing regulation now defines
‘‘current wage data’’ in § 1.7(a) as ‘‘data
on wages paid on current projects or,
where necessary, projects under
construction no more than one year
prior to the beginning of the survey or
the request for a wage determination, as
appropriate.’’ The Department seeks
comment on whether this definition
should be kept in its current format or
amended to narrow or expand its scope.
The Department is also considering
whether to amend § 1.7(c) to better
describe the process for expanding from
the ‘‘surrounding county’’ level to
consider data from an intermediary
level (such as the current ‘‘supergroup’’
level) before relying on statewide data.
For example, as the Department has
included in the current proposed
regulatory text, the Department could
describe this second level of county
groupings as a consideration of
‘‘comparable counties or groups of
counties in the State.’’ As with the third
option discussed above for defining
‘‘surrounding counties,’’ this
‘‘comparable counties’’ language in
§ 1.7(c) would allow the Department to
continue to use the procedure described
in Chesapeake Housing of combining
various MSAs or various non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
15721
contiguous groups of rural counties to
create ‘‘supergroups.’’ It would also
allow a more nuanced analysis of
comparable labor markets using
construction market data specifically.
As the foregoing discussion reflects,
there is no perfect solution for
identifying county groupings in § 1.7.
Each possibility described above has
potential benefits and drawbacks. In
addition, the Department notes that the
significance of this section in the wage
determination process is also related to
the level of participation by interested
parties in WHD’s voluntary wage
survey. If more interested parties
participate in the wage survey, then
there will be fewer counties without
sufficient wage data for which the § 1.7
expansion process becomes relevant.
Absent sufficient survey information,
however, WHD will need to continue to
include a larger geographic scope to
ensure that it effectuates the purposes of
the DBA and Related Acts—to issue
wage determinations to establish
minimum wages on federally funded or
assisted construction projects. The
Department thus seeks comment on all
aspects of amending the county
grouping methodology of § 1.7—
including administrative feasibility and
the distinction between rural and
metropolitan counties—to ensure that it
has considered the relevant possibilities
for amending or retaining the various
elements of this methodology.
First, the Department proposes to
amend § 1.8, which concerns
reconsideration by the Administrator of
wage determinations and decisions
regarding the application of wage
determinations under part 1, to provide
that if a decision for which
reconsideration is sought was made by
an authorized representative of the
Administrator, the interested party
seeking reconsideration may request
further reconsideration by the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division. The Department proposes that
such requests must be submitted within
30 days from the date the decision is
issued, and that this time period may be
extended for good cause at the
Administrator’s discretion upon a
request by the interested party. Second,
the Department proposes to amend
§ 5.13, which concerns rulings and
interpretations under parts 1, 3, and 5,
to similarly provide for the
Administrator’s reconsideration of
rulings and interpretations issued by an
authorized representative. The
Department proposes to apply the same
procedures for such reconsideration
requests as apply to reconsideration
requests under § 1.8. The Department
also proposes to divide §§ 1.8 and 5.13
into paragraphs for clarity and
readability, and to add email addresses
for parties to submit requests for
reconsideration or for rulings or
interpretations, respectively.
viii. Section 1.8 Reconsideration by
the Administrator
The Department proposes revisions to
§§ 1.8 and 5.13 to explicitly provide
procedures for reconsideration by the
Administrator of decisions, rulings, or
interpretations made by an authorized
representative of the Administrator.
Parts 1 and 5 both define the term
‘‘Administrator’’ to mean the WHD
Administrator or an authorized
representative of the Administrator. See
29 CFR 1.2(c), 5.2(b). Accordingly, when
parties seek rulings, interpretations, or
decisions from the Administrator
regarding the Davis-Bacon labor
standards, it is often the practice of the
Department to have such decisions
made in the first instance by an
authorized representative. After an
authorized representative issues a
decision, the party may request
reconsideration by the Administrator.
The decision typically provides a time
frame in which to request
reconsideration by the Administrator,
often 30 days. To provide greater clarity
and uniformity, the Department
proposes to codify this practice and to
clarify how and when reconsideration
may be sought.
ix. Section 1.10 Severability
The Department proposes to add a
new § 1.10, titled ‘‘Severability.’’ The
proposed severability provision
explains that each provision is capable
of operating independently from one
another, and that if any provision of part
1 is held to be invalid or unenforceable
by its terms, or as applied to any person
or circumstance, or stayed pending
further agency action, the Department
intends that the remaining provisions
remain in effect.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
x. References to Website for Accessing
Wage Determinations
The Department proposes to revise
§§ 1.2, 1.5, and 1.6 to reflect, in more
general terms, that wage determinations
are maintained online without a
reference to a specific website.
The current regulations reference
Wage Determinations OnLine (WDOL),
previously available at https://
www.wdol.gov, which was established
following the enactment of the EGovernment Act of 2002, Public Law
107–347, 116 Stat. 2899 (2002).
WDOL.gov served as the source for
Federal contracting agencies to use
when obtaining wage determinations.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15722
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
See 70 FR 50887 (Aug. 26, 2005).
WDOL.gov was decommissioned on
June 14, 2019, and the System for
Award Management (SAM.gov) became
the authoritative and single location for
obtaining DBA general wage
determinations.72 The transition of wage
determinations onto SAM.gov was part
of the Integrated Award Environment, a
government-wide initiative
administered by GSA to manage and
integrate multiple online systems used
for awarding and administering Federal
financial assistance and contracts.73
Currently, wage determinations can
be found at https://sam.gov/content/
wage-determinations. In order to avoid
outdated website domain references in
the regulations should the domain name
change in the future, the Department
proposes to use the more general term
‘‘Department of Labor-approved
website,’’ which would refer to any
official government website the
Department approves for posting wage
determinations.
xi. Appendices A and B to Part 1
The Department proposes to remove
Appendices A and B from 29 CFR part
1 and make conforming technical edits
to sections that reference those
provisions. Appendix A lists the DavisBacon Act and the Related Acts, in other
words, the statutes related to the DavisBacon Act that require the payment of
wages at rates predetermined by the
Secretary of Labor pursuant to the
Davis-Bacon Act, and Appendix B lists
regional offices of the Wage and Hour
Division. The Department proposes to
rescind these appendices as they are no
longer current, and updated information
contained in both appendices can be
found on WHD’s website at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/.
Specifically, a listing of statutes
requiring the payment of wages at rates
predetermined by the Secretary of Labor
under the Davis-Bacon Act is currently
at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/
government-contracts, and a listing of
WHD regional offices is currently found
at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/
contact/local-offices.
xii. Frequently Conformed Rates
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
The Department also proposes to
revise §§ 1.3 and 5.5 to provide that,
where WHD has received insufficient
72 WDOL.gov Decommissioning Approved by IAE
Governance: System Set to Transition to
beta.SAM.gov on June 14, 2019, GSA Interact (May
21, 2019), https://interact.gsa.gov/blog/wdolgovdecommissioning-approved-iae-governance-systemset-transition-betasamgov-june-14-2019.
73 About This Site, System for Award
Management, https://sam.gov/content/about/thissite (last visited Nov. 19, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
data through its wage survey process to
publish a prevailing wage for a
classification for which conformance
requests are regularly submitted, WHD
nonetheless may list the classification
and wage and fringe benefit rates for the
classification on the wage
determination, provided that the three
basic criteria for conformance of a
classification and wage and fringe
benefit rate have been satisfied: (1) The
work performed by the classification is
not performed by a classification in the
wage determination; (2) the
classification is used in the area by the
construction industry; and (3) the wage
rate for the classification bears a
reasonable relationship to the wage rates
contained in the wage determination.
The Department specifically proposes
that the wage and fringe benefit rates for
these classifications be determined in
accordance with the ‘‘reasonable
relationship’’ criterion that is currently
used in conforming missing
classifications pursuant to current 29
CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A). The Department
welcomes comments regarding all
aspects of this proposal, which is
described more fully below.
WHD determines DBA prevailing
wage rates based on wage survey data
that responding contractors and other
interested parties voluntarily provide.
See 29 CFR 1.1 through 1.7. WHD
sometimes receives robust participation
in its wage surveys, thereby enabling it
to publish wage determinations that list
prevailing wage rates for numerous
construction classifications. However,
stakeholder participation can be more
limited, particularly in surveys for
residential construction or in rural
areas, and WHD therefore does not
always receive sufficient wage data to
publish prevailing wage rates for
various classifications generally
necessary for various types of
construction.
Whenever a wage determination lacks
a classification of work that is necessary
for performance of DBRA-covered
construction, the missing classification
and an appropriate wage rate must be
added to the wage determination on a
contract-specific basis through the
conformance process. Conformance is
the expedited process by which a
classification and wage and fringe
benefit rate are added to an existing
wage determination applicable to a
specific DBRA-covered contract. See 29
CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A). When, for example,
a wage determination lists only certain
skilled classifications such as carpenter,
plumber, and electrician (because they
are the skilled classifications for which
WHD received sufficient wage data
through its survey process), the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conformance process is used to provide
contractors with minimum wage rates
for other necessary classifications (such
as, in this example, painters and
bricklayers).
‘‘By design, the Davis-Bacon
conformance process is an expedited
proceeding created to ‘fill in the gaps’ ’’
in an existing wage determination, with
the ‘‘narrow goal’’ of establishing an
appropriate wage rate for a classification
needed for performance of the contract.
Am. Bldg. Automation, Inc., ARB No.
00–067, 2001 WL 328123, at *3 (Mar.
30, 2001). As a general matter, WHD is
given ‘‘broad discretion’’ in setting a
conformed wage rate, and the
Administrator’s decisions ‘‘will be
reversed only if inconsistent with the
regulations, or if they are unreasonable
in some sense[.]’’ Millwright Loc. 1755,
ARB No. 98–015, 2000 WL 670307, at *6
(May 11, 2000) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). See, e.g., Constr.
Terrebonne Par. Juvenile Justice
Complex, ARB No. 17–0056, 2020 WL
5902440, at *2–4 (Sept. 4, 2020)
(reaffirming the Administrator’s ‘‘broad
discretion’’ in determining appropriate
conformed wage rates); Courtland
Constr. Corp., ARB No. 17–074, 2019
WL 5089598, at *2 (Sept. 30, 2019)
(same).
The regulations require the following
criteria be met for a proposed
classification and wage rate to be
conformed to a wage determination: (1)
The work to be performed by the
requested classification is not performed
by a classification in the wage
determination; (2) the classification is
used in the area by the construction
industry; and (3) the proposed wage
rate, including any bona fide fringe
benefits, bears a reasonable relationship
to the wage rates in the wage
determination. See 29 CFR
5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A).
Pursuant to the first conformance
criterion, WHD may approve a
conformance request only where the
work of the proposed classification is
not performed by any classification on
the wage determination. WHD need not
‘‘determine that a classification in the
wage determination actually is the
prevailing classification for the tasks in
question, only that there is evidence to
establish that the classification actually
performs the disputed tasks in the
locality.’’ Am. Bldg. Automation, 2001
WL 328123, at *4. Even if workers
perform only a subset of the duties of a
classification, they are still performing
work that is covered by the
classification, and conformance of a
new classification thus would be
inappropriate. See, e.g., Fry Bros. Corp.,
WAB No. 76–06, 1977 WL 24823, at *6
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(June 14, 1977). In instances where the
first and second conformance criteria
are satisfied and it has been determined
that the requested classification should
be added to the contract wage
determination, WHD will address
whether the third criterion has also been
satisfied, i.e., whether ‘‘[t]he proposed
wage rate, including any bona fide
fringe benefits, bears a reasonable
relationship to the wage rates’’ in the
wage determination.
WHD typically receives thousands of
conformance requests each year
(sometimes over 10,000 in a given year).
In some instances, including instances
where contractors are unaware that their
work falls within the scope of work
performed by an established
classification on the wage
determination, WHD receives
conformance requests where
conformance plainly is not appropriate
because the wage determination already
contains a classification that performs
the work of the proposed classification.
In other instances, however,
conformance is necessary because the
applicable wage determination does not
contain all of the classifications that are
necessary to complete the project. The
considerable need for conformances due
to the absence of necessary
classifications on wage determinations
reduces certainty for prospective
contractors in the bidding process, who
may be unsure of what wage rate must
be paid to laborers and mechanics
performing work on the project, and
taxes WHD’s resources. If such
uncertainty causes contractors to
underbid on construction projects and
subsequently to pay subminimum wages
to workers, missing classifications on
wage determinations can result in the
underpayment of wages to workers.
To address this issue, the Department
proposes revising 29 CFR 1.3 and
5.5(a)(1) to expressly authorize WHD to
list classifications and corresponding
wage and fringe benefit rates on wage
determinations even when WHD has
received insufficient data through its
wage survey process. Under this
proposal, for key classifications or other
classifications for which conformance
requests are regularly submitted,74 the
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
74 As
explained in WHD’s Prevailing Wage
Resource Book, WHD has identified several ‘‘key
classifications’’ normally necessary for one of the
four types of construction (building, highway,
heavy, and residential) for which WHD publishes
general wage determinations. Davis-Bacon Surveys
at 6. The Prevailing Wage Resource Book contains
a table that lists the key classifications for each type
of construction. The table, which may be updated
periodically as warranted, currently identifies the
key classifications for building construction as heat
and frost insulators, bricklayers, boilermakers,
carpenters, cement masons, electricians, iron
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Administrator would be authorized to
list the classification on the wage
determination along with wage and
fringe benefit rates that bear a
‘‘reasonable relationship’’ to the
prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates
contained in the wage determination,
using essentially the same criteria under
which such classifications and rates are
currently conformed by WHD pursuant
to current § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3). In other
words, for a classification for which
conformance requests are regularly
submitted, and for which WHD received
insufficient data through its wage
survey process, WHD would be
expressly authorized to essentially ‘‘preapprove’’ certain conformed
classifications and wage rates, thereby
providing contracting agencies,
contractors and workers with advance
notice of the minimum wage and fringe
benefits required to be paid for work
within those classifications. WHD
would list such classifications and wage
and fringe benefit rates on wage
determinations where: (1) The work
performed by the classification is not
performed by a classification in the
wage determination for which a
prevailing wage rate has been
determined; (2) the classification is used
in the area by the construction industry;
and (3) the wage rate for the
classification bears a reasonable
relationship to the prevailing wage rates
contained in the wage determination.
The Administrator would establish
wage rates for such classifications in
accordance with proposed
§ 5.5(a)(1)(iii)(A)(3). Contractors would
be required to pay workers performing
work within such classifications at no
less than the rates listed on the wage
determination. Such classifications and
rates on a wage determination would be
designated with a distinct term,
abbreviation, or description to denote
that they essentially reflect preapproved conformed rates rather than
prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates
that have been determined through the
Davis-Bacon wage survey process.
These rates would apply to the
applicable classification without the
need to submit a conformance request in
workers, laborers (common), painters, pipefitters,
plumbers, power equipment operators (operating
engineers), roofers, sheet metal workers, tile setters,
and truck drivers; the key classifications for
residential construction as bricklayers, carpenters,
cement masons, electricians, iron workers, laborers
(common), painters, plumbers, power equipment
operators (operating engineers), roofers, sheet metal
workers, and truck drivers; and the key
classifications for heavy and highway construction
as carpenters, cement masons, electricians, iron
workers, laborers (common), painters, power
equipment operators (operating engineers), and
truck drivers. Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15723
accordance with current
§ 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)–(C). However, if a
contracting agency, contractor, union, or
other interested party has questions or
concerns about how particular work
should be classified—and, specifically,
whether the work at issue is performed
by a particular classification included
on a wage determination (including
classifications listed pursuant to this
proposal) as a matter of local area
practice or otherwise, the contracting
agency should submit a conformance
request in accordance with § 5.5(a)(1) or
seek guidance from WHD under 29 CFR
5.13. Moreover, under this proposal,
contracting agencies would still be
required to submit conformance
requests for any needed classifications
not listed on the wage determination,
which would be approved, modified or
disapproved as warranted after award of
the contract, as required by the
regulatory provisions applicable to
conformance requests.
2. 29 CFR Part 3
‘‘Anti-kickback’’ and payroll
submission regulations under section 2
of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 3145, popularly known as the
Copeland Act, are set forth in 29 CFR
part 3. This part details the obligations
of contractors and subcontractors
relative to the weekly submission of
statements regarding the wages paid on
work covered by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards; sets forth the circumstances
and procedures governing the making of
payroll deductions from the wages of
those employed on such work; and
delineates the methods of payment
permissible on such work.
i. Corresponding Edits to Part 3
The Department proposes multiple
revisions to various sections in part 3 to
update the language and ensure that
terms are used in a manner consistent
with the terminology used in 29 CFR
parts 1 and 5, to update websites and
contact information, and to make other
similar, non-substantive changes. The
Department also proposes conforming
edits to part 3 to reflect proposed
changes to part 5, such as revising § 3.2
to clarify existing definitions or to add
new defined terms also found in parts
1 and 5. The Department welcomes
comment on whether it should further
consolidate and/or harmonize the
definitions in §§ 1.2, 3.2, and 5.2 in a
final rule, such as by placing all
definitions in a single regulatory section
applicable to all three parts.
The Department further proposes to
change certain requirements associated
with the submission of certified
payrolls. To the extent that such
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15724
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
changes are substantive, the reasons for
these proposed changes are provided in
the discussions of proposed §§ 5.2 and
5.5. The Department also proposes to
remove § 3.5(e) regarding deductions for
the purchase of United States Defense
Stamps and Bonds, as the Defense
Stamps and Bonds are no longer
available for purchase. Similarly, the
Department proposes to simplify the
language regarding deductions for
charitable donations at § 3.5(g) by
eliminating references to specific
charitable organizations and instead
permitting voluntary deductions to
charitable organizations as defined by
26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).
Finally, the Department proposes to
add language to § 3.11 explaining that
the requirements set forth in part 3 are
considered to be effective as a matter of
law, whether or not these requirements
are physically incorporated into a
covered contract, and cross-referencing
the proposed new language discussing
incorporation by operation of law at
§ 5.5(e), discussed further below.
3. 29 CFR Part 5
i. Section 5.1 Purpose and Scope
The Department proposes minor
technical revisions to § 5.1 to update
statutory references, and further
proposes to revise § 5.1 by deleting the
listing of laws requiring Davis-Bacon
labor standards provisions, given that
any such list inevitably becomes out-ofdate due to statutory revisions and the
enactment of new Related Acts. In lieu
of this listing in the regulation, the
Department proposes to add new subparagraph (a)(1) to reference the WHD
website (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
whd/government-contracts) on which a
listing of laws requiring Davis-Bacon
labor standards provisions is currently
found and regularly updated.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
ii. Section 5.2
Definitions
(A) Agency, Agency Head, Contracting
Officer, Secretary, and Davis-Bacon
Labor Standards
The Department proposes to revise
the definitions of ‘‘agency head’’ and
‘‘contracting officer’’ and to add a
definition of ‘‘agency’’ to reflect more
clearly that State and local agencies
enter into contracts for projects that are
subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards and that they allocate Federal
assistance they have received under a
Davis-Bacon Related Act to subrecipients. These proposed definitional
changes also are intended to reflect that,
for some funding programs, the
responsible Federal agency has
delegated administrative and
enforcement authority to states or local
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
agencies. When the current regulations
refer to the obligations or authority of
agencies, agency heads, and contracting
officers, they are referring to Federal
agencies and Federal contracting
officers. However, as noted above, State
or local agencies and their agency heads
and contracting officers exercise similar
authority in the administration and
enforcement of Davis-Bacon labor
standards. Because the existing
definitions define ‘‘agency head’’ and
‘‘contracting officer’’ as particular
‘‘Federal’’ officials or persons
authorized to act on their behalf, which
does not clearly reflect the role of State
and local agencies in effectuating DavisBacon requirements, including by
entering into contracts for projects
subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards and inserting the Davis-Bacon
contract clauses in such contracts, the
Department proposes to revise these
definitions to reflect the role of State
and local agencies. The proposed
revisions also enable the regulations to
specify the obligations and authority
held by both State or local and Federal
agencies, as opposed to obligations that
are specific to one or the other.
The Department also proposes to
define the term ‘‘Federal agency’’ as a
sub-definition of ‘‘agency’’ to
distinguish those situations where the
regulations refer specifically to an
obligation or authority that is limited
solely to a Federal agency that enters
into contracts for projects subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards or allocates
Federal assistance under a Davis-Bacon
Related Act.
The Department also proposes to add
the District of Columbia to the
definition of ‘‘Federal agency.’’ The
DBA states in part that it applies to
every contract in excess of $2,000, to
which the Federal Government ‘‘or the
District of Columbia’’ is a party. See 40
U.S.C. 3142(a). As described above,
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950
authorizes the Department to prescribe
regulations to ensure that the Act is
implemented in a consistent manner by
all agencies subject to the Act. See 5
U.S.C. app 1. Accordingly, the proposed
change to the definition of ‘‘Federal
agency’’ in § 5.2 clarifies that the
District of Columbia is subject to the
DBA and the regulations implemented
by the Department pursuant to
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950.75
75 The 1973 Home Rule Act, Public Law 93–198,
transferred from the President to the District of
Columbia the authority to organize and reorganize
specific governmental functions of the District of
Columbia, but does not contain any language
removing the District of Columbia from the
Department’s authority to prescribe DBA
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The proposed change is also consistent
with the definition of ‘‘Federal agency’’
in part 3 of this title, which specifically
includes the District of Columbia. See
29 CFR 3.2(g). The proposed change
simply reflects the DBA’s applicability
to the District of Columbia and is not
intended to reflect a broader or more
general characterization of the District
as a Federal Government entity.
The Department also proposes a
change to the definition of ‘‘Secretary’’
to delete a reference to the Under
Secretary for Employment Standards; as
noted above, the Employment Standards
Administration was eliminated in a
reorganization in 2009 and its
authorities and responsibilities were
devolved into its constituent
components, including WHD.
Lastly, the Department proposes a
minor technical edit to the definition of
‘‘Davis-Bacon labor standards’’ to reflect
proposed changes to § 5.1, discussed
above.
(B) Building or Work
(1) Energy Infrastructure and Related
Activities
The Department proposes to
modernize the definition of the terms
‘‘building or work’’ by including solar
panels, wind turbines, broadband
installation, and installation of electric
car chargers to the non-exclusive list of
construction activities encompassed by
the definition. These proposed changes
to the definition are intended to reflect
the significance of energy infrastructure
and related projects to modern-day
construction activities subject to the
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, as well
as to illustrate the types of energyinfrastructure and related activities that
are encompassed by the definition of
‘‘building or work.’’
(2) Coverage of a Portion of a Building
or Work
The Department proposes to add
language to the definitions of ‘‘building
or work’’ and ‘‘public building or public
work’’ to clarify that these definitions
can be met even when the construction
activity involves only a portion of an
overall building, structure, or
improvement. The definition of
‘‘building or work’’ already states that
the terms ‘‘building’’ and ‘‘work’’
‘‘generally include construction activity
as distinguished from manufacturing,
furnishing of materials, or servicing and
maintenance work,’’ and includes
‘‘without limitation, buildings,
structures, and improvements of all
types.’’ 29 CFR 5.2(i). In addition, the
regulations pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 14
of 1950.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
regulation already provides several
examples of construction activity
included within the term ‘‘building or
work’’ that do not constitute an entire
building, structure, or improvement,
such as ‘‘dredging, shoring, . . .
scaffolding, drilling, blasting,
excavating, clearing, and landscaping.’’
Id. Moreover, the current regulations
define the term ‘‘construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair’’ to
mean ‘‘all types of work done on a
particular building or work at the site
thereof . . . including, without
limitation . . . [a]ltering, remodeling,
installation . . . ; [p]ainting and
decorating.’’ Id. § 5.2(j).
However, to further make plain that
‘‘building or work’’ includes not only
construction activity involving an entire
building, structure, or improvement, but
also construction activity involving a
portion of a building, structure, or
improvement, or the installation of
equipment or components into a
building, structure, or improvement, the
Department proposes to add a sentence
to this definition stating that ‘‘[t]he term
building or work also includes a portion
of a building or work, or the installation
(where appropriate) of equipment or
components into a building or work.’’
The Department also proposes to
include additional language in the
definition of ‘‘public building or public
work’’ to clarify that a ‘‘public building’’
or ‘‘public work’’ includes the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of a portion of a building or
work that is carried on directly by
authority of or with funds of a Federal
agency to serve the interest of the
general public, even where construction
of the entire building or work does not
fit within this definition.
These proposed revisions are
consistent with the Davis-Bacon Act.
The concepts of alteration or repair
presuppose that only a portion of a
building, structure, or improvement will
be affected. By specifically including
the alteration or repair of public
buildings or works within its scope of
coverage, the Davis-Bacon Act itself
necessitates that construction activity
involving merely a portion of a building
or work may be subject to coverage.
These proposed revisions are also
consistent with the Department’s
longstanding policy that a ‘‘public
building’’ or ‘‘public work’’ includes
construction activity involving a portion
of a building or work, or the installation
of equipment or components into a
building or work when the other
requirements for Davis-Bacon coverage
are satisfied. See, e.g., AAM 52 (July 9,
1963) (holding that the upgrade of
communications systems at a military
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
base, including the installation of
improved cabling, constituted the
construction, alteration or repair of a
public work); Letter from Sylvester L.
Green, Director, Division of Contract
Standards Operations, to Robert Olsen,
Bureau of Reclamation (Mar. 18, 1985)
(finding that the removal and
replacement of stator cores in a
hydroelectric generator was covered
under the Davis-Bacon Act as the
alteration or repair of a public work);
Letter from Samuel D. Walker, Acting
Administrator, to Edward Murphy (Aug.
29, 1990) (stating that ‘‘[t]he Department
has ruled on numerous occasions that
repair or alteration of boilers,
generators, furnaces, etc. constitutes
repair or alteration of a ‘public work’ ’’);
Letter from Nancy Leppink, Deputy
Administrator, to Armin J. Moeller (Dec.
12, 2012) (finding that the installation of
equipment such as generators or
turbines into a hydroelectric plant is
considered to be the improvement or
alteration of a public work).
Similarly, the proposed revisions are
consistent with the Department’s
longstanding position that a ‘‘public
building’’ or ‘‘public work’’ may include
structures, buildings, or improvements
that will not be owned by the Federal
government when construction is
completed, so long as the construction
is carried on directly by authority of or
with funds of a Federal agency to serve
the interest of the general public.
Accordingly, the Department has long
held that the Davis-Bacon labor
standards provisions may apply to
construction undertaken when the
government is merely going to have the
use of the building or work, such as in
lease-construction contracts, depending
upon the facts and circumstances
surrounding the contract. See
Reconsideration of Applicability of the
Davis-Bacon Act to the Veteran
Admin.’s Lease of Med. Facilities, 18
Op. O.L.C. 109, 119 n.10 (May 23, 1994)
(‘‘1994 OLC Memorandum’’) (‘‘[T]he
determination whether a leaseconstruction contract calls for
construction of a public building or
public work likely will depend on the
details of the particular arrangement.’’);
FOH 15b07. In AAM 176 (June 22,
1994), WHD provided guidance to the
contracting community regarding the
DBA’s application to lease-construction
contracts, and specifically advised that
the following non-exclusive list of
factors from the 1994 OLC
Memorandum should be considered in
determining the scope of DBA coverage:
(1) The length of the lease; (2) the extent
of Government involvement in the
construction project (such as whether
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15725
the building is being built to
Government requirements and whether
the Government has the right to inspect
the progress of the work); (3) the extent
to which the construction will be used
for private rather than public purposes;
(4) the extent to which the costs of
construction will be fully paid for by the
lease payments; and (5) whether the
contract is written as a lease solely to
evade the requirements of the DBA.
In sum, as noted above, a building or
work includes construction activity
involving only a portion of a building,
structure, or improvement. As also
noted above, a public building or public
work is not limited to buildings or
works that will be owned by the Federal
Government, but may include buildings
or works that serve the general public
interest, including spaces to be leased or
used by the Federal Government.
Accordingly, it necessarily follows that
a contract for the construction of a
portion of a building, structure, or
improvement may be a covered contract
for construction of a ‘‘public building’’
or ‘‘public work’’ where the other
requirements for coverage are met, even
if the Federal Government is not going
to own, lease, use, or otherwise be
involved with the construction of the
remaining portions of the building or
work. For example, as WHD has
repeatedly asserted in connection with
one contracting agency’s leaseconstruction contracts, where the
Federal government enters into a lease
for a portion of an otherwise private
building—and, as a condition of the
lease, requires and pays for specific
tenant improvements requiring
alterations and repairs to that portion to
prepare the space for government
occupancy in accordance with
government specifications—DavisBacon labor standards may apply to the
tenant improvements or other specific
construction activity called for by such
a contract. In such circumstances, the
factors discussed in AAM 176 would
still need to be considered to determine
if coverage is appropriate, but the
factors would be applied specifically
with reference to the leased portion of
the building and the construction
required by the lease.
Finally, these proposed revisions
would further the remedial purpose of
the Davis-Bacon Act by ensuring that
the Act’s protections apply to contracts
for construction activity for which the
government is responsible. Walsh v.
Schlecht, 429 U.S. 401, 411 (1977)
(reiterating that the DBA ‘‘was not
enacted to benefit contractors, but rather
to protect their employees from
substandard earnings by fixing a floor
under wages on Government projects’’)
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15726
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); 1994 OLC Memorandum, 18
Op. O.L.C. at 121 (‘‘[W]here the
government is financially responsible
for construction costs, the purposes of
the Davis-Bacon Act may be
implicated.’’). If the Davis-Bacon Act
were only applied in situations where
the Federal government is involved in
the construction of the entire (or even
the majority of the) building or work,
coverage of contracts would be
dependent on the size of the building or
work, even if two otherwise equivalent
contracts involved the same square
footage and the government was paying
for the same amount of construction.
Such an application of coverage would
undermine the statute’s remedial
purpose by permitting publicly funded
construction contracts for millions of
dollars of construction activity to evade
coverage merely based on the size of the
overall structure or building.
Accordingly, and as noted above, the
Department proposes revisions to the
definitions of ‘‘building or work’’ and
‘‘public building or public work’’ that
serve to clarify rather than change
existing coverage requirements.
However, the Department understands
that in the absence of such clarity under
the existing regulations, contracting
agencies have differed in their
implementation of Davis-Bacon labor
standards where construction activity
involves only a portion of a building,
structure, or improvement, particularly
in the context of lease-construction
contracts. Thus, as a practical matter,
the proposed revisions will result in
broader application of Davis-Bacon
labor standards. The Department
therefore invites comment on the
benefits and costs of these proposed
revisions to private business owners,
workers, and the Federal government,
particularly in the context of leasing.
(C) Construction, Prosecution,
Completion, or Repair
The Department also proposes to add
a new sub-definition to the term
‘‘construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair’’ in § 5.2, to better clarify when
demolition and similar activities are
covered by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards.
In general, the Davis-Bacon labor
standards apply to contracts ‘‘for
construction, alteration or repair . . . of
public buildings and public works[.]’’
40 U.S.C. 3142(a). Early in the DBA’s
history, the Attorney General examined
whether demolition fit within these
terms, and concluded that ‘‘[t]he statute
is restricted by its terms to
‘construction, alteration, and/or
repair,’ ’’ and that this language ‘‘does
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
not include the demolition of existing
structures’’ alone. 38 Op. Atty. Gen. 229
(1935). The Attorney General
‘‘reserve[d] . . . the question . . . of
[the coverage of] a razing or clearing
operation provided for in a building
contract, to be performed by the
contractor as an incident of the building
project.’’ Id. Consistent with the
Attorney General’s opinion, the
Department has long maintained that
standalone demolition work is generally
not covered by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards. See AAM 190 (Aug. 29,
1998); WHD Opinion Letter SCA–78
(Nov. 27, 1991); WHD Opinion Letter
DBRA–40 (Jan. 24, 1986); WHD Opinion
Letter DBRA–48 (Apr. 13, 1973); AAM
54 (July 29, 1963); FOH 15d03(a).
However, the Department has
understood the Davis-Bacon labor
standards to cover demolition and
removal under certain circumstances.
First, demolition and removal activities
are covered by Davis-Bacon labor
standards when such activities
themselves constitute construction,
alteration, or repair of a public building
or work. Thus, for example, the
Department has explained that removal
of asbestos or paint from a facility that
will not be demolished—even if
subsequent reinsulating or repainting is
not considered—is covered by DavisBacon because the asbestos or paint
removal is an ‘‘alteration’’ of the facility.
See AAM 153 (Aug. 6, 1990). Likewise,
the Department has explained that
Davis-Bacon can apply to certain
hazardous waste removal contracts,
because ‘‘substantial excavation of
contaminated soils followed by
restoration of the environment’’ is
‘‘construction work’’ under the DBA and
because the term ‘‘landscaping’’ as used
in the DBA regulations includes
‘‘elaborate landscaping activities such as
substantial earth moving and the
rearrangement or reclamation of the
terrain that, standing alone, are properly
characterized as the construction,
restoration, or repair of the a public
work.’’ AAM 155 (Mar. 25, 1991); see
also AAM 190 (noting that ‘‘hazardous
waste removal contracts that involve
substantial earth moving to remove
contaminated soil and recontour the
surface’’ can be considered DBAcovered construction activities)
Second, the Department has
consistently maintained that if future
construction that will be subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards is
contemplated on a demolition site—
either because the demolition is part of
a contract for such construction or
because such construction is
contemplated as part of a future
contract, then the demolition of the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
previously-existing structure is
considered part of the construction of
the subsequent building or work and
therefore within the scope of the DavisBacon labor standards. See AAM 190.
This position is also articulated in the
Department’s SCA regulations at 29 CFR
4.116(b). Likewise, the Department has
explained that certain activities under
hazardous waste removal and
remediation contracts, including ‘‘the
dismantling or demolition of buildings,
ground improvements and other real
property structures and . . . the
removal of such structures or portions of
them’’ are covered by Davis-Bacon labor
standards ‘‘if this work will result in the
construction, alteration, or repair of a
public building or public work at that
location.’’ AAM 187 (Nov. 18, 1996),
attachment: Superfund Guidance, Davis
Bacon Act/Service Contract Act and
Related Bonding, Jan. 1992) (emphasis
in original).
While the Department has addressed
these distinctions to a degree in the SCA
regulations and in subregulatory
guidance, the Department believes that
clear standards for the coverage of
demolition and removal and related
activities in the DBA regulations will
assist agencies, contractors, workers,
and other stakeholders in identifying
whether contracts for demolition are
within the scope of the DBA. This, in
turn, would ensure that the correct
contract provisions and wage
determinations are incorporated into the
contract, thereby providing contractors
with the correct wage determinations
prior to bidding and requiring the
payment of Davis-Bacon prevailing
wages where appropriate.76
Accordingly, the Department proposes
to add a new paragraph (2)(v) to the
definition of ‘‘construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair’’ to assist agencies,
contractors, workers, and other
stakeholders in identifying when
demolition and related activities fall
within the scope of the DBA.
Specifically, the Department proposes
to clarify that demolition work is
covered under any of three
circumstances: (1) Where the demolition
and/or removal activities themselves
constitute construction, alteration, and/
or repair of an existing public building
or work; (2) where subsequent
76 The Department notes that under Federal
contracts and subcontracts, demolition contracts
that do not fall within the DBA’s scope are instead
service contracts covered by the SCA, and the
Department uses DBA prevailing wage rates as a
basis for the SCA wage determination. See AAM
190. However, federally-funded demolition work
carried out by State or local governments that does
not meet the criteria for coverage under a DavisBacon Related Act would generally not be subject
to Federal prevailing wage protections.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
construction covered in whole or in part
by the Davis-Bacon labor standards is
planned or contemplated at the site of
the demolition or removal, either as part
of the same contract or as part of a
future contract; or (3) where otherwise
required by statute.77
While determining whether
demolition is performed in
contemplation of a future construction
project is a fact-specific question, the
Department also proposes a nonexclusive list of factors that can inform
this determination. Although the
inclusion of demolition activities in the
scope of a contract for the subsequent
construction of a public building or
work is sufficient to warrant DavisBacon coverage, such a condition is not
a necessary one. Other factors that may
be relevant include the existence of
engineering or architectural plans or
surveys; the allocation of, or an
application for, Federal funds; contract
negotiations or bid solicitations; the
stated intent of the relevant government
officials; the disposition of the site after
demolition (e.g., whether it is to be
sealed and abandoned or left in a State
that is prepared for future construction);
and other factors. Based on these
guidelines, Davis-Bacon coverage may
apply, for example, to the removal and
disposal of contaminated soil in
preparation for construction of a
building, or the demolition of a parking
lot to prepare the site for a future public
park. In contrast, Davis-Bacon likely
would not apply to the demolition of an
abandoned, dilapidated, or condemned
building to eliminate it as a public
hazard, reduce likelihood of squatters or
trespassers, or to make the land more
desirable for sale to private parties for
purely private construction.
(D) Contract, Contractor, Prime
Contractor, and Subcontractor
The Department proposes nonsubstantive revisions to the definition of
‘‘contract’’ and also proposes new
definitions in § 5.2 for the terms
‘‘contractor,’’ ‘‘subcontractor’’ and
‘‘prime contractor.’’ These definitions
apply to 29 CFR part 5, including the
DBRA contract clauses in § 5.5(a) and
(b) of this part.
Neither the DBA nor CWHSSA
defines the terms ‘‘contract,’’
‘‘contractor,’’ ‘‘prime contractor,’’ or
‘‘subcontractor.’’ The language of the
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, however,
makes it clear that Congress intended
the prevailing wage and overtime
requirements to apply broadly to both
77 This third option accounts for Related Acts
whose broader language may permit greater
coverage of demolition work.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
prime contracts executed directly with
Federal agencies as well as any
subcontracts through which the prime
contractors carry out the work on the
prime contract. See 40 U.S.C. 3142(c);
40 U.S.C. 3702(b), (d). Thus, the
Department’s existing regulations define
the term ‘‘contract’’ as including ‘‘any
prime contract . . . and any subcontract
of any tier thereunder.’’ 29 CFR 5.2(h).
As indicated by the reference in the
existing regulations to the laws listed in
§ 5.1, the term also may include the
contracts between Federal, State or local
government entities administering
Federal assistance and the direct
recipients or beneficiaries of that
assistance, where such assistance is
covered by one of the Related Acts—as
well as the construction contracts and
subcontracts of any tier financed by or
facilitated by such a contract for
assistance.
In other Federal contractor labor
standards regulations, the Department
has sometimes included more detailed
definitions of a ‘‘contract.’’ In the
regulations implementing Executive
Order 13658 (Establishing a Minimum
Wage for Contractors), for example, the
Department defined contract as ‘‘an
agreement between two or more parties
creating obligations that are enforceable
or otherwise recognizable at law’’ and
listed many types of specific
instruments that fall within that
definition. 29 CFR 10.2. The
Department’s SCA regulations, while
containing a definition of ‘‘contract’’
that is similar to the current DavisBacon regulatory definition at 29 CFR
5.2(h), separately specify that ‘‘the
nomenclature, type, or particular form
of contract used . . . is not
determinative of coverage’’ at 29 CFR
4.111(a).
The term ‘‘contract’’ in the DavisBacon and Related Acts has been
interpreted in a similarly broad manner.
See, e.g., Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep’t,
AFL–CIO v. Turnage, 705 F. Supp. 5, 6
(D.D.C. 1988) (‘‘The Court finds that it
is reasonable to conclude, as the WAB
has done, that the nature of the contract
is not controlling so long as
construction work is part of it.’’).
Similarly, in its 1994 memorandum, the
OLC cited the basic common-law
understanding of the term to explain
that, for the purposes of the DBA,
‘‘[t]here can be no question that a lease
is a contract, obliging each party to take
certain actions.’’ 1994 OLC
Memorandum, 18 Op. O.L.C. at 113 n.3
(citing Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on
Contracts sections 1.2–1.3 (rev. ed.,
Joseph M. Perillo, ed., 1993)). The
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts thus have
been routinely applied to various types
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15727
of agreements that meet the commonlaw definition of a ‘‘contract’’—such as,
for example, leases, utility privatization
agreements, individual job orders or
task letters issued under basic ordering
agreements, and loans or agreements in
which the only consideration from the
agency is a loan guarantee—as long as
the other elements of DBRA coverage
are satisfied.
However, the Department considers
that it may not be necessary to include
in the regulatory text itself a similarly
detailed recitation of types of
agreements that may be considered to be
contracts, because such a list necessarily
follows from the use of the term
‘‘contract’’ in the statute and the
Department is not aware of any
argument to the contrary. The
Department thus seeks comment on
whether a more detailed definition of
the term ‘‘contract’’ is warranted,
including whether aspects of the
definition at 29 CFR 10.2 or the SCA
regulations should or should not be
included in the regulatory definition of
contract at § 5.2.
The Department also seeks comment
on whether it is necessary to explicitly
promulgate in the definition of
‘‘contract’’ in § 5.2, or elsewhere in the
regulations, an explanation regarding
contracts that may be found to be void.
The Department intends the use of the
term in the regulations to apply also to
any agreement in which the parties
intended for a contract to be formed,
even if (as a matter of the common law)
the contract may later be considered to
be void ab initio or otherwise fail to
satisfy the elements of the traditional
definition of a contract. Such usage
follows from the statutory requirement
that the relevant labor standards clauses
must be included not just in ‘‘contracts’’
but also in the advertised specifications
that may (or may not) become a covered
contract. See 40 U.S.C. 3142(a).
In addition to the term ‘‘contract,’’ the
existing DBRA regulations use the terms
‘‘contractor,’’ ‘‘subcontractor,’’ and
‘‘prime contractor,’’ but do not currently
define the latter three terms. The
Department proposes to include a
definition of the term ‘‘contractor’’ to
clarify that, where used in the
regulations, it applies to both prime
contractors and subcontractors. In
addition, the definition would clarify
that sureties may also—under
appropriate circumstances—be
considered ‘‘contractors’’ under the
regulations. This is consistent with the
Department’s longstanding
interpretation. See Liberty Mutual Ins.,
ARB No. 00–018, 2003 WL 21499861 at
*6 (June 30, 2003) (finding that the term
‘‘contractor’’ included sureties
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15728
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
completing a contract pursuant to a
performance bond). As the ARB
explained in the Liberty Mutual case,
the term ‘‘contractor’’ in the DBA
should be interpreted broadly in light of
Congress’s ‘‘overarching . . . concern’’
in the 1935 amendments to the Act that
the new withholding authority included
in those amendments would ensure
workers received the pay they were due.
Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 1155, at 3 (1935)).
As discussed below, the proposed
definition of contractor also reflects the
long-held interpretation that bona fide
‘‘material suppliers’’ are generally not
considered to be contractors under the
DBRA, subject to certain exceptions.
The Department also proposes a
nonsubstantive change to move, with
minor nonsubstantive edits, two
sentences from the existing definition of
‘‘contract’’ to the new definition of
‘‘contractor.’’ These sentences clarify
that State and local governments are not
regarded as contractors or
subcontractors under the Related Acts
in situations where construction is
performed by their own employees, but
that under statutes that require payment
of Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to all
laborers and mechanics employed in the
assisted project or in the project’s
development, State and local recipients
of Federal aid must pay these employees
according to Davis-Bacon labor
standards. In addition, the Department
proposes to supplement that language to
explain (as the Department has similarly
clarified in the SCA regulations) that the
U.S. Government, its agencies, and
instrumentalities are also not
contractors or subcontractors for the
purposes of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts. Cf. 29 CFR 4.1a(f).
The Department proposes to add a
definition for the term ‘‘prime
contractor’’ as it is used in part 5 of the
regulations. Consistent with the ARB’s
decision in Liberty Mutual, discussed
above, the Department proposes a broad
definition of prime contractor that
prioritizes the appropriate allocation of
responsibility for contract compliance
and enhances the effectiveness of the
withholding remedy. The proposed
definition clarifies that the label an
entity gives itself is not controlling, and
an entity is considered to be a ‘‘prime
contractor’’ based on its contractual
relationship with the Government, its
control over the entity holding the
prime contract, or the duties it has been
delegated.
The definition begins by identifying
as a prime contractor any person or
entity that enters into a covered contract
with an agency. This includes, under
appropriate circumstances, entities that
may not be understood in lay terms to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
be ‘‘construction contractors.’’ For
example, where a non-profit
organization, owner/developer,
borrower or recipient, project manager,
or single-purpose entity contracts with a
State or local government agency for
covered financing or assistance with the
construction of housing—and the other
required elements of the relevant statute
are satisfied—that owner/developer or
recipient entity is considered to be the
‘‘prime contractor’’ under the
regulations. This is so even if the entity
does not consider itself to be a
‘‘construction contractor’’ and itself
does not employ laborers and
mechanics and instead subcontracts
with a general contractor to complete
the construction. See, e.g., Phoenix Dev.
Co., WAB No. 90–09, 1991 WL 494725,
at *1 (Mar. 29, 1991) (‘‘It is well settled
that prime contractors (‘ownersdevelopers’ under the HUD contract at
hand) are responsible for the DavisBacon compliance of their
subcontractors.’’); Werzalit of Am., Inc.,
WAB No. 85–19, 1986 WL 193106, at *3
(Apr. 7, 1986) (rejecting petitioner’s
argument that it was a loan ‘‘recipient’’
standing in the shoes of a State or local
government and not a prime
‘‘contractor’’).
The proposed definition also includes
as a ‘‘prime contractor’’ the controlling
shareholder or member of any entity
holding a prime contract, the joint
venturers or partners in any joint
venture or partnership holding a prime
contract, any contractor (e.g., a general
contractor) that has been delegated all or
substantially all of the responsibilities
for overseeing and/or performing the
construction anticipated by the prime
contract, and any other person or entity
that has been delegated all or
substantially all of the responsibility for
overseeing Davis-Bacon labor standards
compliance on a prime contract. Under
this definition, more than one entity on
a contract—for example, both the
owner/developer and the general
contractor—may be considered to be
‘‘prime contractors’’ on the same
contract. Accordingly, the proposal also
explains that any two of these
nominally different legal entities are
considered to be the ‘‘same prime
contractor’’ for the purposes of crosswithholding.
Although the Department has not
previously included a definition of
prime contractor in the implementing
regulations, the proposed definition is
consistent with the Department’s prior
enforcement of the DBRA. In
appropriate circumstances, for example,
the Department has considered a general
contractor to be a ‘‘prime contractor’’
that is therefore responsible for the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
violations of its subcontractors under
the regulations—even where that
general contractor does not directly hold
the contract with the Government (or is
not the direct recipient of Federal
assistance), but instead has been hired
by the private developer that holds the
overall construction contract. See
Palisades Urb. Renewal Enters. LLP.,
OALJ No. 2006–DBA–00001 (Aug. 3,
2007), at 16, aff’d, ARB No. 07–124,
(July 30, 2009); Milnor Constr. Corp.,
WAB No. 91–21, 1991 WL 494763, at
*1, 3 (Sept. 12, 1991); cf. Vulcan Arbor
Hill Corp. v. Reich, 81 F.3d 1110, 1116
(D.C. Cir. 1996) (referencing agreement
by developer that ‘‘its prime’’ contractor
would comply with Davis-Bacon
standards). Likewise, where a joint
venture holds the contract with the
government, the Department has
characterized the actions of the parties
to that joint venture as the actions of
‘‘prime contractors.’’ See Big Six, Inc.,
WAB No. 75–03, 1975 WL 22569, at *2
(July 21, 1975).
The proposed definition of prime
contractor is also similar to, although
somewhat narrower than, the broad
definition of the term ‘‘contractor’’ in
the FAR part 9 regulations that govern
suspension and debarment across a
broad swath of Federal procurement
contracts. In that context, where the
Federal Government seeks to protect its
interest in effectively and efficiently
completing procurement contracts, the
FAR Council has adopted an expansive
definition of contractor that includes
affiliates or principals that functionally
control the prime contract with the
government. See 48 CFR 9.403. Under
that definition, ‘‘Contractor’’ means any
individual or entity that ‘‘[d]irectly or
indirectly (e.g., through an affiliate)’’ is
awarded a Government contract or
‘‘[c]onducts business . . . with the
Government as an agent or
representative of another contractor.’’
Id.78 The Department has a similar
interest here in protecting against the
use of the corporate form to avoid
78 The definition section in 48 CFR 9.403
specifies that it applies only ‘‘as used in this
subpart’’—referring to subpart 9.4 of the FAR. It
thus applies only to the general suspension and
debarment provisions of the FAR and thus does not
apply to the regulations within the FAR that
implement the Davis-Bacon labor standards, which
are located in FAR part 22 and the contract clauses
FAR part 52. The DBRA-specific provisions of the
FAR are based on the Department’s regulations in
parts 1, 3, and 5 of subtitle 29 of the CFR, which
are the subject of this NPRM. Thus, the Department
expects that, after this rule is final, the FAR Council
will consider how to amend FAR part 22 and the
FAR contract clauses to appropriately incorporate
the new and amended definitions that are adopted
in the Department’s final rule. The Department does
not anticipate that this rulemaking would affect
FAR subpart 9.4.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
responsibility for the Davis-Bacon labor
standards.
The Department seeks comment on
the proposed definition of ‘‘prime
contractor,’’ in particular as it affects the
withholding contract clauses at
§ 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3), the prime
contractor responsibility provisions at
§ 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4), and the proposed
provisions in § 5.9 regarding the
authority and responsibility of
contracting agencies for satisfying
requests for cross-withholding.
Finally, the Department proposes a
new definition of the term
‘‘subcontractor.’’ The proposed
definition would affirmatively state that
a ‘‘subcontractor’’ is ‘‘any contractor
that agrees to perform or be responsible
for the performance of any part of a
contract that is subject wholly or in part
to the labor standards provisions of any
of the laws referenced in § 5.1.’’ Like the
current definition of ‘‘contract,’’ the
proposed definition of ‘‘subcontractor’’
also reflects that the Act covers
subcontracts of any tier—and thus the
proposed definition of ‘‘subcontractor’’
would state that the term includes
subcontractors of any tier. See 40 U.S.C.
3412; Castro v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of
Md., 39 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6–7 (D.D.C.
2014). The proposed definition for
‘‘subcontractor’’ necessarily excludes
material suppliers (except for narrow
exceptions), because such material
suppliers are excluded from the
definition of ‘‘contractor,’’ as proposed,
and that definition applies to both
prime contractors and subcontractors.
Finally, the proposed definition of
‘‘subcontractor’’ also clarifies that the
term does not include laborers or
mechanics for whom a prevailing wage
must be paid. As discussed below, and
as Congress expressly indicated, the
requirement to pay a prevailing wage to
ordinary laborers and mechanics cannot
be evaded by characterizing such
workers as ‘‘owner operators’’ or
‘‘subcontractors.’’ See 40 U.S.C.
3142(c)(1) (requiring payment of
prevailing wage ‘‘regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be
alleged to exist between the contractor
or subcontractor and the laborers and
mechanics’’).
(E) Apprentice and Helper
The Department proposes to amend
the current regulatory definition in
§ 5.2(n) of ‘‘apprentice, trainee, and
helper’’ to remove references to trainees.
A trainee is currently defined as a
person registered and receiving on-thejob training in a construction
occupation under a program approved
and certified in advance by ETA as
meeting its standards for on-the-job
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
training programs, but ETA no longer
reviews or approves on-the-job training
programs so this definition is
unnecessary. See section III.B.3.iii.(C)
(‘‘29 CFR 5.5(a)(4) Apprentices.’’). The
Department also proposes to modify the
definition of ‘‘apprentice and helper’’ to
reflect the current name of the office
designated by the Secretary of Labor,
within the Department, to register
apprenticeship programs.
(F) Laborer or Mechanic
The Department proposes to amend
the regulatory definition of ‘‘laborer or
mechanic’’ to remove the reference to
trainees and to replace the term
‘‘foremen’’ with the gender-neutral term
‘‘working supervisors.’’ 79 The
Department does not propose any
additional substantive changes to this
definition.
However, because the Department
frequently receives questions pertaining
to the application of the definition of
‘‘laborer or mechanic’’—and thus the
application the Davis-Bacon labor
standards—to members of survey crews,
the Department provides the following
information to clarify when survey crew
members are laborers or mechanics
under the existing definition of that
term.
The Department has historically
recognized that members of survey
crews who perform primarily physical
and/or manual work on a DBA or
Related Acts covered project on the site
of the work immediately prior to or
during construction in direct support of
construction crews may be laborers or
mechanics subject to the Davis-Bacon
labor standards.80 Whether or not a
specific survey crew member is covered
by these standards is a question or fact,
which takes into account the actual
duties performed and whether these
duties are ‘‘manual or physical in
nature’’ including the ‘‘use of tools or
. . . work of a trade.’’ When considering
whether a survey crew member
performs primarily physical and/or
manual duties, it is appropriate to
consider the relative importance of the
worker’s different duties, including (but
not solely) the time spent performing
these duties. Thus, survey crew
members who spend most of their time
on a covered project taking or assisting
79 The proposal addressing trainees is discussed
in greater detail below in section III.B.3.iii.(C) (‘‘29
CFR 5.5(a)(4) Apprentices.’’).
80 See, e.g., AAM 212 (Mar. 22, 2013). While
AAM 212 was rescinded to allow the Department
to seek a broader appreciation of the coverage issue
it addressed and due to its incomplete
implementation, see AAM 235 (Dec. 14, 2020), its
rescission did not change the applicable standard,
which is the definition of ‘‘laborer or mechanic’’ as
currently set forth in 29 CFR 5.2(m).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15729
in taking measurements would likely be
deemed laborers or mechanics
(provided that they do not meet the tests
for exemption as professional,
executive, or administrative employees
under part 541). If their work meets
other required criteria (i.e., it is
performed on the site of the work,
where required, and immediately prior
to or during construction in direct
support of construction crews), it would
be covered by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards.
The Department seeks comment on
issues relevant to the application of the
current definition to survey crew
members, especially the range of duties
performed by, and training required of,
survey crew members who perform
work on construction projects and
whether the range of duties or required
training varies for different roles within
a survey crew based on the licensure
status of the crew members, or for
different types of construction projects.
(G) Site of the Work and Related
Provisions
The Department proposes the
following revisions related to the
DBRA’s ‘‘site of the work’’ requirement:
(1) Revising the definition of ‘‘site of the
work’’ to further encompass certain
construction of significant portions of a
building or work at secondary
worksites, (2) clarifying the application
of the ‘‘site of the work’’ principle to
flaggers, (3) revising the regulations to
better delineate and clarify the ‘‘material
supplier’’ exemption, and (4) revising
the regulations to set clear standards for
DBA coverage of truck drivers.
(1) Current Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions Related to Site of the Work
a. Site of the Work
The DBA and Related Acts generally
apply to ‘‘mechanics and laborers
employed directly on the site of the
work’’ by ‘‘contractor[s]’’ and
‘‘subcontractor[s]’’ on contracts for
‘‘construction, alteration, or repair,
including painting and decorating, of
[covered] public buildings and public
works.’’ 40 U.S.C. 3142(a), (c)(1). The
Department’s current regulations define
‘‘site of the work’’ as including ‘‘the
physical place or places where the
building or work called for in the
contract will remain’’ and ‘‘any other
site where a significant portion of the
building or work is constructed,
provided that such site is established
specifically for the performance of the
contract or project.’’ 29 CFR 5.2(l)(1).
They further provide that in general,
‘‘job headquarters, tool yards, batch
plants, borrow pits, etc.’’ are part of the
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15730
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
‘‘site of the work’’ if they are ‘‘dedicated
exclusively, or nearly so, to performance
of the covered contract or project’’ and
also are ‘‘adjacent or virtually adjacent
to the site of the work’’ itself. 29 CFR
5.2(l)(2).
The ‘‘site of the work’’ requirement
does not apply to Related Acts that
extend Davis-Bacon coverage to all
laborers and mechanics employed in the
‘‘development’’ of a project; such
statutes include the United States
Housing Act of 1937; the Housing Act
of 1949; and the Native American
Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996. See
§ 5.2(j)(1); 42 U.S.C. 1437j(a); 25 U.S.C.
4114(b)(1), 4225(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C.
12836(a). As the Department has
previously noted, ‘‘the language and/or
clear legislative history’’ of these
statutes ‘‘reflected clear congressional
intent that a different coverage standard
be applied.’’ 65 FR 80267 at 80275; see,
e.g., L.T.G. Constr. Co., WAB Case No.
93–15, 1994 WL 764105, at *4 (Dec. 30,
1994) (noting that ‘‘the Housing Act [of
1937] contains no ‘site of work’
limitation similar to that found in the
Davis-Bacon Act’’).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
b. Off-Site Transportation
The ‘‘site of the work’’ requirement is
also referenced in the current
regulation’s definition of ‘‘construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair,’’
which provides that ‘‘the transportation
of materials or supplies to or from the
site of the work’’ is not covered by the
DBRA, except for such transportation
under the statutes to which the ‘‘site of
the work’’ requirement does not apply.
29 CFR 5.2(j)(2). However,
transportation to or from the site of the
work is covered by the DBRA where a
covered laborer or mechanic (1)
transports materials between an
‘‘adjacent or virtually adjacent’’
dedicated support site that is part of the
site of the work pursuant to 29 CFR
5.2(l)(2), or (2) transports portions of the
building or work between a site where
a significant portion of the building or
work is constructed and that is
established specifically for contract or
job performance, which is part of the
site of the work pursuant to 29 CFR
5.2(l)(1), and the physical place or
places where the building or work will
remain.81
c. Material Supplier Exception
While not explicitly set out in the
statute, the DBA has long been
understood to exclude from coverage
81 For more detail on this topic, see the section
titled ‘‘Coverage of Construction Work at Secondary
Construction Sites.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
employees of bona fide ‘‘material
suppliers’’ or ‘‘materialmen’’ whose sole
responsibility is to provide materials
(such as sand, gravel, and ready-mixed
concrete) to a project if they also supply
those materials to the general public,
and the plant manufacturing the
materials is not established specifically
for a particular contract or located at the
site of the work. See AAM 45 (Nov. 9,
1962) (enclosing WHD Opinion Letter
DB–30 (Oct. 15, 1962)); AAM 36 (Mar.
16, 1952) (enclosing WHD Opinion
Letter DB–22 (Mar. 12, 1962)); H.B.
Zachry Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d
352, 359 (Ct. Cl. 1965); FOH 15e16. This
principle has generally been understood
to derive from the limitation of the
DBA’s statutory coverage to
‘‘contractor[s]’’ and ‘‘subcontractor[s].’’
See AAM 36, WHD Opinion Letter DB–
22, at 2 (discussing ‘‘the application of
the term subcontractor, as distinguished
from materialman or submaterialman’’);
cf. MacEvoy v. United States, 322 U.S.
102 (1944) (distinguishing a
‘‘subcontractor’’ from ‘‘ordinary laborers
and materialmen’’ under the Miller Act);
FOH 15e16 (‘‘[B]ona fide material
suppliers are not considered contractors
under DBRA.’’). As the Department has
explained, this exception applies to
employees of companies ‘‘whose only
contractual obligations for on-site work
are to deliver materials and/or pick up
materials.’’ PWRB, DBA/DBRA
Compliance Principles at 7 (emphasis
added).
Like the ‘‘site of the work’’ restriction,
the material supplier exception does not
apply to work under statutes that extend
Davis-Bacon coverage to all laborers and
mechanics employed in the
‘‘development’’ of a project, regardless
of whether they are employed by
‘‘contractors’’ or ‘‘subcontractors.’’ See
existing regulation 29 CFR 5.2(j)(1)
(defining ‘‘construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair’’ as including
‘‘[a]ll types of work done on a particular
building or work at the site thereof . . .
by laborers and mechanics employed by
a construction contractor or
construction subcontractor (or, under
the United States Housing Act of 1937;
the Housing Act of 1949; and the Native
American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, all work
done in the construction or
development of the project)’’); existing
regulation 29 CFR 5.2(i) (‘‘The
manufacture or furnishing of materials,
articles, supplies or equipment . . . is
not a building or work within the
meaning of the regulations in this part
unless conducted in connection with
and at the site of such a building or
work as is described in the foregoing
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sentence, or under the United States
Housing Act of 1937 and the Housing
Act of 1949 in the construction or
development of the project.’’).
d. Relevant Regulatory History and Case
Law
The regulatory provisions discussed
above were shaped by three appellate
court decisions between 1992 and 2000.
The language in § 5.2(l) that deems
dedicated sites such as batch plants and
borrow pits part of the site of the work
only if they are ‘‘adjacent or virtually
adjacent’’ to the construction site was
adopted in 2000 in response to Ball, Ball
& Brosamer, Inc. v. Reich, 24 F. 3d 1447
(D.C. Cir. 1994) and L.P. Cavett
Company v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 101
F.3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1996), which
concluded that batch plants located
only a few miles from the construction
site (2 miles in Ball, 3 miles in L.P.
Cavett) were not part of the ‘‘site of the
work.’’ See 65 FR 80268 (‘‘2000 final
rule’’).82 The ‘‘adjacent or virtually
adjacent’’ requirement in the current
regulatory text is one that the courts in
Ball and L.P. Cavett suggested would be
permissible. Similarly, the provision in
§ 5.2(j)(2) that excludes, with narrow
exceptions, ‘‘the transportation of
materials or supplies to or from the site
of the work’’ from coverage stems from
a 1992 interim final rule, see 57 FR
19204 (May 4, 1992) (‘‘1992 IFR’’), that
implemented Building & Construction
Trades Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. U.S. Dep’t of
Labor Wage Appeals Bd. (Midway), in
which the D.C. Circuit held that drivers
of a prime contractor’s subsidiary who
picked up supplies and transported
them to the job site were not covered by
the DBA because ‘‘the Act applies only
to employees working directly on the
physical site of the public building or
public work under construction.’’ 932
F.2d 985, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1991).83
(2) Proposed Regulatory Revisions
The Department proposes the
following regulatory changes related to
the ‘‘site of the work’’ requirement: (1)
Revising the definition of ‘‘site of the
work’’ to further encompass certain
construction of significant portions of a
82 Prior to 2000, the Department had interpreted
‘‘site of the work’’ more broadly to include, in
addition to the site where the work or building
would remain, ‘‘adjacent or nearby property used
by the contractor or subcontractor in such
construction which can reasonably be said to be
included in the ‘site.’ ’’ 29 CFR 5.2(l) (1990); see 65
FR 80268, 80269 (Dec. 20, 2000); AAM 86 (Feb. 11,
1970).
83 Prior to 1992, the Department had interpreted
the DBA as covering the transportation of materials
and supplies to or from the site of the work by
workers employed by a contractor or subcontractor.
See 29 CFR 5.2(j) (1990).
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
building or work at secondary
worksites, (2) clarifying the application
of the ‘‘site of the work’’ principle to
flaggers, (3) revising the regulations to
better delineate and clarify the ‘‘material
supplier’’ exemption, and (4) revising
the regulations to set clear standards for
DBA coverage of truck drivers. Each
proposal is explained in turn.
a. Coverage of Construction Work at
Secondary Construction Sites
In the 2000 final rule, the Department
amended the definition of ‘‘site of the
work’’ to include a site away from the
location where the building or work will
remain, where the site is established
specifically for the performance of the
contract or project and a ‘‘significant
portion’’ of a building or work is
constructed at the site. 29 CFR 5.2(l)(1).
The Department explained that this
change was intended to respond to
technological developments that had
enabled companies in some cases to
construct entire portions of public
buildings or works off-site, leaving only
assembly or placement of the building
or work remaining. See 65 FR 80273
(describing ‘‘the innovative construction
techniques developed and currently in
use, which allow significant portions of
public buildings and public works to be
constructed at locations other than the
final resting place of the building or
work’’). The Department cited examples,
including a dam project where ‘‘two
massive floating structures, each about
the length of a football field’’ were
constructed upriver and then floated
downriver and submerged, the
construction and assembly of military
housing units in Portland for final
placement in Alaska, and the
construction of modular units to be
assembled into a mobile service tower
for Titan missiles. See id. (citing ATCO
Construction, Inc., WAB No. 86–1 (Aug.
22, 1986), and Titan IV Mobile Serv.
Tower, WAB No. 89–14 (May 10, 1991)).
The Department stressed that this new
provision would apply only at a
location where ‘‘such a large amount of
construction is taking place that it is fair
and reasonable to view such location as
a site where the public building or work
is being constructed,’’ and reaffirmed its
longstanding position that ‘‘[o]rdinary
commercial fabrication plants, such as
plants that manufacture prefabricated
housing components,’’ are not part of
the site of the work. 65 FR at 80274; see,
e.g., AAM 86 (Feb. 11, 1970) at 1–2
(explaining that the site of the work
does not include a contractor’s
permanent ‘‘fabrication plant[s] . . .
whose locations and continuance are
governed by his general business
operations . . . even though mechanics
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
and laborers working at such an
establishment may . . . make doors,
windows, frames, or forms’’). It
accordingly described this expansion of
coverage as a narrow one. See 65 FR at
80276 (‘‘[T]he Department believes that
the instances where substantial amounts
of construction are performed at one
location and then transported to another
location for final installation are rare.’’).
Consistent with this amendment, the
Department also revised § 5.2(j) to cover
transportation of portion(s) of the
building or work between such a site
and the location where the building or
work would remain.
Since 2000, technological
developments have continued to
facilitate off-site construction that
replaces on-site construction to an even
greater degree, and the Department
expects such trends to continue in the
future. For example, one recent industry
analysis notes that both design firms
and contractors ‘‘are forecasting
expanded use of both [prefabrication
and modular construction] over the
coming years as the benefits are more
widely measured, owners become
increasingly comfortable with the
process and the outcomes, and the
industry develops more resources to
support innovative applications.’’ Dodge
Data and Analytics, Prefabrication and
Modular Construction 2020 (2020), at
4.84 In the specific context of Federal
government contracting, a GSA
document cites several benefits to ‘‘preengineered’’ or ‘‘modular’’ construction,
including decreased construction time,
cost savings, and fewer environmental
and safety hazards. GSA, Schedule 56—
Building and Building Materials,
Industrial Service and Supplies, PreEngineered/Prefabricated Buildings
Customer Ordering Guide (GSA
Schedule 56), at 5–7.85
In the 2000 final rule, the Department
explained that ‘‘[i]t [was] the
Department’s intention in [that]
rulemaking to require in the future that
workers who construct significant
portions of a Federal or federally
assisted project at a location other than
where the project will finally remain,
will receive prevailing wages as
Congress intended when it enacted the
Davis-Bacon and related Acts.’’ 65 FR at
80274. However, by limiting such
coverage to facilities that are established
specifically for the performance of a
particular contract or project, the
current regulation falls short of its stated
goal. The Department stated at the time
84 https://modular.org/documents/public/
PrefabModularSmartMarketReport2020.pdf.
85 https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/SCHEDULE_56_
-_ORDERING_GUIDE.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15731
that this limit was necessary to exclude
‘‘[o]rdinary commercial fabrication
plants, such as plants that manufacture
prefabricated housing components.’’ 65
FR at 80274. However, such an
exclusion can be more effectively
accomplished with language that
expands on the term ‘‘significant
portion.’’
The Department accordingly proposes
to revise Davis-Bacon coverage of offsite construction of ‘‘significant
portions’’ of a building or work so that
such coverage is not limited to facilities
established specifically for the
performance of a contract or project.
Rather, the Department proposes to
amend the definition of ‘‘site of the
work’’ to include off-site construction
where the ‘‘significant portions’’ are
constructed for specific use in a
designated building or work, rather than
simply reflecting products that the
contractor or subcontractor makes
available to the general public. The
Department also proposes to explain the
term ‘‘significant portions’’ to ensure
that this expansion does not result in
the coverage of activities that have long
been understood to be outside the
DBA’s scope.
Specifically, the Department proposes
to explain that ‘‘significant portion’’
means that entire portions or modules of
the building or work, as opposed to
smaller prefabricated components, are
delivered to the place where the
building or work will remain, with
minimal construction work remaining
other than the installation and/or
assembly of the portions or modules. As
the Midway court observed, the 1932
House debate on the DBA demonstrates
that its drafters understood that off-site
prefabrication sites would generally not
beconsidered part of the site of the
work. See Midway, 932 F.2d at 991 n.12.
As in 2000, the Department does not
propose to alter this well-established
principle. Such prefabrication, however,
is distinguishable from modern methods
of ‘‘pre-engineering’’ or ‘‘modular’’
construction, in which significant
portions of a building or work are
constructed and then simply assembled
onsite ‘‘similar to a child’s building
block kit.’’ GSA Schedule 56 at 5.86
Under the latter circumstances, as the
Department noted in 2000, ‘‘such a large
amount of construction is taking place
[at an offsite location] that it is fair and
reasonable to view such location as a
site where the public building or work
is being constructed.’’ 65 FR at 80274;
see also id. at 80272 (stating that ‘‘the
Department views such [secondary
construction] locations as the actual
86 See
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
note 85, supra.
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15732
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
physical site of the public building or
work being constructed’’). In other
words, when ‘‘significant portions’’ of a
building or work that historically would
have been built where the building or
work will ultimately remain are instead
constructed elsewhere, the exclusion
from the DBA of laborers and mechanics
engaged in such construction is
inconsistent with the DBA.
In light of the contractor/material
supplier distinction discussed above,
the Department also proposes to add, as
an additional requirement for coverage
of offsite construction, that the portions
or modules are constructed for specific
use in a designated building or work,
rather than simply reflecting products
that the contractor or subcontractor
makes available to the general public.
When significant portions or modules
are constructed specifically for a
particular building or work and not as
part of the contractor’s regular
manufacturing operations, the company
is not a material supplier but a
contractor or subcontractor. See United
Constr. Co., Inc., WAB No. 82–10, 1983
WL 144675, at *3 (Jan. 14, 1983)
(examining, as part of an inquiry into
whether support activities are on the
‘‘site of the work,’’ ‘‘whether the
activities are sufficiently independent of
the primary project to determine that
the function of the support activities
may be viewed as similar to that of
materialman’’).
For clarity, the Department also
proposes to amend § 5.2 to use the term
‘‘secondary construction sites’’ to
describe such locations, and to use the
term ‘‘primary construction sites’’ to
describe the place where the building or
work will remain. The Department
additionally proposes to use the term
‘‘nearby dedicated support site’’ to
describe locations such as batch plants
that are part of the site of the work
because they are dedicated exclusively,
or nearly so, to the project, and are
adjacent or nearly adjacent to a primary
or secondary construction site.
The Department specifically seeks
public comment on (1) examples of the
types of off-site construction techniques
described above, and the extent to
which they are used in government and
government-funded contracting, and (2)
whether the proposed limits, including
the clarification of ‘‘significant portion,’’
are appropriate.
b. Clarification of Application of ‘‘Site
of the Work’’ Principle to Flaggers
The Department also proposes to
clarify that workers engaged in traffic
control and related activities adjacent or
nearly adjacent to the primary
construction site are working on the site
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
of the work. Often, particularly for
heavy and highway projects, it is
necessary to direct pedestrian or
vehicular traffic around or away from
the primary construction site. Certain
workers of contractors or
subcontractors, typically called
‘‘flaggers’’ or ‘‘traffic directors,’’ may
therefore engage in activities such as
setting up barriers and traffic cones,
using a flag and/or stop sign to control
and direct traffic, and related activities
such as helping heavy equipment move
in and out of construction zones.
Although some flaggers work within the
confines of the primary construction
site, others work outside of that area and
do not enter the construction zone itself.
The Department has previously
explained that flaggers are laborers or
mechanics within the meaning of the
DBA. See AAM 141 (Aug. 16, 1985);
FOH 15e10(a); Superior Paving &
Materials, Inc., ARB No. 99–065 (June
12, 2002). The Department now
proposes to clarify, in the definition of
‘‘nearby dedicated support sites,’’ that
such workers, even if they are not
working precisely on the site where the
building or work would remain, are
working on the site of the work if they
work at a location adjacent or virtually
adjacent to the primary construction
site, such as a few blocks away or a
short distance down a highway.
Although the Department believes that
any adjacent or virtually adjacent
locations at which such work is
performed are included within the
current regulatory ‘‘site of the work’’
definition, given that questions have
arisen regarding this coverage issue, the
Department proposes to make this
principle explicit.
As the Department has previously
noted, such work by flaggers and traffic
operators is integrally related to other
construction work at the worksite and
construction at the site would not be
possible otherwise. See AAM 141; FOH
15e10(a). Additionally, as noted above
and as the ARB has previously
explained, the principle of adjacency or
virtual adjacency in this context is
consistent with the statutory ‘‘site of the
work’’ limitation as interpreted by
courts. See Bechtel Constructors Corp.,
ARB No. 97–149, 1998 WL 168939, at *5
(March 25, 1998) (explaining that ‘‘it is
not uncommon or atypical for
construction work related to a project to
be performed outside the boundaries
defined by the structure that remains
upon completion of the work,’’ such as
where a crane in an urban environment
is positioned adjacent to the future
building site). This proposed change
would therefore be consistent with the
DBA and would eliminate any
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ambiguity regarding these workers’
coverage.
c. Clarification of ‘‘Material Supplier’’
Distinction
Next, the Department proposes to
clarify the distinction between
subcontractors and ‘‘material suppliers’’
and to make explicit that employees of
material suppliers are not covered by
the DBA and most of the Related Acts.
Although, as explained above, this
distinction has existed since the DBA’s
inception, the precise line between
‘‘material supplier’’ and ‘‘subcontractor’’
is not always clear, and is sometimes
the subject of litigation.
The Department proposes to clarify
the scope of the material supplier
exception consistent with case law and
WHD guidance. First, the Department
proposes to add a new definition of
‘‘material supplier’’ to § 5.2, and to
define the term as an employer meeting
three criteria: First, the employer’s only
obligations for work on the contract or
project are the delivery of materials,
articles, supplies, or equipment, which
may include pickup in addition to, but
not exclusive of, delivery; 87 second, the
employer also supplies materials to the
general public; and third, the
employer’s facility manufacturing the
materials, articles, supplies, or
equipment, is neither established
specifically for the contract or project
nor located at the site of the work. See
H.B. Zachry, 344 F.2d at 359; AAM 5
(Dec. 26, 1957); AAM 31 (Dec. 11, 1961);
AAM 36 (Mar. 16, 1962); AAM 45 (Nov.
9, 1962); AAM 53 (July 22, 1963). The
subsection further clarifies that if an
employer, in addition to being engaged
in material supply and pickup, also
engages in other construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair work
at the site of the work, it is not a
material supplier but a subcontractor.
See PWRB, DBA/DBRA Compliance
Principles, at 7–8 (‘‘[I]f a material
supplier, manufacturer, or carrier
undertakes to perform a part of a
construction contract as a subcontractor,
its laborers and mechanics employed at
the site of the work would be subject to
Davis-Bacon labor standards in the same
manner as those employed by any other
87 The Department notes that under this
definition, an employer that contracts only for
pickup of materials from the site of the work is not
a material supplier but a subcontractor. This is
consistent with the plain meaning of the term
‘‘material supplier’’ and with the Department’s case
law. See Kiewit-Shea, Case No. 84–DBA–34, 1985
WL 167240 (OALJ Sept. 6, 1985), at *2 (concluding
that companies whose contractual duties ‘‘called for
hauling away material and not for its supply’’ were
subcontractors, not material suppliers’’), aff’d,
Maryland Equipment, Inc., WAB No. 85–24, 1986
WL 193110 (June 13, 1986).
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
contractor or subcontractor.’’); FOH
15e16(c) (same).
While the Davis-Bacon regulations
have not previously included
definitions of ‘‘contractor’’ or
‘‘subcontractor,’’ this proposed rule, as
discussed above, would add such
definitions into § 5.2. The Department
therefore proposes to incorporate the
material supplier exception into the
proposed new definition of
‘‘contractor,’’ which is incorporated into
the proposed definition of
‘‘subcontractor.’’ Specifically, the
Department proposes to exclude
material suppliers from the regulatory
definition of ‘‘contractor,’’ with the
exception of entities performing work
under Related Acts that apply the DavisBacon labor standards to all laborers
and mechanics employed in a project’s
development, given that, as explained,
the application of such statutes is not
limited to ‘‘contractors’’ or
‘‘subcontractors.’’
d. Coverage of Time for Truck Drivers
Finally, the Department proposes to
revise the regulations to clarify coverage
of truck drivers under the DBA. Since
Midway, various questions have arisen
regarding the application of the DBA
and the Related Acts to truck drivers.
While the Department’s regulations
address this issue to a certain extent, the
Department has expanded on these
issues in regulatory preambles and
subregulatory guidance, which differ
depending on whether truck drivers are
employed by material suppliers or by
contractors or subcontractors.
As noted above, the DBA does not
apply to workers employed by bona fide
material suppliers. However, under
current WHD policy, if a material
supplier, in addition to providing
supplies, also performs onsite
construction, alteration, or repair work
as a subcontractor—such as a precast
concrete item supplier that also repairs
and cleans such items at the worksite or
an equipment rental dealer that also
repairs its leased equipment onsite—
then its workers are covered for any onsite time for such construction work that
is ‘‘more than . . . incidental.’’ FOH
15e16(c); PWRB, DBA/DBRA
Compliance Principles at 7–8. For
enforcement purposes, if a material
supplier’s worker spends more than 20
percent of the workweek performing
such construction work on-site, all of
the employee’s on-site time during that
workweek is covered.
For truck drivers employed by
contractors or subcontractors, the
Department has explained that such
drivers’ time is covered under certain
circumstances. See FOH 15e22. First,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
‘‘truck drivers who haul materials or
supplies from one location on the site of
the work to another location on the site
of the work’’ are covered. 65 FR at
80275. Such ‘‘on-site hauling’’ is
unaffected by Midway, which concerned
the coverage of off-site hauling. Based
on the same principle, any other
construction work that drivers perform
on the site of the work that is not related
to off-site hauling is also covered. See
FOH 15e22(a)(1) (stating that drivers are
covered ‘‘for time spent working on the
site of the work’’). Second, ‘‘truck
drivers who haul materials or supplies
from a dedicated facility that is adjacent
or virtually adjacent to the site of the
work’’ are covered for all of their time
spent in those activities. 65 FR at
80275–76; 29 CFR 5.2(j)(1)(iv)(A); FOH
15e22(a)(3). Such drivers are hauling
materials or supplies between two
locations on the site of the work, and
given the requirement of adjacency or
virtual adjacency, any intervening offsite time is likely extremely minimal.
Third, drivers are covered for time spent
transporting portion(s) of the building or
work between a secondary site,
established specifically for contract or
project performance and where a
‘‘significant portion’’ of the work is
constructed, and the site where the
building or work will remain. See 29
CFR 5.2(j)(1)(iv)(B); 65 FR at 80276;
FOH 15e22(a)(4). As the Department has
explained, ‘‘under these
circumstances[,] the site of the work is
literally moving between the two work
sites,’’ 65 FR 57269, 57273, and as such,
‘‘workers who are engaged in
transporting a significant portion of the
building or work between covered sites
. . . are ‘employed directly upon the
site of the work[.]’ ’’ 65 FR at 80276.
Fourth, drivers are covered for any time
spent on the site of the work that is
related to hauling materials to or from
the site, such as loading or unloading
materials, provided that such time is
more than de minimis—a standard that,
as currently applied, excludes drivers
‘‘who come onto the site of the work for
only a few minutes at a time merely to
drop off construction materials.’’ 65 FR
at 80276; FOH 15e22(a)(2); PWRB, DBA/
DBRA Compliance Principles, at 6–7.
Feedback from stakeholders,
including contractors and contracting
agencies, indicates that there is
significant uncertainty regarding this
topic. Such uncertainty includes the
distinction between drivers for material
supply companies versus drivers for
construction contractors or
subcontractors; what constitutes de
minimis; whether the de minimis
determination is made on a per trip, per
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15733
day, or per week basis; and whether the
20 percent threshold for construction
work performed onsite by material
supply drivers is also applicable to
delivery time spent on site by drivers
employed by a contractor or
subcontractor. This lack of clarity has
also led to divergent interpretations by
Department ALJs. Compare Rogers
Group, ALJ No. 2012–DBA–00005
(OALJ May 28, 2013) (concluding that a
subcontractor was not required to pay
its drivers prevailing wages for
sometimes-substantial amounts of onsite time (as much as 7 hours 30
minutes in a day) making deliveries of
gravel, sand, and asphalt from offsite)
with E.T. Simonds Constr. Co., ALJ No.
2021–DBA–00001 (OALJ May 25, 2021),
appeal pending, ARB No. 21–054
(concluding that drivers employed by a
subcontractor who hauled materials
from the site of the work and spent at
least 15 minutes per hour—25 percent
of the workday—on site were covered
for their onsite time).
Taking the above into account, the
Department proposes to revise the
regulations to clarify coverage of truck
drivers in the following manner:
First, as noted above, the Department
has proposed to clarify that employees
of ‘‘material suppliers’’ are not covered
by the DBRA, except for those Related
Acts to which the material supplier
exception does not apply. The proposed
definition of a ‘‘material supplier’’ is
limited to companies whose only
contractual responsibilities are material
supply and thus excludes companies
that also perform any on-site
construction, alteration, or repair. The
Department believes that this proposed
clarification will make the distinction
between contractors/subcontractors and
material suppliers clear. It also obviates
the need for the 20 percent threshold for
coverage of construction work
performed onsite by material supply
drivers discussed above, because, by
definition, any drivers whose
responsibilities include performing
onsite construction work in addition to
material supply are employed by
subcontractors, not material suppliers.
Thus, under this proposed rule, any
time that drivers spend performing such
construction work on the site of the
work would be covered regardless of
amount, as is the case for other laborers
and mechanics.
Second, the Department proposes to
amend its regulations concerning the
coverage of transportation by truck
drivers who are included within the
DBA’s scope generally (i.e., truck
drivers employed by contractors and
subcontractors, as well as any truck
drivers employed in project
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15734
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
construction or development under
certain Related Acts). Specifically, the
Department proposes to amend the
definition of ‘‘construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair’’ in § 5.2 to
include ‘‘transportation’’ under five
specific circumstances, which the
Department proposes to define,
collectively, as ‘‘covered
transportation’’: (1) Transportation that
takes place entirely within a location
meeting the definition of site of the
work (for example, hauling materials
from one side of a construction site to
the other side of the same site); (2)
transportation of portion(s) of the
building or work between a ‘‘secondary
construction site’’ and a ‘‘primary
construction site’’; (3) transportation
between a ‘‘nearby dedicated support
site’’ and either a primary or secondary
construction site; (4) a driver or driver’s
assistant’s ‘‘onsite activities essential or
incidental to offsite transportation,’’
discussed further below, where the
driver or driver’s assistant’s time spent
on the site of the work is not so
insubstantial or insignificant that it
cannot as a practical administrative
matter be precisely recorded; and (5)
any transportation and related activities,
whether on or off the site of the work,
by laborers and mechanics under a
statute that extends Davis-Bacon
coverage to all laborers and mechanics
employed in the construction or
development of a project.
Items (1), (2), (3), and (5) set forth
principles reflected in the current
regulations, but in a clearer and more
transparent fashion. Item (4) seeks to
resolve the ambiguities discussed above
regarding the coverage of on-site time by
delivery drivers. Specifically, the
Department proposes to explain that
truck drivers and their assistants are
covered for their time engaged in
‘‘onsite activities essential or incidental
to offsite transportation,’’ defined as
activities by a truck driver or truck
driver’s assistant on the site of the work
that are essential or incidental to the
transportation of materials or supplies
to or from the site of the work, such as
unloading, loading, and waiting time,
where the driver or assistant’s time is
not ‘‘so insubstantial or insignificant
that it cannot as a practical
administrative matter be precisely
recorded.’’
This proposed language is identical to
the standard the Department uses to
describe the de minimis principle under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. See 29
CFR 785.47. Importantly, while the
amount of time is relevant to this
principle, the key inquiry is not merely
whether the amount of time is small, but
rather whether it is administratively
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
feasible to track it, as the FLSA de
minimis rule ‘‘applies only where there
are uncertain and indefinite periods of
time involved of a few seconds or
minutes duration, and where the failure
to count such time is due to
considerations justified by industrial
realities.’’ Id. (emphasis added).
Moreover, ‘‘an employer may not
arbitrarily fail to count as hours worked
any part, however small, of the
employee’s fixed or regular working
time or practically ascertainable period
of time he is regularly required to spend
on duties assigned to him.’’ Id. Thus,
under the proposed language, where a
driver’s duties include dropping off
and/or picking up materials on the site
of the work, the driver must be
compensated under the DBRA for any
‘‘practically ascertainable’’ time spent
on the site of the work. The Department
anticipates that in the vast majority of
cases, it will be feasible to record the
amount of time a truck driver or driver’s
assistant spends on the site of the work,
and, therefore, that the Davis-Bacon
labor standards will apply to any such
time under the proposed rule. However,
under the narrow circumstances where
it is infeasible or impractical to measure
a driver’s very small amount of time
spent on the site of the work, such time
need not be compensated under this
proposed rule.
This proposal is also consistent with
the statutory ‘‘site of the work’’
restriction as interpreted in Midway. As
the Department has previously
explained, given the small amount of
time the Midway drivers spent on-site,
no party in the case had argued whether
such on-site time alone could be subject
to coverage. See 65 FR at 80275–76.
Given that the court did not consider
this issue, the Department does not
understand Midway as precluding
coverage of any time that drivers spend
on the site of the work, ‘‘no matter how
brief.’’ 65 FR at 80275–76. However, as
with the FLSA, the Department
proposes to exclude such time from
DBRA coverage under the rare
circumstances where it is very small in
duration and industrial realities make it
impossible or impractical to measure
such time.
e. Non-Substantive Changes for
Conformance and Clarity
In addition to the above changes, the
Department proposes a number of
revisions to the regulatory definitions
related to the ‘‘site of the work’’ and
‘‘material supplier’’ principle to
conform to the above substantive
revisions and for general clarity. The
Department proposes to delete, from the
definition of ‘‘building or work,’’ the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
language explaining that in general,
‘‘[t]he manufacture or furnishing of
materials, articles, supplies or
equipment . . . is not a building or
work.’’ Instead, the Department
proposes to clarify in the definition of
the term ‘‘construction (or prosecution,
completion, or repair)’’ that
‘‘construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair’’ only includes ‘‘manufacturing
or furnishing of materials, articles,
supplies or equipment’’ under certain
limited circumstances. Additionally, the
Department proposes to remove the
citation to Midway from the definition
of the term ‘‘construction (or
prosecution, completion, or repair)’’;
although, as discussed above, some of
the regulatory changes the Department
has made reflect the holdings in the
three appellate cases noted above, the
Department does not believe it is
necessary to cite the case in the
regulation.
The Department also proposes
defining the term ‘‘development statute’’
to mean a statute that requires payment
of prevailing wages under the DavisBacon labor standards to all laborers
and mechanics employed in the
development of a project. As noted
above, some statutes extend DavisBacon coverage to all laborers and
mechanics employed in the
‘‘development’’ of a project, regardless
of whether they are working on the site
of the work or employed by
‘‘contractors’’ or ‘‘subcontractors.’’ The
current regulations reference three
specific statutes—the United States
Housing Act of 1937; the Housing Act
of 1949; and the Native American
Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996—that fit this
description, but do not consistently
reference all three. Use of the defined
term ‘‘development statute’’ would
improve regulatory clarity and ensure
that the regulations to not become
obsolete if existing statutes meeting this
description are revised or if new statutes
meeting this description are added. The
Department proposes to make
conforming changes in § 5.5 to
incorporate this new term.
Finally, the Department proposes
several linguistic changes to defined
terms in § 5.2 to improve clarity and
readability.
(H) Paragraph Designations
The Department is also proposing to
amend § 5.2 to remove paragraph
designations of defined terms and
instead to list defined terms in
alphabetical order. The Department
proposes to make conforming edits
throughout parts 1, 3, and 5 in any
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
provisions that currently reference
lettered paragraphs of § 5.2.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
iii. Section 5.5 Contract Provisions and
Related Matters
The Department proposes to remove
the table at the end of § 5.5 related to the
display of OMB control numbers. This
table aids in fulfilling the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act;
however, the Department maintains an
inventory of OMB control numbers on
https://www.reginfo.gov under
‘‘Information Collection Review.’’ This
website is updated regularly and
interested persons are encouraged to
consult this website for the most up-todate information.
(A) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)
The Department proposes to add
language to § 5.5(a)(1) to state that the
conformance process may not be used to
split or subdivide classifications listed
in the wage determination, and that
conformance is appropriate only where
the work which a laborer or mechanic
performs under the contract is not
within the scope of any classification
listed on the wage determination,
regardless of job title. This language
reflects the principle that conformance
is not appropriate when the work of the
proposed classification is already
performed by a classification on the
wage determination. See 29 CFR
5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(1). Even if workers
perform only some of the duties of a
classification, they are still performing
work that is covered by the
classification, and conformance of a
new classification thus would be
inappropriate. See, e.g., Fry Bros. Corp.,
1977 WL 24823, at *6 (contractor could
not divide carpentry work between
carpenters and carpenter tenders in
order to pay a lower wage rate for a
portion of the work; under the DBA it
is not permissible to divide the work of
a classification into several parts
according to the contractor’s assessment
of each worker’s skill and to pay for
such division of the work at less than
the specified rate for the classification).
The proposed regulatory language is
also in line with the principle that WHD
must base its conformance decisions on
the work to be performed by the
proposed classification, not on the
contractor’s own classification or
perception of the workers’ skill. See 29
CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i) (‘‘Such laborers and
mechanics shall be paid the appropriate
wage rate and fringe benefits . . . for the
classification of work actually
performed, without regard to skill
. . . .’’); see also, e.g., Tele-Sentry Sec.,
Inc., WAB No. 87–43, 1987 WL 247062,
at *7 (Sept. 11, 1987) (workers who
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
performed duties falling within the
electrician classification must be paid
the electrician rate regardless of the
employer’s classification of workers as
laborers). The Department welcomes
any comments on this proposal.
The Department also proposes to
make non-substantive revisions to
current § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) to more
clearly describe the conformance
request process, including by providing
that contracting officers should submit
the required conformance request
information to WHD via email using a
specified WHD email address.
The Department has also proposed
changes relating to the publication of
rates for frequently conformed
classifications. The Department’s
proposed changes to this subsection are
discussed above in part III.B.1.xii
(‘‘Frequently conformed rates’’),
together with proposed changes to § 1.3.
The Department also proposes to add
language to the contract clauses at
§ 5.5(a)(1)(vi), (a)(6), and (b)(4) requiring
the payment of interest on any
underpayment of wages or monetary
relief required by the contract. This
language is consistent with and would
be subject to the proposed discussion of
interest in 29 CFR 5.10 (Restitution,
criminal action), which requires that
calculations of interest be carried out at
the rate specified by the Internal
Revenue Code for underpayment of
taxes and compounded daily.
(B) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)
The Department proposes a number of
revisions to § 5.5(a)(3) to better
effectuate compliance and enforcement
by clarifying and supplementing
existing recordkeeping requirements.
Similar changes proposed in § 5.5(c) are
discussed here.
As an initial matter, all references to
employment (e.g., employee, employed,
employing, etc.) in § 5.5(a)(3) and (c), as
well as in § 5.6 and various other
sections, have been revised to refer
instead to ‘‘workers’’ or ‘‘laborers and
mechanics.’’ These changes are
discussed in greater detail below in
section xxii, ‘‘Employment Relationship
Not Required.’’
(1) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(i)
The Department proposes to amend
§ 5.5(a)(3)(i) to clarify its longstanding
interpretation and enforcement of this
recordkeeping regulation to require
contractors to maintain and preserve
basic records and information, as well
as certified payrolls. The required basic
records include but are not limited to
regular payroll (sometimes referred to as
‘‘in-house’’ payroll) and additional
records relating to fringe benefits and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15735
apprenticeship and training. The term
regular payroll refers to any written or
electronic records that the contractor
uses to document workers’ days and
hours worked, rate and method of
payment, compensation, contact
information, and other similar
information, which provide the basis for
the contractor’s subsequent submission
of certified payroll.
The Department also proposes to
amend § 5.5(a)(3)(i) to clarify that
regular payrolls and other basic records
required by this section must be
preserved for a period of at least 3 years
after all the work on the prime contract
is completed. In other words, even if a
project takes more than 3 years to
complete, contractors and
subcontractors must keep payroll and
basic records for at least 3 years after all
the work on the prime contract has been
completed. This revision expressly
states the Department’s longstanding
interpretation and practice concerning
the period of time that contractors and
subcontractors must keep payroll and
basic records required by § 5.5(a)(3).
The Department also proposes a new
requirement that records required by
§ 5.5(a)(3) and (c) must include last
known worker telephone numbers and
email addresses. Updating the DavisBacon regulations to require this
additional worker contact information
would reflect more modern and efficient
methods of communication between
workers and contractors, subcontractors,
contracting agencies, and the
Department’s authorized
representatives.
Another proposed revision in this
section, as well as in § 5.5(c), clarifies
the Department’s longstanding
interpretation of these regulatory
provisions that contractors and
subcontractors must maintain records of
each worker’s correct classification or
classifications of work actually
performed and the hours worked in
each classification. See, e.g., Pythagoras
Gen. Contracting Corp., ARB Nos. 08–
107, 09–007, 2011 WL 1247207, at *7
(Mar. 1, 2011) (‘‘If workers perform
labor in more than one job
classification, they are entitled to
compensation at the appropriate wage
rate for each classification according to
the time spent in that classification,
which time the employer’s payroll
records must accurately reflect.’’), aff’d
sub nom. Pythagoras Gen. Contracting
Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 926 F. Supp.
2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Current
regulations permit contractors and
subcontractors to pay ‘‘[l]aborers or
mechanics performing work in more
than one classification . . . at the rate
specified for each classification for the
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15736
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
time actually worked therein,’’ but only
if ‘‘the employer’s payroll records
accurately set forth the time spent in
each classification in which work is
performed.’’ 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i). The
proposed revisions similarly recognize
that laborers or mechanics may perform
work in more than one classification
and more expressly provide that, in
such cases, it is the obligation of
contractors and subcontractors to
accurately record information required
by this section for each separate
classification of work performed.
By revising the language in
§ 5.5(a)(3)(i) and (c) to require records of
the ‘‘correct classification(s) of work
actually performed,’’ the Department
intends to clarify its longstanding
interpretation that contractors and
subcontractors must keep records of
(and include on certified payrolls) hours
worked segregated by each separate
classification of work performed. It
would continue to be the case that if a
contractor or subcontractor fails to
maintain such records of actual daily
and weekly hours worked and correct
classifications, then it must pay workers
the rates of the classification of work
performed with the highest prevailing
wage and fringe benefits due.
It is implicit—and expressly stated in
various parts of current § 5.5—that
records that contractors and
subcontractors are required to maintain
must be accurate and complete. See also
40 U.S.C. 3145(b). The Department
proposes to put contractors and
subcontractors on further notice of their
statutory, regulatory, and contractual
obligations to keep accurate, correct,
and complete records by adding the
term ‘‘actually’’ in § 5.5(a)(3)(i) and (c)
to modify ‘‘hours worked’’ and ‘‘work
performed.’’ The current regulations
require maintenance of records
containing ‘‘correct classifications’’ and
‘‘actual wages paid,’’ and this proposed
revision is not intended to make any
substantive change to the longstanding
requirement that contractors and
subcontractors keep accurate, correct,
and complete records of all the
information required in these sections.
(2) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(ii)–(iii)
The Department proposes to revise
the language in § 5.5(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) to
expressly apply to all entities that might
be responsible for maintaining the
payrolls and basic records a contractor
is required to submit weekly when a
Federal agency is not a party to the
contract. Currently, the specified
records must be submitted to the
‘‘applicant, sponsor, or owner’’ if a
Federal agency is not a party to the
contract. The proposed revision would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
add the language ‘‘or other entity, as the
case may be, that maintains such
records’’ to clarify that this requirement
applies regardless of the role or title of
the recipient of Federal assistance
(through grants, loans, loan guarantees
or insurance, or otherwise) under any of
the statutes referenced by § 5.1.
The Department proposes to revise
§ 5.5(a)(3)(ii) by replacing the phrase ‘‘or
audit of compliance with prevailing
wage requirements’’ with ‘‘or other
compliance action.’’ This revision
clarifies that compliance actions may be
accomplished by various means, not
solely by an investigation or audit of
compliance. A similar change is
proposed in § 5.6. Compliance actions
include, without limitation, full
investigations, limited investigations,
office audits, self-audits, and
conciliations. This proposed revision
expressly sets forth the Department’s
longstanding practice and interpretation
of this current regulatory language to
encompass all types of Davis-Bacon
compliance actions currently used by
the Department, as well as any
additional types that the Department
may use in the future. This revision
does not impose any new or additional
requirements upon Federal agencies,
applicants, sponsors, owners, or other
entities, or on the Department,
contractors, or subcontractors.
The Department also proposes to add
language to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii)(A) to codify
the Department’s longstanding policy
that contracting agencies and prime
contractors can permit or require
contractors to submit their certified
payrolls through an electronic system,
provided that the electronic submission
system requires a legally valid
electronic signature, as discussed below,
and the contracting agency or prime
contractor permits other methods of
payroll submission in situations where
the contractor is unable or limited in its
ability to use or access the electronic
system. See generally PWRB, DBA/
DBRA Compliance Principles, at 26. The
Department encourages all contracting
agencies to permit submission of
certified payrolls electronically, so long
as all of the required information and
certification requirements are met.
Nevertheless, contracting agencies
determine which, if any, electronic
submissions systems they will use, as
certified payrolls are submitted directly
to the contracting agencies. Electronic
submission systems can reduce the
recordkeeping burden and costs of
record maintenance, and many such
systems include compliance monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tools that may streamline the review of
such payrolls.88
However, under the proposal,
agencies that require the use of an
electronic submission system would be
required to allow contractors to submit
certified payrolls by alternative methods
when contractors are not able to use the
agency’s electronic submission system
due to limitations on the contractor’s
ability to access the system. For
example, if a contractor does not have
internet access or is unable to access the
electronic submission system due to a
disability, the contracting agency would
be required to allow such a contractor
to submit certified payrolls in a manner
that accommodates these circumstances.
The Department also proposes a new
sub-paragraph, § 5.5(a)(3)(ii)(D), to
reiterate the Department’s longstanding
policy that, to be valid, the contractor’s
signature on the certified payroll must
either be an original handwritten
signature or a legally valid electronic
signature. Both of these methods are
sufficient for compliance with the
Copeland Act. See WHD Ruling Letter
(Nov. 12, 2004) (‘‘Current law
establishes that the proper use of
electronic signatures on certified
payrolls . . . satisfies the requirements
of the Copeland Act and its
implementing regulations.’’).89 Valid
electronic signatures include any
electronic process that indicates
acceptance of the certified payroll
record and includes an electronic
method of verifying the signer’s
identity. Valid electronic signatures do
not include a scan or photocopy of a
written signature. The Department
recognizes that electronic submission of
certified payroll expands the ability of
contractors and contracting agencies to
comply with the requirements of the
Davis-Bacon and Copeland Acts. As a
matter of longstanding policy, the
Department considers an original
signature to be legally binding evidence
of the intention of a person with regard
to a document, record, or transaction.
Modern technologies and evolving
business practices are rendering the
88 The Department does not endorse or approve
the use of any electronic submission system or
monitoring tool(s). Although electronic monitoring
tools can be a useful aid to compliance, successful
submission of certified payrolls to an electronic
submission system with such tools does not
guarantee that a contractor is in compliance,
particularly since not all violations can be detected
through electronic monitoring tools. Contractors
that use electronic submission systems remain
responsible for ensuring compliance with DavisBacon labor standards provisions.
89 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/
111204dol.cfm.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
distinction between original paper and
electronic signatures nearly obsolete.
The Department proposes to add
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to § 5.5 to require all
contractors, subcontractors, and
recipients of Federal assistance to
maintain and preserve Davis-Bacon
contracts, subcontracts, and related
documents for 3 years after all the work
on the prime contract is completed.
These related documents include,
without limitation, contractors’ and
subcontractors’ bids and proposals, as
well as amendments, modifications, and
extensions to contracts, subcontracts, or
agreements.
WHD routinely requests these
contract documents in its DBRA
investigations. In the Department’s
experience, contractors and
subcontractors that comply with the
Davis-Bacon labor standards
requirements usually, as a good
business practice, maintain these
contracts and related documents. It is
also the Department’s experience that
Davis-Bacon contractors and
subcontractors that do not keep their
contracts, agreements, and related
legally binding documents are more
likely to disregard their obligations to
workers and subcontractors. Adding an
express regulatory requirement that
contractors and subcontractors maintain
and provide these records to WHD
would bolster enforcement of the labor
standards provisions of the statutes
referenced by § 5.1. This requirement
would not relieve contractors or
subcontractors from complying with any
more stringent record retention
requirements (e.g., longer record
retention periods).
This proposed revision also could
help level the playing field for
contractors and subcontractors that
comply with Davis-Bacon labor
standards. Like the current
recordkeeping requirements, noncompliance with this new proposed
requirement may result in the
suspension of any further payment,
advance, or guarantee of funds and may
also be grounds for debarment action
pursuant to 29 CFR 5.12.
The Department proposes to
renumber current § 5.5(a)(3)(iii) as
§ 5.5(a)(3)(iv). In addition, the
Department proposes to revise this renumbered paragraph to clarify the
records contractors and subcontractors
are required to make available to the
Federal agency (or applicant, sponsor,
owner, or other entity, as the case may
be) or the Department upon request.
Specifically, the proposed revisions to
§ 5.5(a)(3)(ii) and (iv), and the proposed
new § 5.5(a)(3)(iii), expand and clarify
the records contractors and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
subcontractors are required to make
available for inspection, copying, or
transcription by authorized
representatives specified in this section.
The Department also proposes adding a
requirement that contractors and
subcontractors must make available any
other documents deemed necessary to
determine compliance with the labor
standards provisions of any of the
statutes referenced by § 5.1.
Current § 5.5(a)(3)(iii) requires
contractors and subcontractors to make
available the records set forth in
§ 5.5(a)(3)(i) (Payrolls and basic
records). The proposed revisions to renumbered § 5.5(a)(3)(iv) ensure that
contractors and subcontractors are
aware that they are required to make
available not only payrolls and basic
records, but also the payrolls actually
submitted to the contracting agency (or
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other
entity, as the case may be) pursuant to
§ 5.5(a)(3)(ii), including the Statement of
Compliance, as well as any contracts
and related documents required by the
proposed § 5.5(a)(3)(iii). These records
help WHD determine whether
contractors are in compliance with the
labor standards provisions of any of the
statutes referenced by § 5.1, and what
the appropriate back wages and other
remedies, if any, should be. The
Department believes that these
clarifications will remove doubt or
uncertainty as to whether contractors
are required to make such records
available to the Federal agency (or
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other
entity, as the case may be) or the
Department upon request. These
revisions make explicit the
Department’s longstanding practice and
do not impose any new or additional
requirements upon a Federal agency (or
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other
entity, as the case may be).
The new or additional recordkeeping
requirements in the proposed revisions
to § 5.5(a)(3) likely do not impose an
undue burden on contractors or
subcontractors, as they likely already
maintain worker telephone numbers
and email addresses and may already be
required by contracting agencies to keep
contracts and related documents. These
revisions also enhance the Department’s
ability to provide education, outreach
and compliance assistance to
contractors and subcontractors awarded
contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon
labor standards provisions.
Finally, the Department in renumbered § 5.5(a)(3)(iv)(B) proposes to
add a sanction for contractors and other
persons that fail to submit the required
records in § 5.5(a)(3) or make those
records available to WHD within the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15737
time WHD requests that the records be
produced. Specifically, the Department
proposes that contractors that fail to
comply with WHD record requests will
be precluded from introducing as
evidence in an administrative
proceeding under 29 CFR part 6 any of
the required records that were not
provided or made available to WHD.
The Department proposes this sanction
to enhance enforcement of
recordkeeping requirements and
encourage cooperation with its
investigations and other compliance
actions. The proposal provides that
WHD will take into consideration a
reasonable request from the contractor
or person for an extension of the time
for submission of records. WHD will
determine the reasonableness of the
request and may consider, among other
things, the location of the records and
the volume of production.
(C) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(4) Apprentices
The Department proposes to
reorganize § 5.5(a)(4)(i) so that each of
the four apprentice-related topics it
addresses—rate of pay, fringe benefits,
apprenticeship ratios, and reciprocity—
are more clearly and distinctly
addressed. These proposed revisions are
not substantive. In addition, the
Department proposes to revise the
subsection of § 5.5(a)(4)(i) regarding
reciprocity to better align with the
purpose of the DBA and the
Department’s Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) regulation at 29
CFR 29.13(b)(7) regarding the applicable
apprenticeship ratios and wage rates
when work is performed by apprentices
in a different State than the State in
which the apprenticeship program was
originally registered.
Section 5.5(a)(4)(i) provides that
apprentices may be paid less than the
prevailing rate for the work they
perform if they are employed pursuant
to, and individually registered in, a
bona fide apprenticeship program
registered with ETA’s Office of
Apprenticeship (OA) or with a State
Apprenticeship Agency (SAA)
recognized by the OA. In other words,
in order to employ apprentices on a
Davis-Bacon project at lower rates than
the prevailing wage rates applicable to
journeyworkers, contractors must
ensure that the apprentices are
participants in a federally registered
apprenticeship program or a State
apprenticeship program registered by a
recognized SAA. Any worker listed on
a payroll at an apprentice wage rate who
is not employed pursuant to and
individually registered in such a bona
fide apprenticeship program must be
paid the full prevailing wage listed on
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15738
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the applicable wage determination for
the classification of work performed.
Additionally, any apprentice performing
work on the site of the work in excess
of the ratio permitted under the
registered program must be paid not less
than the full wage rate listed on the
applicable wage determination for the
classification of work performed.
In its current form, § 5.5(a)(4)(i)
further provides that when a contractor
performs construction on a project in a
locality other than the one in which its
program is registered, the ratios and
wage rates (expressed in percentages of
the journeyworker’s hourly rate)
specified in the contractor’s or
subcontractor’s registered program will
be observed. Under this provision, the
ratios and wage rates specified in a
contractor’s or subcontractor’s registered
program are ‘‘portable,’’ such that they
apply not only when the contractor
performs work in the locality in which
it was originally registered (sometimes
referred to as the contractor’s ‘‘home
State’’) but also when a contractor
performs work on a project located in a
different State (sometimes referred to as
the ‘‘host State’’). In contrast, as part of
a 1979 NPRM, the Department proposed
essentially the opposite approach, i.e.,
that apprentice ratios and wage rates
would not be portable and that, instead,
when a contractor performs
construction on a project in a locality
other than the one in which its program
is registered, ‘‘the ratios and wage rates
(expressed in percentages of the
journeyman’s hourly rate) specified in
plan(s) registered for that locality shall
be observed.’’ 90
In adopting the current approach in a
final rule issued in 1981, the
Department noted that several
commenters had objected to the
proposal to apply the apprentice ratios
and wage rates in the location where
construction is performed, rather than
the ratios and wage rates applicable in
the location in which the program is
registered.91 The Department explained
that, in light of these comments, ‘‘[u]pon
reconsideration, we decided that to
impose different plans on contractors,
many of which work in several locations
where there could be differing
apprenticeship standards, would be
90 Proposed Rule, Labor Standards Provisions
Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally
Financed and Assisted Construction, 44 FR 77080,
77085 (Dec. 28, 1979).
91 Final Rule, Labor Standards Provisions
Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally
Financed and Assisted Construction, 46 FR 4380,
4383 (Jan. 16, 1981).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
adding needless burdens to their
business activities.’’ 92
In 2008, ETA amended its
apprenticeship regulations in a manner
that is seemingly in tension with the
1981 final rule’s approach to DavisBacon apprenticeship ‘‘portability.’’
Specifically, in December 2007, ETA
issued an NPRM to revise the agency’s
labor standards for the registration of
apprenticeship programs regulations.93
One of the NPRM proposals was to
expand the provisions of then-existing
29 CFR 29.13(b)(8), which at that time
provided that in order to be recognized
by ETA, an SAA must grant reciprocal
recognition to apprenticeship programs
and standards registered in other
States—except for apprenticeship
programs in the building and
construction trades.94 ETA proposed to
move the provision to 29 CFR
29.13(b)(7) and to remove the exception
for the building and construction
trades.95 In the preamble to the final
rule issued on October 29, 2008, ETA
noted that several commenters had
expressed concern that it was ‘‘unfair
and economically disruptive to allow
trades from one State to use the pay
scale from their own State to bid on
work in other States, particularly for
apprentices employed on projects
subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.’’ 96 The
preamble explained that ETA ‘‘agree[d]
that the application of a home State’s
wage and hour and apprentice ratios in
a host State could confer an unfair
advantage to an out-of-state contractor
bidding on a Federal public works
project.’’ 97 Further, the preamble noted
that, for this reason, ETA’s negotiations
of memoranda of understanding with
States to arrange for reciprocal approval
of apprenticeship programs in the
building and construction trades have
consistently required application of the
host State’s wage and hour and
apprenticeship ratio requirements.
Accordingly, the final rule added a
sentence to 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7) to clarify
that the program sponsor seeking
reciprocal approval must comply with
92 Id. The 1981 final rule was suspended, but the
apprenticeship portability provision in § 5.5 was
ultimately proposed and issued unchanged by a
final rule issued in 1982. See Final Rule, Labor
Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts
Covering Federally Financed and Assisted
Construction, 47 FR 23658, 23669 (May 28, 1982).
93 See Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards
for Registration, Amendment of Regulations Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 71020 (Dec. 13,
2007).
94 Id. at 71026.
95 Id.
96 Final Rule, Apprenticeship Programs, Labor
Standards for Registration, Amendment of
Regulations, 73 FR 64402, 64419 (Oct. 29, 2008).
97 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the host State’s wage and hour and
apprentice ratio standards.98
In order to better harmonize the
Davis-Bacon regulations and ETA’s
apprenticeship regulations, the
Department proposes to revise
§ 5.5(a)(4)(i) to reflect that contractors
employing apprentices to work on a
DBRA project in a locality other than
the one in which the apprenticeship
program was originally registered must
adhere to the apprentice wage rate and
ratio standards of the project locality. As
noted above, the general rule in
§ 5.5(a)(4)(i) is that contractors may pay
less than the prevailing wage rate for the
work performed by an apprentice
employed pursuant to and individually
registered in a bona fide apprenticeship
program registered with ETA or an OArecognized SAA. Under ETA’s
regulation at 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7), if a
contractor has an apprenticeship
program registered for one State but
wishes to employ apprentices to work
on a project in a different State with an
SAA, the contractor must seek and
obtain reciprocal approval from the
project State SAA and adhere to the
wage rate and ratio standards approved
by the project State SAA. Accordingly,
upon receiving reciprocal approval, the
apprentices in such a scenario would be
considered to be employed pursuant to
and individually registered in the
program in the project State, and the
terms of that reciprocal approval would
apply for purposes of the DBRA. The
Department’s proposed revision
requiring contractors to apply the ratio
and wage rate requirements from the
relevant apprenticeship program for the
locality where the laborers and
mechanics are working therefore better
aligns with ETA’s regulations on
recognition of SAAs and is meant to
eliminate potential confusion that could
result for Davis-Bacon contractors
subject to both ETA and WHD rules
regarding apprentices. The proposed
revision also better comports with the
DBA’s statutory purpose to eliminate
the unfair competitive advantage
conferred on contractors from outside of
a geographic area bidding on a Federal
construction contract based on lower
wage rates (and, in the case of
apprentices, differing ratios of
apprentices paid a percentage of the
journeyworker rate for the work
performed) than those that prevail in the
location of the project.
The Department notes that multiple
apprenticeship programs may be
registered in the same State, and that
such programs may cover different
localities of that State and require
98 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
at 64420. See 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7).
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
different apprenticeship wage rates and
ratios within those separate localities. If
apprentices registered in a program
covering one State locality will be doing
apprentice work in a different locality of
the same State, and different apprentice
wage and ratio standards apply to the
two different localities, the proposed
rule would require compliance with the
apprentice wage and ratio standards
applicable to the locality where the
work will be performed. The
Department welcomes comments as to
whether adoption of a consistent rule,
applicable regardless of whether the
project work is performed in the same
State as the registered apprenticeship
program, best aligns with the statutory
purpose of the DBA and would likely be
less confusing to apply.
Lastly, the Department proposes to
remove the regulatory provisions
regarding trainees currently set out in
§§ 5.2(n)(2) and 5.5(a)(4)(ii), and to
remove the references to trainees and
training programs throughout parts 1
and 5. Current § 5.5(a)(4)(ii) permits
‘‘trainees’’ to work at less than the
predetermined rate for the work
performed, and § 5.2(n)(2) defines a
trainee as a person registered and
receiving on-the-job training in a
construction occupation under a
program approved and certified in
advance by ETA as meeting its
standards for on-the-job training
programs. Sections 5.2(n)(2) and
5.5(a)(4)(ii) were originally added to the
regulations over 50 years ago.99
However, ETA no longer reviews or
approves on-the-job training programs
and, relatedly, WHD has found that
§ 5.5(a)(4)(ii) is seldom if ever
applicable to DBRA contracts. The
Department therefore proposes to
remove the language currently in
§§ 5.2(n)(2) and 5.5(a)(4)(ii), and to
retitle § 5.5(a)(4) ‘‘Apprentices.’’ The
Department also proposes a minor
revision to proposed § 5.5(a)(4)(ii) to
align with the gender-neutral term of
‘‘journeyworker’’ used by ETA in its
apprenticeship regulations. The
Department also proposes to rescind
and reserve §§ 5.16 and 5.17, as well as
delete references to such trainees and
training programs in §§ 1.7, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6,
and 5.15. The Department encourages
comments on this proposal, including
any relevant information about the use
99 See Final Rule, Labor Standards Applicable to
Contracts Covering Federally Financed and
Assisted Construction, 36 FR 19304 (Oct. 2, 1971)
(defining trainees as individuals working under a
training program certified by ETA’s predecessor
agency, the Manpower Administration’s Bureau of
Apprenticeship and Training).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
of training programs in the construction
industry.
(D) Flow-Down Requirements in
§§ 5.5(a)(6) and 5.5(b)(4)
The Department proposes to add
clarifying language to the DBRA- and
CWHSSA-specific contract clause
provisions at § 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4),
respectively. Currently, these contract
clauses contain explicit contractual
requirements for prime contractors and
upper-tier subcontractors to flow-down
the required contract clauses into their
contracts with lower-tier subcontractors.
The clauses also explicitly state that
prime contractors are ‘‘responsible for
the compliance by any subcontractor or
lower tier subcontractor.’’ 29 CFR
5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4). The Department’s
proposed rule would affect these
contract clauses in several ways.
(1) Flow-Down of Wage Determinations
The Department proposes adding
clarifying language to § 5.5(a)(6) that the
flow-down requirement also requires
the inclusion in such subcontracts of the
appropriate wage determination(s).
(2) Application of the Definition of
‘‘Prime Contractor’’
As noted above in the discussion of
§ 5.2, the Department is proposing to
codify a definition of ‘‘prime
contractor’’ in § 5.2 that would include
controlling shareholders or members,
joint venturers or partners, and general
contractors or others to whom all or
substantially all of the construction or
Davis-Bacon labor standards compliance
duties have been delegated under the
prime contract. These entities would
therefore also be ‘‘responsible’’ under
§ 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4) for the same
violations as the legal entity that signed
the prime contract. The proposed
change is intended to ensure that
contractors do not interpose singlepurpose corporate entities as the
nominal ‘‘prime contractor’’ in order to
escape liability or responsibility for the
contractors’ Davis-Bacon labor
standards compliance duties.
(3) Responsibility for the Payment of
Unpaid Wages
The proposal includes new language
underscoring that being ‘‘responsible for
. . . compliance’’ means the prime
contractor has the contractual obligation
to cover any unpaid wages or other
liability for contractor or subcontractor
violations of the contract clauses. This
is consistent with the Department’s
longstanding interpretation of this
provision. See M.A. Bongiovanni, Inc.,
WAB No. 91–08, 1991 WL 494751, at *1
(Apr. 19, 1991); see also All Phase Elec.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15739
Co., WAB No. 85–18, 1986 WL 193105,
at *1–2 (June 18, 1986) (withholding
contract payments from the prime
contractor for subcontractor employees
even though the labor standards had not
been flowed down into the
subcontract).100 Because such liability
for prime contractors is contractual, it
represents strict liability and does not
require that the prime contractor knew
of or should have known of the
subcontractors’ violations. Bongiovanni,
1991 WL 494751, at *1. As the WAB
explained in Bongiovanni, this rule
‘‘serves two vital functions.’’ Id. First,
‘‘it requires the general contractor to
monitor the performance of the
subcontractor and thereby effectuates
the Congressional intent embodied in
the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts to an
extent unattainable by Department of
Labor compliance efforts.’’ Id. Second,
‘‘it requires the general contractor to
exercise a high level of care in the initial
selection of its business associates.’’ Id.
(4) Potential for Debarment for Disregard
of Responsibility
The proposed new language clarifies
that underpayments of a subcontractor’s
workers may in certain circumstances
subject the prime contractor itself to
debarment for violating the
responsibility provision. Under the
existing regulations, there is no
reference in the § 5.5(a)(6) or (b)(4)
responsibility clauses to a potential for
debarment. However, the existing
§ 5.5(a)(7) does currently explain that
‘‘[a] breach of the contract clauses in 29
CFR 5.5’’—which thus includes the
responsibility clause at § 5.5(a)(6)—
‘‘may be grounds . . . for debarment[.]’’
29 CFR 5.5(a)(7). The proposed new
language would provide more explicit
notice (in § 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4)
themselves) of this potential that a
prime contractor may be debarred where
there are violations on the contract
(including violations perpetrated by a
subcontractor) and the prime contractor
has failed to take responsibility for
compliance.
In providing this additional notice of
the potential for debarment, the
Department does not intend to change
the core standard for when a prime
contractor or upper tier subcontractor
may be debarred for the violations of a
lower tier subcontractor. The potential
for debarment for a violation of the
responsibility requirement, unlike the
responsibility for back wages, is not
currently subject to a strict liability
100 The new language also clarifies that,
consistent with the proposed language in § 5.10,
such responsibility also extends to any interest
assessed on backwages or other monetary relief.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15740
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
standard. Rather, in the cases in which
prime contractors have been debarred
for the underpayments of
subcontractors’ workers, they were
found to have some level of intent that
reflected a disregard of their own
obligations. See, e.g., H.P. Connor & Co.,
WAB No. 88–12, 1991 WL 494691, at *2
(Feb. 26, 1991) (affirming ALJ’s
recommendation to debar prime
contractor for ‘‘run[ning] afoul’’ of 29
CFR 5.5(a)(6) because of its ‘‘knowing or
grossly negligent participation in the
underpayment’’ of the workers of its
subcontractors).101
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(5) The Department Does Not Intend To
Change This Standard. Responsibility
and Liability of Upper-Tier
Subcontractors
The proposed language in § 5.5(a)(6)
and (b)(4) would also eliminate
confusion regarding the responsibility
and liability of upper-tier
subcontractors. The existing language in
§ 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4) creates express
contractual responsibility of upper-tier
subcontractors to flow down the
required contract clauses to bind their
lower-tier subcontractors. See § 5.5(a)(6)
(stating that the prime contractor ‘‘or
subcontractor’’ must insert the required
clauses in ‘‘any subcontracts’’);
§ 5.5(b)(4) (stating that the flow-down
clause must ‘‘requir[e] the
subcontractors to include these clauses
in any lower tier subcontracts’’). The
Department has long recognized that
with this responsibility comes the
potential for sanctions against upper-tier
subcontractors that fail to properly flow
down the contract clauses. See AAM 69
(DB–51), at 2 (July 29, 1966).102
The current contract clauses in
§ 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4) do not expressly
identify further contractual
responsibility or liability of upper-tier
subcontractors for violations that are
committed against the employees of
their lower-tier subcontractors.
However, although the Department has
101 See also Martell Constr. Co., ALJ No. 86–DBA–
32, 1986 WL 193129, at *9 (DOL OALJ Aug. 7,
1986), aff’d, WAB No. 86–26, 1987 WL 247045 (July
10, 1987). In Martell, the prime contractor had
failed to flow down the required contract clauses
and investigate or question irregular payroll records
submitted by subcontractors. The ALJ explained
that the responsibility clause in § 5.5(a)(6) places a
burden on the prime contractor ‘‘to act on or
investigate irregular or suspicious situations as
necessary to assure that its subcontractors are in
compliance with the applicable sections of the
regulations.’’ 1986 WL 193129, at *9.
102 In AAM 69, the Department noted that ‘‘the
failure of the prime contractor or a subcontractor to
incorporate the labor standards provisions in its
subcontracts may, under certain circumstances, be
a serious violation of the contract requirements
which would warrant the imposition of sanctions
under either the Davis-Bacon Act or our
Regulations.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
not had written guidance to this effect,
it has in many circumstances held
upper-tier subcontractors responsible
for the failure by their own lower-tier
subcontractors to pay required
prevailing wages. See, e.g., Ray Wilson
Co., ARB No. 02–086, 2004 WL 384729,
at *6 (Feb. 27, 2004); Norsaire Sys., Inc.,
WAB No. 94–06, 1995 WL 90009, at *1
(Feb. 28, 1995)
In Ray Wilson Co., for example, the
ARB upheld the debarment of an uppertier subcontractor because of its lowertier subcontractor’s misclassification of
workers. As the ARB held, the highertier subcontractor had an ‘‘obligation[ ]
to be aware of DBA requirements and to
ensure that its lower-tier subcontractor
. . . properly complied with the wage
payment and record keeping
requirements on the project.’’ 2004 WL
384729, at *10. The Department sought
debarment because the upper-tier
subcontractor had discussed the
misclassification scheme with the
lower-tier subcontractor and thus
‘‘knowingly countenanced’’ the
violations. Id. at *8.
The Department proposes in this
rulemaking to clarify that upper-tier
subcontractors (in addition to prime
contractors) may be responsible for the
violations committed against the
employees of lower-tier subcontractors.
The proposal would clarify that this
responsibility would require upper-tier
subcontractors to pay back wages on
behalf of their lower-tier subcontractors
and subject upper-tier subcontractors to
debarment in appropriate circumstances
(i.e., where the lower-tier
subcontractor’s violation reflects a
disregard of obligations by the uppertier subcontractor to workers of their
subcontractors). The proposal would
include, in the § 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4)
contract clauses, language adding that
‘‘any subcontractor[ ] responsible’’ for
the violations is also liable for back
wages and potentially subject to
debarment. This language is intended to
place liability not only on the lower-tier
subcontractor that is directly employing
the worker who does not receive
required wages, but also on the uppertier subcontractors that may also have
disregarded their obligations to be
responsible for compliance.
With this proposal, the Department
does not intend to place the same strict
liability responsibility on all upper-tier
subcontractors as, discussed above, the
existing language already places on
prime contractors for lower-tier
subcontractors’ back wages. Rather, the
new proposed language is intended to
clarify that, in appropriate
circumstances, as in Ray Wilson Co.,
upper-tier subcontractors may be held
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
responsible—both subjecting them to
possible debarment and requiring them
to pay back wages jointly and severally
with the prime contractor and the
lower-tier subcontractor that directly
failed to pay the prevailing wages.
A key principle in enacting regulatory
requirements is that liability should, to
the extent possible, be placed on the
entity that best can control whether or
not a violation occurs. See Bongiovanni,
1991 WL 494751, at *1.103 For this
reason, the Department proposes
language assigning liability to upper-tier
subcontractors, who have the ability to
choose the lower-tier subcontractors
they hire, notify lower-tier
subcontractors of the prevailing wage
requirements of the contract, and take
action if they have any reason to believe
there may be compliance issues. By
clarifying that upper-tier subcontractors
may be liable under appropriate
circumstances—but are not strictly
liable as are prime contractors—the
Department believes that it has struck
an appropriate balance that is consistent
with historical interpretation, the
statutory language of the DBA, and the
feasibility and efficiency of future
enforcement.
(E) 29 CFR 5.5(d)—Incorporation by
Reference
Proposed new section 5.5(d) clarifies
that, notwithstanding the continued
requirement that agencies incorporate
contract clauses and wage
determinations ‘‘in full’’ into a covered
contract, the clauses and wage
determinations are equally effective if
they are incorporated by reference. The
Department’s proposal for this
subsection is discussed further below in
part III.B.3.xx (‘‘Post-award
determinations and operation-of-law’’),
together with proposed changes to
§§ 1.6(f), 5.5(e), and 5.6.
(F) 29 CFR 5.5(e)—Operation of Law
In a new section at § 5.5(e), the
Department proposes language making
effective by operation of law a contract
103 Cf. Am. Soc’y of Mech. Eng’rs, Inc. v.
Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556, 572–73 (1982) (‘‘[A]
rule that imposes liability on the standard-setting
organization—which is best situated to prevent
antitrust violations through the abuse of its
reputation—is most faithful to the congressional
intent that the private right of action deter antitrust
violations.’’). The same principle supports the
Department’s proposed codification of the
definition of ‘‘prime contractor.’’ Where the
nominal prime contractor is a single-purpose entity
with few actual workers, and it contracts with a
general contractor for all relevant aspects of
construction and monitoring of subcontractors, the
most reasonable enforcement structure would place
liability on both the nominal prime contractor and
the general contractor that actually has the staffing,
experience, and mandate to assure compliance on
the job site.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
or other compliance action is not a
prerequisite to the Department’s ability
to obtain from the Federal agency
certified payrolls submitted pursuant to
§ 5.5(a)(3)(ii). Second, the proposed
revisions are intended to remove any
doubt or uncertainty that the Federal
agency has an obligation to produce
such certified payrolls, even in those
iv. Section 5.6 Enforcement
circumstances in which it may not be
(A) 29 CFR 5.6(a)(1)
the entity actually maintaining the
requested certified payrolls. These
The Department proposes to revise
revisions would make explicit the
§ 5.6(a)(1) by renumbering the existing
Department’s longstanding practice and
regulatory text § 5.6(a)(1)(i), and adding
an additional sub-section, § 5.6(a)(1)(ii), interpretation of this provision.
These proposed revisions would not
to include a provision clarifying that
where a contract is awarded without the place any new or additional
requirements or recordkeeping burdens
incorporation of the required Davison contracting agencies, as they are
Bacon labor standards clauses required
already required to maintain these
by § 5.5, the Federal agency must
certified payrolls and provide them to
incorporate the clauses or require their
the Department upon request.
incorporation. The Department’s
These proposed revisions enhance the
proposal for this subsection is discussed
Department’s
ability to provide
further below in part III.B.3.xx (‘‘Postaward determinations and operation-of- compliance assistance to various
stakeholders, including Federal
law’’), together with proposed changes
agencies, contractors, subcontractors,
to §§ 1.6(f) and 5.5(e).
sponsors, applicants, owners, or other
(B) 29 CFR 5.6(a)(2)
entities awarded contracts subject to the
provisions of the DBRA. Specifically,
The Department proposes to amend
these proposed revisions would
§ 5.6(a)(2) to reflect the Department’s
longstanding practice and interpretation facilitate the Department’s review of
that certified payrolls required pursuant certified payrolls on covered contracts
where the Department has not initiated
to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii) may be requested—and
any specific compliance action.
Federal agencies must produce such
certified payrolls—regardless of whether Conducting such reviews promotes the
proper administration of the DBRA
the Department has initiated an
because, in the Department’s
investigation or other compliance
experience, such reviews often enable
action. The term ‘‘compliance action’’
the Department to identify compliance
includes, without limitation, full
issues and circumstances in which
investigations, limited investigations,
additional outreach and education
office audits, self-audits, and
conciliations.104 The Department further would be beneficial.
proposes revising this paragraph to
(C) 29 CFR 5.6(a)(3)–(5), 5.6(b)
clarify that, in those instances in which
The Department proposes revisions to
a Federal agency does not itself
maintain such certified payrolls, it is the § 5.6(a)(3) and (5) and (b), similar to the
above-mentioned proposed changes to
responsibility of the Federal agency to
§ 5.6(a)(2), to clarify that an
ensure that those records are provided
investigation is only one method of
to the Department upon request, either
by obtaining and providing the certified assuring compliance with the labor
standards clauses required by § 5.5 and
payrolls to the Department, or by
the applicable statutes referenced in
requiring the entity maintaining those
certified payrolls to provide the records § 5.1. The Department proposes to
supplement the term ‘‘investigation,’’
directly to the Department.
where appropriate, with the phrase ‘‘or
The Department also proposes to
other compliance actions.’’ The
replace the phrase ‘‘payrolls and
proposed revisions align with all the
statements of compliance’’ with
‘‘certified payrolls’’ to continue to more types of compliance actions currently
used by the Department, as well as any
clearly distinguish between certified
additional categories that the
payrolls and regular payroll and other
Department may use in the future.
basic records and information that the
These revisions make explicit the
contractor is also required to maintain
Department’s longstanding practice and
under § 5.5(a)(3), as discussed above.
interpretation of these provisions and
First, the proposed revisions are
do not impose any new or additional
intended to clarify that an investigation
requirements upon a Federal agency.
Proposed revisions to § 5.6(a)(3)
104 See 2020 GAO Report, note 12, supra, at 6
tbl.1, for descriptions of WHD Compliance Actions.
clarify the records and information that
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
clause or wage determination that was
wrongly omitted from the contract. The
Department’s proposal for this
subsection is discussed below in part
III.B.3.xx (‘‘Post-award determinations
and operation-of-law’’), together with
proposed changes to §§ 1.6(f), 5.5(d),
and 5.6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15741
contracting agencies should include in
their DBRA investigations. These
proposed changes conform to proposed
changes in § 5.5(a)(3).
The Department also proposes
updating current § 5.6(a)(5) to reflect its
practice of redacting portions of
confidential statements of workers or
other informants that would tend to
reveal those informants’ identities.
Finally, the Department proposes
renumbering current § 5.6(a)(5) as a
stand-alone new paragraph § 5.6(c). This
proposed change is made to
emphasize—without making substantive
changes—that this regulatory provision
mandating protection of information
that identifies or would tend to identity
confidential sources, or constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy, applies to both the
Department’s and other agencies’
confidential statements and other
related documents.
v. Section 5.10 Restitution, Criminal
Action
To correspond with proposed
language in the underlying contract
clauses, the Department proposes to add
references to monetary relief and
interest to the description of restitution
in § 5.10, as well as an explanation of
the method of computation of interest
applicable generally to any
circumstance in which there has been
an underpayment of wages under a
covered contract.
The Department has proposed new
anti-retaliation contract clauses at
§ 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5), along with a
related section of the regulations at
§ 5.18. Those clauses and section
provide for the provision of monetary
relief that would include, but not be
limited to, back wages. Reference to this
relief in § 5.10 is proposed to
correspond to those proposed new
clauses and section. For further
discussion of those proposals, see part
III.B.3.xix (‘‘Anti-Retaliation’’).
The reference to interest in § 5.10 is
similarly intended to correspond to
proposed new language requiring the
payment of interest on any
underpayment of wages in the contract
clauses at § 5.5(a)(1)(vi), (a)(2) and (6),
and (b)(2) through (4), and on any other
monetary relief for violations of the
proposed anti-retaliation clauses. The
existing Davis-Bacon regulations and
contract clauses do not specifically
provide for the payment of interest on
back wages. The ARB and the
Department’s administrative law judges,
however, have held that interest
calculated to the date of the
underpayment or loss is generally
appropriate where back wages are due
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15742
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
under other similar remedial employee
protection statutes enforced by the
Department. See, e.g., Lawn Restoration
Serv. Corp., No. 2002–SCA–00006, slip
op. at 74 (OALJ Dec. 2, 2003) (awarding
prejudgment interest under the SCA).105
Under the DBRA, as in the INA and SCA
and other similar statutes, an
assessment of interest on back wages
and other monetary relief will ensure
that the workers Congress intended to
protect from substandard wages will
receive the full compensation that they
were owed under the contract.106
The proposed language establishes
that interest will be calculated from the
date of the underpayment or loss, using
the interest rate applicable to
underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C.
6621, and will be compounded daily.
Various OSHA whistleblower
regulations use the tax underpayment
rate and daily compounding because
that accounting best achieves the makewhole purpose of a back-pay award. See
Procedures for the Handling of
Retaliation Complaints Under Section
806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
as Amended, Final Rule, 80 FR 11865,
11872 (Mar. 5, 2015).
vi. Section 5.11 Disputes Concerning
Payment of Wages
The Department proposes minor
revisions to § 5.11(b)(1) and (c)(1), to
clarify that where there is a dispute of
fact or law concerning payment of
prevailing wage rates, overtime pay, or
proper classification, the Administrator
may notify the affected contractors and
subcontractors, if any, of the
investigation findings by means other
than registered or certified mail, so long
as those other means would normally
assure delivery. Examples of such other
means include, but are not limited to,
email to the last known email address,
delivery to the last known address by
commercial courier and express
delivery services, or by personal service
to the last known address. As has been
recently highlighted during the COVID–
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
105 See
also Greater Mo. Med. Pro-care Providers,
Inc., ARB No. 12–015, 2014 WL 469269, at *18 (Jan.
29, 2014) (approving of pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on back pay award for H–1B visa
cases under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA)), aff’d sub nom. Greater Mo. Med. Pro-care
Providers, Inc. v. Perez, No. 3:14–CV–05028, 2014
WL 5438293 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 24, 2014), rev‘d on
other grounds, 812 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2015).
106 The Department does not propose any
requirement of interest on assessments of liquidated
damages under the CWHSSA clause at § 5.5(b)(2).
Under CHWSSA, unlike the FLSA, there is no
requirement that liquidated damages be provided to
affected workers. Contracting agencies can provide
liquidated damages that they recover to employees,
but they are also allowed to retain liquidated
damages to compensate themselves for the costs of
enforcement or otherwise for their own benefit. See
40 U.S.C. 3702(b)(2)(B), 3703(b)(2)(A).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
19 pandemic, while registered or
certified mail may generally be a
reliable means of delivery, in some
circumstances other delivery methods
may be just as reliable or even more
successful at assuring delivery. These
revisions allow the Department to
choose methods to ensure that the
necessary notifications are delivered to
the affected contractors and
subcontractors.
In addition, the Department proposes
similar changes to allow contractors and
subcontractors to also provide their
response, if any, to the Administrator’s
notification of the investigative findings
by any means that would normally
assure delivery. The Department also
proposes replacing the term ‘‘letter’’
with the term ‘‘notification’’ in this
section, since the notification of
investigation findings may be delivered
by letter or other means, such as email.
Similarly, the Department proposes to
replace the term ‘‘postmarked’’ with
‘‘sent’’ to reflect that other methods of
delivery may be confirmed by other
means, such as by the date stamp on an
email or the delivery confirmation
provided by a commercial delivery
service.
For additional discussion related to
§ 5.11, see part III.B.3.xxi
(‘‘Debarment’’).
vii. Section 5.12. Debarment
Proceedings
The Department proposes minor
revisions to § 5.12(b)(1) and
(d)(2)(iv)(A), to clarify that the
Administrator may notify the affected
contractors and subcontractors, if any,
of the investigation findings by means
other than registered or certified mail,
so long as those other means would
normally assure delivery. As discussed
above in reference to identical changes
proposed to § 5.11, these proposed
revisions will allow the Department to
choose the most appropriate method to
confirm that the necessary notifications
reach their recipients. The Department
proposes similar changes to allow the
affected contractors or subcontractors to
use any means that would normally
assure delivery when making their
response, if any, to the Administrator’s
notification.
The Department also proposes a slight
change to § 5.12(b)(2), to state that the
Administrator’s findings will be final if
no hearing is requested within 30 days
of the date of the Administrator’s
notification, as opposed to the current
language, which states that the
Administrator’s findings shall be final if
no hearing is requested within 30 days
of receipt of the Administrator’s
notification. This proposed change
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would align the time period available
for requesting a hearing in § 5.12(b)(2)
with similar requirements in § 5.11 and
other paragraphs in § 5.12, which state
that such requests must be made within
30 days of the date of the
Administrator’s notification.
For additional discussion related to
§ 5.12, see part III.B.3.xxi
(‘‘Debarment’’).
viii. Section 5.16 Training Plans
Approved or Recognized by the
Department of Labor Prior to August 20,
1975
As noted above (see part III.B.3.iii(C)
‘‘29 CFR 5.5(a)(4) Apprentices.’’), the
Department proposes to rescind and
reserve § 5.16. Originally published
along with § 5.5(a)(4)(ii) in a 1975 final
rule, § 5.16 is essentially a grandfather
clause permitting contractors, in
connection with certain training
programs established prior to August 20,
1975, to continue using trainees on
Federal and federally assisted
construction projects without having to
seek additional approval from the
Department pursuant to § 5.5(a)(4)(ii).
See 40 FR 30480. Since § 5.16 appears
to be obsolete more than four decades
after its issuance, the Department
proposes to rescind and reserve the
section. The Department also proposes
several technical edits to § 5.5(a)(4)(ii) to
remove references to § 5.16.
ix. Section 5.17 Withdrawal of
Approval of a Training Program
As discussed in detail above, the
Department proposes to remove
references to trainees and training
programs throughout parts 1 and 5 (see
section iii(C) ‘‘29 CFR 5.5(a)(4)
Apprentices.’’) as well as rescind and
reserve § 5.16 (see section viii ‘‘Section
5.16 Training plans approved or
recognized by the Department of Labor
prior to August 20, 1975.’’).
Accordingly, the Department also
proposes to rescind and reserve § 5.17.
x. Section 5.20 Scope and Significance
of This Subpart
The Department proposes two
technical corrections to § 5.20. First, the
Department proposes to correct a
typographical error in the citation to the
Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 to reflect
that the relevant section of the Portal-toPortal Act is codified at 29 U.S.C. 259,
not 29 U.S.C. 359. Second, the last
sentence of § 5.20 currently states,
‘‘Questions on matters not fully covered
by this subpart may be referred to the
Secretary for interpretation as provided
in § 5.12.’’ However, the regulatory
provision titled ‘‘Rulings and
Interpretations,’’ which this section is
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
meant to reference, is currently located
at § 5.13. The Department therefore
proposes to replace the incorrect
reference to § 5.12 with the correct
reference to § 5.13.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
xi. Section 5.23 The Statutory
Provisions
The Department proposes to make
technical, non-substantive changes to
§ 5.23. The existing text of § 5.23
primarily consists of a lengthy quotation
of a particular fringe benefit provision of
the 1964 amendments to the DBA. The
Department proposes to replace this text
with a summary of the statutory
provision at issue for two reasons. First,
due to a statutory amendment, the
quotation set forth in existing § 5.23 no
longer accurately reflects the statutory
language. Specifically, on August 21,
2002, Congress enacted legislation
which made several non-substantive
revisions to the relevant 1964 DBA
amendment provisions and recodified
those provisions from 40 U.S.C. 276a(b)
to 40 U.S.C. 3141.107 The Department
proposes to update § 5.23 to include a
citation to 40 U.S.C. 3141(2). Second,
the Office of the Federal Register
disfavors lengthy block quotations of
statutory text.108 In light of this drafting
convention, and because the existing
quotation in § 5.23 no longer accurately
reflects the statutory language, the
Department is proposing to revise § 5.23
so that it paraphrases the statutory
language set forth at 40 U.S.C. 3141(2).
xii. Section 5.25 Rate of Contribution
or Cost for Fringe Benefits
The Department proposes to add new
paragraph (c) to existing § 5.25 to codify
the principle of annualization used to
calculate the amount of Davis-Bacon
credit that a contractor may receive for
contributions to a fringe benefit plan
when the contractor’s workers also work
on private projects. While existing
guidance generally requires the use of
annualization to compute the hourly
equivalent of fringe benefits,
annualization is not currently addressed
in the regulations. The Department’s
proposal would require annualization of
fringe benefits unless a contractor is
approved for an exception and provide
guidance on how to properly annualize
fringe benefits. The proposed revision
also creates a new administrative
process that contractors must follow to
obtain approval by the Administrator for
107 See Revision of Title 40, U.S.C., ‘‘Public
Buildings, Property, and Works,’’ Public Law 107–
217, 3141, 116 Stat. 1062, 1150 (Aug. 21, 2002).
108 See Office of the Federal Register, Document
Drafting Handbook § 3.6 (Aug. 2018 ed., rev. Mar.
24, 2021), available at https://www.archives.gov/
files/Federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
an exception from the annualization
requirement.
Consistent with the Secretary’s
authority to set the prevailing wage,
WHD has long concluded that a
contractor generally may not calculate
Davis-Bacon credit for all its
contributions to a fringe benefit plan in
a given time period based solely upon
the workers’ hours on a Davis-Bacon
project when the contractor’s workers
also work on private projects for the
contractor in that same time period. See,
e.g., Miree Constr. Corp. v. Dole, 930
F.2d 1536, 1545–46 (11th Cir. 1991); see
also, e.g., WHD Opinion Letter DBRA–
72 (June 5, 1978); WHD Opinion Letter
DBRA–134 (June 6, 1985); WHD
Opinion Letter DBRA–68 (May 22,
1984); FOH 15f11(b). WHD’s guidance
explains that contributions made to a
fringe benefit plan for government work
generally may not be used to fund the
plan for periods of non-government
work, and a contractor typically must
convert its total annual contributions to
the fringe benefit plan to an hourly cash
equivalent by dividing the cost of the
fringe benefit by the total number of
working hours (DBRA and non-covered)
to determine the amount creditable
towards meeting its obligation to pay
the prevailing wage under the DBRA.
See FOH 15f11(b), 15f12(b).
This principle, which is referred to as
‘‘annualization,’’ thus generally compels
a contractor performing work on a
Davis-Bacon covered project to divide
its contributions to a fringe benefit plan
for a worker by that worker’s total hours
of work on both Davis-Bacon and
private projects for the employer in that
year, rather than attribute those
contributions solely to the worker’s
work on Davis-Bacon covered projects.
Annualization effectively prohibits
contractors from using fringe benefit
plan contributions attributable to work
on private jobs to meet their prevailing
wage obligation for DBRA-covered
work. See, e.g., Miree Constr., 930 F.2d
at 1545 (annualization ensures receipt of
the prevailing wage by ‘‘prevent[ing]
employers from receiving Davis-Bacon
credit for fringe benefits actually paid to
employees during non-Davis-Bacon
work’’). Annualization is intended to
prevent the use of DBRA work as the
disproportionate or exclusive source of
funding for benefits that are continuous
in nature and that constitute
compensation for all the worker’s work,
both Davis-Bacon covered and private.
Despite the longstanding nature of this
policy, however, the concept of
annualization is not expressly referred
to in the Davis-Bacon regulations.
For many years, WHD has required
contractors to annualize contributions
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15743
for most types of fringe benefit plans,
including health insurance plans,
apprenticeship training plans, vacation
plans, and sick leave plans. WHD’s
rationale for requiring annualization is
that such contributions finance benefits
that: (1) Are continuous in nature, and
(2) reflect compensation for all of the
work performed by a laborer or
mechanic, including work on both DBAcovered and private projects. One
notable exception to this general rule
compelling the annualization of fringe
benefit plan contributions, however, is
that WHD has not required
annualization for defined contribution
pension plans (DCPPs) that provide for
immediate participation and essentially
immediate vesting (e.g., 100 percent
vesting after a worker works 500 or
fewer hours). See WHD Opinion Letter
DBRA–134 (June 6, 1985); see also FOH
15f14(f)(1). The rationale for such
exclusion is that DCPPs are not
continuous in nature, as the benefits are
not available until a worker’s
retirement, and that they ensure that the
vast majority of workers will receive the
full amount of contributions made on
their behalf. However, WHD does not
currently have any public guidance
explaining the extent to which other
plans may also share those
characteristics and warrant an exception
from the annualization principle.
To clarify when an exception to the
general annualization principle may be
appropriate, the Department proposes
language stating that a fringe benefit
plan may only qualify for such an
exception when three criteria are
satisfied: (1) The benefit provided is not
continuous in nature; (2) the benefit
does not provide compensation for both
public and private work; and (3) the
plan provides for immediate
participation and essentially immediate
vesting. In accordance with the
Department’s longstanding guidance, a
plan will generally be considered to
have essentially immediate vesting if
the benefits vest after a worker works
500 or fewer hours. These criteria are
not necessarily limited to DCPPs.
However, to ensure that the criteria are
applied correctly and that workers’
Davis-Bacon wages are not
disproportionately used to fund benefits
during periods of private work, such an
exception can only apply when the plan
in question has been submitted to the
Department for review and approval.
Such requests may be submitted by plan
administrators, contractors, or their
representatives. However, to avoid any
disruption to the provision of worker
benefits, the Department also proposes
that any plan that does not require
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15744
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
annualization under the Department’s
existing guidance, such as DCPPs, may
continue to use such an exception until
the plan has either requested and
received a review of its exception status
under this process, or until 18 months
have passed from the effective date of
this rule, whichever comes first.
By requiring annualization, the
proposed paragraph (c) furthers the
above policy goal of protecting workers’
fringe benefits from dilution by
preventing contractors from taking
credit for fringe benefits attributable to
work on non-governmental projects
against fringe benefits required on DBAcovered work. The proposed exception
also provides the flexibility for plans
that do not dilute workers’ fringe
benefits to avoid the annualization
requirement if they meet the proposed
criteria, which are based on the
Department’s existing guidance with
which stakeholders are already familiar.
In this way, the Department hopes to
strike a balance between protecting
workers and preserving access to the
types of plans that have traditionally
been considered exempt from the
annualization requirement.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
xiii. Section 5.26 ‘‘ * * * Contribution
Irrevocably Made * * * to a Trustee or
to a Third Person’’
The Department proposes several
non-substantive technical corrections to
§ 5.26 to improve clarity and readability.
xiv. Section 5.28 Unfunded Plans
The Department proposes several
revisions to this section. First, the
Department proposes a technical
correction to the citation to the DBA to
reflect the codification of the relevant
provision at 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B)(ii), as
well as a number of non-substantive
revisions.
Additionally, the Department
proposes adding a new paragraph (b)(5)
to this section, explicitly stating that
unfunded benefit plans or programs
must be approved by the Secretary in
order to qualify as bona fide fringe
benefits, and a new paragraph (c)
explaining the process contractors and
subcontractors must use to request such
approval. To accommodate these
proposed additions, the text currently
located in paragraph (c) of this section
would be moved to new paragraph (d).
As other regulatory sections make
clear, if a contractor provides its
workers with fringe benefits through an
unfunded plan instead of by making
irrevocable payments to a trustee or
other third person, the contractor may
only take credit for any costs reasonably
anticipated in providing such fringe
benefits if it has submitted a request in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
writing to the Department and the
Secretary has determined that the
applicable standards of the DBA have
been met. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(iv),
5.29(e). However, § 5.28 does not
mention this approval requirement,
even though it is the section that most
specifically discusses requirements for
unfunded plans. Incorporating this
requirement and a description of the
approval process into § 5.28 would
therefore help improve regulatory
clarity. Accordingly, the Department
proposes to revise § 5.28 to clarify that,
for payments under an unfunded plan
or program to be credited as fringe
benefits, contractors and subcontractors
must submit a written request,
including sufficient documentation, for
the Secretary to consider in determining
whether the plan or program, and the
benefits proposed to be provided
thereunder, are ‘‘bona fide,’’ meet the
factors set forth in § 5.28(b)(1)–(4), and
are otherwise consistent with the Act.
The Department also proposes to add
language to explain that such requests
must be submitted by mail to WHD’s
Division of Government Contracts
Enforcement, via email to unfunded@
dol.gov or any successor address, or via
any other means directed by the
Administrator.
The proposed revised regulation
provides that a request for approval of
an unfunded plan must include
sufficient documentation to enable the
Department to evaluate whether the
plan satisfies the regulatory criteria. To
provide flexibility, the proposed revised
regulation does not itself specify the
documentation that must be submitted
with the request. However, current
paragraph (c) of this section, and
proposed paragraph (d), explain that the
words ‘‘reasonably anticipated’’
contemplate a plan that can ‘‘withstand
a test’’ of ‘‘actuarial soundness.’’ While
WHD’s determination whether or not an
unfunded plan meets the statutory and
regulatory requirements will be based
on the totality of the circumstances, the
type of information WHD will require
from contractors or subcontractors in
order to make such a determination will
typically include: (1) Identification of
the benefit(s) to be provided; (2) an
explanation of the funding/contribution
formula; (3) an explanation of the
financial analysis methodology used to
estimate the costs of the plan or program
benefits and how the contractor has
budgeted for those costs; (4) a
specification of how frequently the
contractor either sets aside funds in
accordance with the cost calculations to
meet claims as they arise, or otherwise
budgets, allocates, or tracks such funds
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to ensure that they will be available to
meet claims; (5) an explanation of
whether employer contribution amounts
are different for Davis-Bacon and nonprevailing wage work; (6) identification
of the administrator of the plan or
program and the source of the funds the
administrator uses to pay the benefits
provided by the plan or program; (7)
specification of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) status of the plan or program;
and (8) an explanation of how the plan
or program is communicated to laborers
or mechanics.
xv. Section 5.29 Specific Fringe
Benefits
The Department proposes to revise
§ 5.29 to add a new paragraph (g) that
addresses how contractors may claim a
fringe benefit credit for the costs of an
apprenticeship program. While § 5.29(a)
states that fringe benefits may be used
for the defrayment of the costs of
apprenticeship programs, the
regulations do not presently address
how to properly credit such
contributions against a contractor’s
fringe benefit obligations. The proposed
revision would codify the Department’s
longstanding practice and
interpretation. See WHD Opinion
Letters DBRA–116 (May 17, 1978),
DBRA–18 (Sept. 7, 1983), DBRA–16
(July 28, 1987), DBRA–160 (March 10,
1990); see also FOH 15f17. The
proposed revision also reflects relevant
case law. See Miree Constr. Corp., WAB
No. 87–13, 1989 WL 407466 (Feb. 17,
1989); Miree Constr. Corp. v. Dole, 730
F. Supp. 385 (N.D. Ala. 1990); Miree
Constr. Corp. v. Dole, 930 F.2d at 1537.
Proposed paragraph (g) clarifies when
a contractor may take credit for
contributions made to an apprenticeship
program and how to calculate the credit
a contractor may take against its fringe
benefit obligation. First, the proposed
paragraph states that for a contractor or
subcontractor to take credit for the costs
of an apprenticeship program, the
program, in addition to meeting all
other requirements for fringe benefits,
must be registered with the Department
of Labor’s Employment and Training
Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship (OA), or with a State
Apprenticeship Agency recognized by
the OA. Additionally, the proposed
paragraph explains that contractors may
take credit for the actual costs of the
apprenticeship program, such as tuition,
books, and materials, but may not take
credit for additional contributions that
are beyond the costs actually incurred
for the apprenticeship program. It also
reiterates the Department’s position that
the contractor may only claim credit
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
towards its prevailing wage obligations
for the classification of laborer or
mechanic that is the subject of the
apprenticeship program. For example, if
a contractor has apprentices registered
in a bona fide apprenticeship program
for carpenters, the contractor could
claim a credit for the costs of the
apprenticeship program towards the
prevailing wages due to the carpenters
on a Davis-Bacon project, but could not
apply that credit towards the prevailing
wages due to the electricians or laborers
on the project. Likewise, the proposed
paragraph explains that, when applying
the annualization principle discussed
above, the workers whose total working
hours are used to calculate the hourly
contribution amount are limited to those
workers in the same classification as the
apprentice, and that this hourly amount
may only be applied toward the wage
obligations for such workers.
The Department also proposes a
minor technical revision to subsection
(e) to include a citation to § 5.28, which
provides additional guidance on
unfunded plans.
xvi. Section 5.30
Determinations
Types of Wage
The Department proposes several
non-substantive revisions to § 5.30. In
particular, the Department proposes to
update the illustrations in § 5.30(c) to
more closely resemble the current
format of wage determinations issued
under the DBA. The current illustrations
in § 5.30(c) list separate rates for various
categories of fringe benefits, including
‘‘Health and welfare,’’ ‘‘Pensions,’’
‘‘Vacations,’’ ‘‘Apprenticeship
program,’’ and ‘‘Others.’’ However,
current Davis-Bacon wage
determinations typically contain a
single combined fringe benefit rate per
classification, rather than separately
listing rates for different categories of
fringe benefits. To avoid confusion, the
Department proposes to update the
illustrations to reflect the way in which
fringe benefits are typically listed on
wage determinations. The Department
has also proposed several nonsubstantive revisions to § 5.30(a) and
(b), including revisions pertaining to the
updated illustrations in § 5.30(c).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
xvii. Section 5.31 Meeting Wage
Determination Obligations
The Department has proposed to
update the illustrations in § 5.30(c) to
more closely resemble the current
format of wage determinations under
the DBRA. The Department therefore
proposes to make technical, nonsubstantive changes to § 5.31 to reflect
the updated illustration in § 5.30(c).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
xviii. Section 5.33 Administrative
Expense of a Contractor or
Subcontractor
The Department proposes to add a
new § 5.33 to codify existing WHD
policy under which a contractor or
subcontractor may not take Davis-Bacon
credit for its own administrative
expenses incurred in connection with
the administration of a fringe benefit
plan. See WHD Opinion Letter DBRA–
72 (June 5, 1978); see also FOH 15f18.
This is consistent with Department case
law under the DBA, under which such
payments are viewed as ‘‘part of [an
employer’s] general overhead expenses
of doing business and should not serve
to decrease the direct benefit going to
the employee.’’ Collinson Constr. Co.,
WAB No. 76–09, 1977 WL 24826, at *2
(Apr. 20, 1977) (also noting that the
DBA’s inclusion of ‘‘costs’’ in the
provision currently codified at 40 U.S.C.
3141(2)(B)(ii) refers to ‘‘the costs of
benefits under an unfunded plan’’)
(emphasis in original); see also CodyZeigler, Inc., ARB Nos. 01–014, 01–015,
2003 WL 23114278, at *20 (Dec. 19,
2003) (applying Collinson and
concluding that a contractor improperly
claimed its administrative costs for
‘‘bank fees, payments to clerical workers
for preparing paper work and dealing
with insurance companies’’ as a fringe
benefit). This is also consistent with the
Department’s regulations and guidance
under the SCA. See 29 CFR 4.172; FOH
14j00(a)(1).
The Department also seeks public
comment regarding whether it should
clarify this principle further with
respect to third-party administrative
costs. Under both the DBA and SCA,
fringe benefits include items such as
health insurance, which necessarily
involves both the payment of benefits
and administration of benefit claims. 40
U.S.C. 3141(2)(B); 41 U.S.C. 6703(2).
Accordingly, reasonable costs incurred
by a third-party fiduciary in its
administration and delivery of fringe
benefits to employees are creditable
under the SCA. See WHD Opinion
Letter SCA–93 (Jan. 27, 1994) (noting, in
a circumstance in which an SCA
contractor contributed to a pension plan
on behalf of its employees, that ‘‘the
plan itself may recoup [its]
administrative costs’’). For example, a
contractor may take credit for the
premiums it pays to a health insurance
carrier, and the insurance carrier may
use those premium payments both to
pay for workers’ medical expenses and
to pay the reasonable costs of tasks
related to the administration and
delivery of benefits, such as evaluating
benefit claims, deciding whether they
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15745
should be paid, and approving referrals
to specialists. See FOH 14j00(a)(2). The
Department applies a similar standard
under the DBA.
However, whether fees charged by a
third party are creditable depends on
the facts and circumstances. As noted
above, a contractor’s own administrative
costs incurred in connection with the
provision of fringe benefits are not
creditable, as they are considered the
contractor’s business expenses. See
Collinson, 1977 WL 24826, at *2; 29
CFR 4.172. As such, WHD has
previously advised that if a third party
is merely performing on the contractor’s
behalf administrative functions
associated with providing fringe
benefits to employees, rather than
actually administering claims and
paying benefits, the contractor’s
payments to such a third party are not
creditable because they substitute for
the contractor’s own administrative
costs. Such functions include, for
example, tracking the amount of the
contractor’s fringe benefit contributions,
making sure those contributions cover
the fringe benefit credit claimed by the
contractor, tracking and paying invoices
from third-party administrators, and
sending lists of new hires to the plan
administrators. Essentially, the
principle explained in 29 CFR 4.172,
FOH 14j00(a)(1), FOH 15f18, and
proposed § 5.33 that a contractor may
not take credit for its own
administrative expenses applies
regardless of whether a contractor uses
its own employees to perform this sort
of administrative work or engages
another company to handle these tasks.
The Department has received an
increasing number of inquiries in recent
years regarding the extent to which fees
charged by third parties for performing
such administrative tasks are or are not
creditable. As such, while not proposing
specific regulatory text, the Department
proposes to clarify this matter in a final
rule. The Department seeks comment on
whether it should incorporate the
above-described policies, or other
policies regarding third-party entities,
into its regulations. In addition, the
Department seeks comment on
examples of the administrative duties
performed by third parties that do not
themselves pay benefits or administer
benefit claims.
The Department also seeks comment
on the extent to which third-party
entities both (1) perform administrative
functions associated with providing
fringe benefits to employees, such as
tracking a contractor’s fringe benefit
contributions, and (2) actually
administer and deliver benefits, such as
evaluating and paying out medical
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15746
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
claims, and on how the Department
should treat payments to any such
entities. For instance, should the
Department consider the cost of the
administrative functions in (1) noncreditable business expenses, and the
cost of actual benefits administration
and payment in (2) to be creditable as
fringe benefit contributions?
Alternatively, should the creditability of
payments to such an entity depend on
what the third-party entity’s primary
function is? Should the answer to these
questions depend on whether the thirdparty entity is an employee welfare plan
within the meaning of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
1002(1)?
xix. Anti-Retaliation
The Department proposes to add antiretaliation provisions to enhance
enforcement of the DBRA, and their
implementing regulations in 29 CFR
parts 1, 3, and 5. The proposed new
anti-retaliation provisions are intended
to discourage contractors, responsible
officers, and any other persons from
engaging in—or causing others to engage
in—unscrupulous business practices
that may chill worker participation in
WHD investigations or other compliance
actions and enable prevailing wage
violations to go undetected. The
proposed anti-retaliation regulations are
also intended to provide make-whole
relief for any worker who has been
discriminated against in any manner for
taking, or being perceived to have taken,
certain actions concerning the labor
standards provisions of the DBA,
CWHSSA and other Related Acts, and
the regulations in parts 1, 3, and 5.
In most WHD DBRA investigations or
other compliance actions, effective
enforcement requires worker
cooperation. Information from workers
about their actual hours worked and
their pay is often essential to uncover
violations such as falsification of
certified payrolls or wage
underpayments by contractors or
subcontractors who fail to keep any pay
or time records, or whose records are
inaccurate or incomplete. Workers are
often reluctant to come forward with
information about potential violations of
the laws WHD enforces because they
fear losing their jobs or suffering other
adverse consequences. Workers are
similarly reluctant to raise these issues
with their supervisors. Such reluctance
to inquire or complain internally may
result in lost opportunities for early
correction of violations by contractors.
The current Davis-Bacon regulations
protect the identity of confidential
worker-informants in large part to
prevent retribution by contractors for
whom they work. See 29 CFR 5.6(a)(5),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
6.5. This protection helps combat the
‘‘possibility of reprisals’’ by ‘‘vindictive
employers’’ against workers who speak
out about wage and hour violations, but
does not eliminate it. Cosmic Constr.
Co., WAB No. 79–19, 1980 WL 95656,
at *5 (Sept. 2, 1980).
When contractors retaliate against
workers who cooperate or are suspected
of cooperating with WHD or who make
internal complaints, neither worker
confidentiality nor the Davis-Bacon
remedial measures of back wages or
debarment can make workers whole.
The Department’s proposed antiretaliation provisions aim to remedy
such situations by providing makewhole relief to workers who are
retaliated against, as well as by deterring
or correcting interference with DavisBacon worker protections.
The Department’s authority to
promulgate the anti-retaliation
provisions stems from 40 U.S.C. 3145
and Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950.
In transmitting the Reorganization Plan
to Congress, President Truman noted
that ‘‘the principal objective of the plan
is more effective enforcement of labor
standards,’’ and that the plan ‘‘will
provide more uniform and more
adequate protection for workers through
the expenditures made for the
enforcement of the existing legislation.’’
Special Message to the Congress
Transmitting Reorganization Plan No.
14 of 1950, reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. 1
(Mar. 13, 1950) (1950 Special Message
to Congress).
It is well settled that the Department
has regulatory authority to debar
Related Act contractors even though the
Related Acts do not expressly provide
for debarment. See Janik Paving &
Constr., Inc. v. Brock, 828 F.2d 84, 90,
91 (2d Cir. 1987) (upholding debarment
for CWHSSA violations even though
that statute ‘‘specifically provided civil
and criminal sanctions for violations of
overtime work requirements but failed
to mention debarment’’). In 1951 the
Department added a new part 5 to the
DBRA regulations, including the Related
Act debarment regulation. See 16 FR
4430. The Department explained it was
doing so in compliance with the
directive of Reorganization Plan No. 14
of 1950 to ‘‘assure coordination of
administration and consistency of
enforcement of the labor standards
provisions’’ of the DBRA. Id. Just as
regulatory debarment is a permissible
exercise of the Department’s ‘‘implied
powers of administrative enforcement,’’
Janik, 828 F.2d at 91, so too are the
proposed anti-retaliation provisions—as
well as the revised Related Act
debarment provisions discussed below
in part III.B.3.xxi (‘‘Debarment’’). The
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Department believes that it would be
both efficient and consistent with the
remedial purpose of the DBRA to
investigate and adjudicate complaints of
retaliation as part of WHD’s
enforcement of the DBRA. These
proposed measures will help achieve
more effective enforcement of the DavisBacon labor standards.
Currently, debarment is the primary
mechanism under the DBRA civil
enforcement scheme for remedying
retribution against workers who assert
their right to prevailing wages.
Debarment is also the main tool for
addressing less tangible discrimination
such as interfering with investigations
by intimidating or threatening workers.
Such unscrupulous behavior may be
both a ‘‘disregard of obligations’’ to
workers under the DBA and ‘‘aggravated
or willful’’ violations under the current
Related Act regulations that warrant
debarment. See 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(1); 29
CFR 5.12(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1).
Both the ARB and ALJs have debarred
contractors in part because of their
retaliatory conduct or interference with
WHD investigations. See, e.g.,
Pythagoras Gen. Contracting Corp., 2011
WL 1247207, at *13 (affirming
debarment of contractor and its
principal in a DBRA case in part
because of the ‘‘attempt [by principal
and other officials of the contractor] at
witness coercion or intimidation’’ when
they visited former employees to talk
about their upcoming hearing
testimony); R.J. Sanders, Inc., WAB No.
90–25, 1991 WL 494734, at *1–2 (Jan.
31, 1991) (affirming ALJ’s finding that
employer’s retaliatory firing of an
employee who reported to a Navy
inspector being paid less than the
prevailing wage was ‘‘persuasive
evidence of a willful violation of the
[DBA]’’); Early & Sons, Inc., ALJ No. 85–
DBA–140, 1986 WL 193128, at *8 (OALJ
Aug. 5, 1986) (willful and aggravated
DBRA violations evidenced in part
where worker who ‘‘insisted on
[receiving the mandated wage] . . . was
told, in effect, to be quiet or risk losing
his job’’), rev’d on other grounds, WAB
No. 86–25, 1987 WL 247044, at *2 (Jan.
29, 1987); Enviro & Demo Masters, Inc.,
ALJ No. 2011–DBA–00002, Decision
and Order, slip op. at 9–10, 15, 59, 62–
64 (OALJ Apr. 23, 2014) (Enviro D&O)
(debarring subcontractor, its owner, and
a supervisor because of ‘‘aggravated and
willful avoidance of paying the required
prevailing wages’’ which included firing
an employee who refused to sign a
declaration repudiating his DBRA
rights, and instructing workers to lie
about their pay and underreport their
hours if questioned by investigators).
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
There are also criminal sanctions for
certain coercive conduct by DBRA
contractors. The Copeland AntiKickback Act makes it a crime to induce
DBRA-covered construction workers to
give up any part of compensation due
‘‘by force, intimidation, or threat of
procuring dismissal from employment,
or by any other manner whatsoever.’’ 18
U.S.C. 874; cf. 29 CFR 5.10(b)
(discussing criminal referrals for DBRA
violations). Such prevailing wage
kickback schemes are also willful or
aggravated violations of the civil
Copeland Act (a Related Act) that
warrant debarment. See 40 U.S.C. 3145;
see, e.g., Killeen Elec. Co., WAB No. 87–
49, 1991 WL 494685, at *5 (Mar. 21,
1991).
Interference with WHD investigations
or other compliance actions may also
warrant criminal prosecution. For
example, in addition to owing 37
workers $656,646 in back wages in the
DBRA civil administrative proceeding,
see Enviro D&O at 66, both the owner
of Enviro & Demo Masters and his
father, the supervisor, were convicted of
Federal crimes including witness
tampering and conspiracy to commit
witness tampering. These officials
instructed workers at the jobsite to hide
from and ‘‘lie to investigators about
their working hours and wages,’’ and
they fired workers who spoke to
investigators or refused to sign false
documents. Naranjo v. United States,
No. 17–CV–9573, 2021 WL 1063442, at
*1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2021), report
and recommendation adopted by 2021
WL 1317232 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2021); see
also Naranjo, Sr. v. United States, No.
16 Civ. 7386, 2019 WL 7568186, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019), report and
recommendation adopted by 2020 WL
174072, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020).
Though contractors, subcontractors,
and their responsible officers may be
debarred—and even criminally
prosecuted—for retaliatory conduct,
laborers and mechanics who have been
discriminated against for speaking up,
or for having been perceived as speaking
up, currently have no redress under the
Department’s regulations implementing
the DBA or Related Acts to the extent
that back wages do not make them
whole. For example, WHD currently
may not order reinstatement of workers
fired for their cooperation with
investigators or as a result of an internal
complaint to their supervisor. Nor may
the Department award back pay for the
period after a worker is fired. Similarly,
WHD cannot require contractors to
compensate workers for the difference
in pay resulting from retaliatory
demotions or reductions in hours. The
addition of anti-retaliation provisions is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
a logical extension of the DBA and
Related Acts debarment remedial
measure. It would supplement
debarment as an enforcement tool to
more effectively prevent retaliation and
interference or any other such
discriminatory behavior. An antiretaliation mechanism would also build
on existing back-wage remedies by
extending compensation to a fuller
range of harms.
The Department therefore proposes to
add two new regulatory provisions
concerning anti-retaliation, as well as to
update several other regulations to
reflect the new anti-retaliation
provisions.
(A) Proposed New § 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5)
The Department proposes to
implement anti-retaliation in part by
adding a new anti-retaliation provision
to all contracts subject to the DBA or
Related Acts. Proposed contract clauses
provided for in § 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5)
state that it is unlawful for any person
to discharge, demote, intimidate,
threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
harass, or in any other manner
discriminate, or to cause any person to
do the same, against any worker for
engaging in a number of protected
activities. The protected activities
include notifying any contractor of any
conduct which the worker reasonably
believes constitutes a violation; filing
any complaints, initiating or causing to
be initiated any proceeding, or
otherwise asserting any right or
protection; cooperating in an
investigation or other compliance
action, or testifying in any proceeding;
or informing any other person about
their rights under the DBA, Related
Acts, or the regulations in 29 CFR parts
1, 3, or 5, for proposed § 5.5(a)(11), or
the CWHSSA or its implementing
regulations in 29 CFR part 5, for
proposed § 5.5(b)(5).
The scope of these anti-retaliation
provisions is intended to be broad in
order to better effectuate the remedial
purpose of the DBRA to protect workers
and ensure that they are not paid
substandard wages. Workers must feel
free to speak openly—with contractors
for whom they work and contractors’
responsible officers and agents, with the
Department, and with co-workers—
about conduct that they reasonably
believe to be a violation of the
prevailing wage requirements or other
Davis-Bacon labor standards. These
proposed anti-retaliation provisions
recognize that worker cooperation is
critical to enforcement of the DBRA.
They also incentivize compliance and
seek to eliminate any competitive
disadvantage borne by government
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15747
contractors and subcontractors that
follow the rules.
In line with those remedial goals, the
Department intends the proposed antiretaliation provisions to protect internal
complaints, or other assertions of
workers’ Davis-Bacon or CWHSSA labor
standards protections set forth in
§ 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5), as well as
interference that may not have an
adverse monetary impact on the affected
workers. Similarly, the Department
intends the anti-retaliation provisions to
also apply in situations where there is
no current work or employment
relationship between the parties; for
example, it would prohibit retaliation
by a prospective or former employer or
contractor (or both). Finally, the
Department’s proposed rule seeks to
protect workers who make oral as well
as written complaints, notifications, or
other assertions of their rights protected
under § 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5).
(B) Proposed New § 5.18
The Department proposes remedies to
assist in enforcement of the DBRA labor
standards provisions. Section 5.18 sets
forth the proposed remedies for
violations of the new anti-retaliation
provisions. This proposed section also
includes the process for notifying
contractors and other persons found to
have violated the anti-retaliation
provisions of the Administrator’s
investigative findings, as well as for
Administrator directives to remedy such
violations and provide make-whole
relief.
Make-whole relief and remedial
actions under this provision are
intended to restore the worker subjected
to the violation to the position, both
economically and in terms of work or
employment status (e.g., seniority, leave
balances, health insurance coverage,
401(k) contributions, etc.), that the
worker would have occupied had the
violation never taken place. Available
remedies include, but are not limited to,
any back pay and benefits denied or lost
by reason of the violation; other actual
monetary losses sustained as a direct
result of the violation; interest on back
pay or other monetary relief from the
date of the loss; and appropriate
equitable or other relief such as
reinstatement or promotion;
expungement of warnings, reprimands,
or derogatory references; the provision
of a neutral employment reference; and
posting of notices that the contractor or
subcontractor agrees to comply with the
DBRA anti-retaliation requirements.
In addition, proposed § 5.18 specifies
that when contractors, subcontractors,
responsible officers, or other persons
dispute findings of violations of
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15748
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
§ 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the procedures in
29 CFR 5.11 or 5.12 will apply.
Conforming revisions are being
proposed to the withholding provisions
at §§ 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 5.9 to
indicate that withholding includes
monetary relief for violations of the antiretaliation provisions, § 5.5(a)(11) and
(b)(5), in addition to withholding of
back wages for DBRA prevailing wage
violations and CWHSSA overtime
violations.
Similarly, conforming changes are
being proposed to §§ 5.6(a)(4) and
5.10(a). Computations of monetary relief
for violations of the anti-retaliation
provisions have been added to the
limited investigatory material that may
be disclosed without the permission and
views of the Department under
§ 5.6(a)(4). In proposed § 5.10(a),
monetary violations of anti-retaliation
provisions have been added as a type of
restitution.
As explained above, contractors,
subcontractors, and their responsible
officers have long been subject to
debarment for their retaliatory actions.
This rulemaking updates DBRA
enforcement mechanisms by ensuring
that workers may cooperate with WHD
or complain internally about perceived
prevailing wage violations without fear
of reprisal. This proposed rule is a
reasonable extension of the
Department’s broad regulatory authority
to enforce and administer the DBRA.
Further, adding anti-retaliation would
amplify existing back wage and
debarment remedies by making workers
whole who suffer the effects of
retaliatory firings, demotions, and other
actions that reduce their earnings. This
important new tool will help carry out
the DBRA’s remedial purposes by
bolstering WHD’s enforcement.
xx. Post-Award Determinations and
Operation-of-Law
The Department proposes several
revisions throughout parts 1 and 5 to
update and codify the administrative
procedure for enforcing Davis-Bacon
labor standards requirements when the
contract clauses and/or appropriate
wage determination(s) have been
wrongly omitted from a covered
contract.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(A) Current Regulations
The current regulations require the
insertion of the relevant contract clauses
and wage determination(s) in covered
contracts. 29 CFR 5.5. Section 5.5(a)
requires that the appropriate contract
clauses are inserted ‘‘in full’’ into any
covered contracts, and the contract
clause language at § 5.5(a)(1) states that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
the wage determination(s) are
‘‘attached’’ to the contract.
The existing regulations at § 1.6(f)
provide instruction for how the
Department and contracting agencies
must act when a wage determination
has been wrongly omitted from a
contract. Those regulations provide a
procedure through which the
Administrator makes a finding that a
wage determination should have been
included in the contract. After the
finding by the Administrator, the
contracting agency must either
terminate and resolicit the contract with
the valid wage determination, or
incorporate the wage determination
retroactively by supplemental
agreement or change order. The same
procedure applies where the
Administrator finds that the wrong wage
determination was incorporated into the
contract. The existing regulations at
§ 1.6(f) specify that the contractor must
be compensated for any increases in
wages resulting from any supplemental
agreement or change order issued in
accordance with the procedure.
Under the current regulations, WHD
has faced multiple longstanding
enforcement challenges. First, the
language of § 1.6(f) explicitly refers only
to omitted wage determinations and
does not expressly address the situation
where a contracting agency has
mistakenly omitted the contract clauses
from the contract. Although WHD has
historically relied on § 1.6(f) to address
this situation, the ambiguity in the
regulations has caused confusion in
communications between WHD and
contracting agencies and delay in
resolving conflicts. See, e.g., WHD
Opinion Letters DBRA–167 (Aug. 29,
1990); DBRA–131 (Apr. 18, 1985).
Second, under the existing
regulations, affected workers have
suffered from significant delays while
contracting agencies determine the
appropriate course of action. At a
minimum, such delays cause problems
for workers who must endure long waits
to receive their back wages. At worst,
the delay can result in no back wages
recovered at all where witnesses are lost
or there are no longer any contract
payments to withhold when a contract
is finally modified or terminated. In all
cases, the identification of the
appropriate mechanism for contract
termination or modification can be
difficult and burdensome on Federal
agencies—in particular during later
stages of a contract or after a contract
has ended.
The process provided in the current
§ 1.6(f) is particularly problematic
where a contracting agency has
questions about whether an existing
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contract can be modified without
violating another non-DBRA statute or
regulation. This problem has arisen in
particular in the context of multiple
award schedule (MAS) contracts,
blanket purchase agreements (BPAs),
and other similar schedule contracts
negotiated by GSA.109 Contracting
agencies that have issued task orders
under GSA schedule contracts have
been reluctant to modify those task
orders to include labor standards
provisions where the governing Federal
schedule contract does not contain the
provisions. Under those circumstances,
contracting agencies have argued that
such a modification could render that
task order ‘‘out of scope’’ and therefore
arguably unlawful.
Although the Department believes it
is incorrect that a contract modification
to incorporate required labor standards
clauses or wage determinations could
render a contract or task order out of
scope,110 concerns about this issue have
interfered with the Department’s
enforcement of the labor standards. If a
contracting agency believes it cannot
modify a contract consistent with
applicable procurement law, it may
instead decide to terminate the contract
without retroactively including the
required clauses or wage
determinations. In those circumstances,
the regulations currently provide no
clear mechanism that would allow the
Department or contracting agencies to
seek to recover the back wages that the
workers should have been paid on the
terminated contract.
(B) Proposed Regulatory Revisions
To address these longstanding
enforcement challenges, the Department
proposes to exercise its authority under
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 and
109 Sales on the GSA Multiple Award Schedule
(MAS), for example, have increased dramatically in
recent decades—from $4 billion in 1992 to $36.6
billion in 2020. Gov’t Accountability Office, High
Risk Series: An Update, GAO–05–207 (Jan. 2005),
at 25 (Figure 1) (noting these types of contracting
vehicles ‘‘contribute to a much more complex
environment in which accountability has not
always been clearly established’’), available at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-05-207.pdf; Gen.
Servs. Admin., GSA FY 2020 Annual Performance
Report, at 11, available at: https://www.gsa.gov/
cdnstatic/GSA%20FY%202020%20Annual%20
Performance%20Report%20v2.pdf.
110 This argument tends to conflate the change
associated with incorporating a missing contract
clause or wage determination with any unexpected
changes by the contracting agency to the actual
work to be performed under the task order or
contract. As a general matter, a Competition in
Contracting Act (CICA) challenge based solely on
the incorporation of missing labor standards clauses
or appropriate wage determinations is without
merit. See Booz Allen Hamilton Eng’g Servs., LLC,
B–411065 (May 1, 2015), available at https://
www.gao.gov/products/b-411065.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
40 U.S.C. 3145 to adopt several changes
to §§ 1.6, 5.5, and 5.6.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(1) § 5.5(e)
Language
Proposed Operation-of-Law
The Department proposes to include
language in a new paragraph at § 5.5(e)
to provide that the labor standards
contract clauses and appropriate wage
determinations are effective ‘‘by
operation of law’’ in circumstances
where they have been wrongly omitted
from a covered contract. This proposed
language would assure that, in all cases,
a mechanism exists to enforce
Congress’s mandate that workers on
covered contracts receive prevailing
wages—notwithstanding any mistake by
an executive branch official in an initial
coverage decision or in an accidental
omission of the labor standards contract
clauses. It would also ensure that
workers receive the correct prevailing
wages if the correct wage determination
was not attached to the original contract
or was not incorporated during the
exercise of an option. In addition, as
discussed below, the Department is
proposing language in other regulatory
provisions to reflect this change and to
provide safeguards for both contractors
and contracting agencies.
Under the proposed language in
§ 5.5(e), erroneously omitted contract
clauses and appropriate wage
determinations would be effective by
operation of law and therefore
enforceable retroactive to the beginning
of the contract or construction. The
proposed language provides that all of
the contract clauses set forth in § 5.5—
the contract clauses at § 5.5(a) and the
CWHSSA contract clauses at § 5.5(b)—
are considered to be a part of every
covered contract, whether or not they
are physically incorporated into the
contract. This includes the contract
clauses requiring the payment of
prevailing wages and overtime at
§ 5.5(a)(1) and (b)(1), respectively; the
withholding clauses at § 5.5(a)(2) and
(b)(3); and the labor-standards disputes
clause at § 5.5(a)(9).
The operation-of-law proposal is
intended to complement the existing
requirements in § 1.6(f) and would not
entirely replace them. Thus, the
contracting agency would still be
required to take action as appropriate to
terminate or modify the contract. Under
the new proposed procedure, however,
the Administrator would not need to
await a contract modification to assess
back wages and seek withholding,
because the wage requirements and
withholding clauses would be read into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
the contract as a matter of law.111 The
application of the clauses and the
correct wage determination as a matter
of law would also provide the
Administrator with a tool to enforce the
labor standards on any contract that a
contracting agency decides it must
terminate instead of modify.
Under the proposal, when the
contract clause or wage determination is
incorporated into the prime contract by
operation of law, prime contractors
would be responsible for the payment of
applicable prevailing wages to all
workers under the contract—including
the workers of their subcontractors—
retroactive to the contract award or
beginning of construction, whichever
occurs first. This is consistent with the
current Davis-Bacon regulations and
case law. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(6); All Phase
Elec. Co., WAB No. 85–18 (June 18,
1986) (withholding contract payments
from the prime for subcontractor
employees even though the labor
standards had not been flowed down
into the subcontract). This
responsibility, however, would be offset
by proposed language in § 5.5(e) adding
a compensation provision that would
require that the prime contractor be
compensated for any increases in wages
resulting from a post-award
incorporation of a contract clause or
wage determination by operation of law
under § 5.5(e). This proposed language
is modeled after similar language that
has been included in § 1.6(f) since
1983.112
The Department recognizes that postaward coverage or correction
determinations can cause difficulty for
contracting agencies. Contracting
agencies avoid such difficulty by
proactively incorporating the DavisBacon labor standards clauses and
applicable wage determinations into
contracts or using the existing process
for requesting a coverage ruling or
interpretation from the Administrator
prior to contract award. See 29 CFR
5.13.113 In addition, the new language
111 The Department proposes parallel language in
29 CFR 5.9 (Suspension of funds) to clarify that
funds may be withheld under the contract clauses
and appropriate wage determinations whether they
have been incorporated into the contract physically,
by reference, or by operation of law.
112 See 46 FR 4306, 4313 (Jan. 16, 1981); 47 FR
23644, 23654 (May 28, 1982) (implemented by 48
FR 19532 (Apr. 29, 1983)).
113 A ruling of the Administrator under § 5.13 that
Davis-Bacon labor standards do not apply to the
contract is authoritative and prevents a different
post-award determination unless the Administrator
determines that the pre-award ruling was based on
a factual description provided by the contracting
agency that was incomplete or inaccurate at the
time, or that no longer is accurate after
unanticipated changes were made to the scope of
the contractor’s work.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15749
provides that a contracting agency will
continue to be able to request that the
Administrator grant an exemption from
retroactive enforcement of wage
determinations and contract clauses (or,
where permissible, an exemption from
prospective application) under the same
conditions currently applicable to postaward determinations. See 29 CFR
1.6(f); 29 CFR 5.14; City of Ellsworth,
ARB No. 14–042, 2016 WL 4238460, at
*6–*8 (June 6, 2016).114
The operation-of-law provision in
proposed § 5.5(e) is similar to the
Department’s existing regulations
enacting Executive Order 11246—Equal
Employment Opportunity. See 41 CFR
60–1.4(e); United States v. Miss. Power
& Light Co., 638 F.2d 899, 905–06 (5th
Cir. 1981) (finding 41 CFR 60–1.4(e) to
be valid and have force of law). The
operation-of-law provision at 41 CFR
60–1.4(e), like the proposed language in
§ 5.5(e), operates in addition to and
complements the other provisions in the
Executive Order’s regulations that
require the equal opportunity contract
clause to be inserted in full into the
contract. See 41 CFR 60–1.4(a).
Unlike 41 CFR 60–1.4(e), the
Department’s proposed language in the
new § 5.5(e) would apply the ‘‘operation
of law’’ provision only to prime
contracts and not to subcontracts. The
reason for this difference is that, as
noted above, the Davis-Bacon
regulations and case law provide that
the prime contractor is responsible for
the payment of applicable wages on all
subcontracts. If the prime contract
contains the labor standards as a matter
of law, then the prime contractor is
required to ensure that all employees on
the contract—including subcontractors’
employees—receive all applicable
prevailing wages. Accordingly, the
Department does not believe that
extending the operation-of-law
provision itself to subcontracts is
necessary to enforce the Congressional
mandate that all covered workers under
the contract are paid the applicable
prevailing wages.
The proposed operation-of-law
provision is also similar in many, but
not all, respects to the judicially114 Factors that the Administrator considers in
making a determination regarding retroactive
application are discussed in the ARB’s ruling in
City of Ellsworth, ARB No. 14–042, at *6–*10.
Among the non-exclusive list of potential factors
are ‘‘the reasonableness or good faith of the
contracting agency’s coverage decision’’ and ‘‘the
status of the procurement (i.e. to what extent the
construction work has been completed).’’ Id. at *10.
In considering the status of the procurement, the
Administrator will consider the status of
construction at the time that the coverage or
correction issue is first raised with the
Administrator.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15750
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
developed Christian doctrine, named for
the 1963 Court of Claims decision, G.L.
Christian & Assocs. v. United States,
312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl.), reh’g denied, 320
F.2d 345 (Ct. Cl. 1963). Under the
doctrine, courts and administrative
tribunals have held that required
contractual provisions may be effective
by operation of law in Federal
government contracts, even if they were
not in fact included in the contract. The
doctrine applies even when there is no
specific ‘‘operation of law’’ regulation as
proposed here.
The Christian doctrine flows from the
basic concept in all contract law that
‘‘the parties to a contract . . . are
presumed or deemed to have contracted
with reference to existing principles of
law.’’ 11 Williston on Contracts § 30:19
(4th ed. 2021); see Ogden v. Saunders,
25 U.S. 213 (1827). Thus, those who
contract with the government are
charged with having ‘‘knowledge of
published regulations.’’ PCA Health
Plans of Texas, Inc. v. LaChance, 191
F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citation omitted).
Under the Christian doctrine, a court
can find a contract clause effective by
operation of law if that clause ‘‘is
required under applicable [F]ederal
administrative regulations’’ and ‘‘it
expresses a significant or deeply
ingrained strand of public procurement
policy.’’ K-Con, Inc. v. Sec’y of Army,
908 F.3d 719, 724 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Where these prerequisites are satisfied,
it does not matter if the contract clause
at issue was wrongly omitted from a
contract. A court will find that a Federal
contractor had constructive knowledge
of the regulation and that the required
contract clause applies regardless of
whether it was included in the contract.
The recent decision of the Federal
Circuit in K-Con is helpful to
understanding why it is appropriate to
provide that the DBA labor standards
clauses are effective by operation of law.
In K-Con, the Federal Circuit held that
the Christian doctrine applies to the
1935 Miller Act. 908 F.3d at 724–26.
The Miller Act contains mandatory
coverage provisions that are similar to
those in the DBA, though with different
threshold contract amounts. The Miller
Act requires that contractors furnish
payment and performance bonds before
a contract is awarded for ‘‘the
construction, alteration, or repair of any
public building or public work.’’ 40
U.S.C. 3131(b). The DBA, as amended,
requires that the prevailing wage
stipulations be included in bid
specifications ‘‘for construction,
alteration, or repair, including painting
and decorating, of public buildings and
public works.’’ 40 U.S.C. 3142(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Like the Miller Act, the 90-year old
Davis-Bacon Act also expresses a
significant and deeply ingrained strand
of public procurement policy. The
Miller Act and the Davis-Bacon Act are
of similar vintage. The DBA was enacted
in 1931. The DBA amendments were
enacted in 1935, almost simultaneously
with the Miller Act. Through both
statutes, Congress aimed to protect
participants on government contracts
from nonpayment by prime contractors
and subcontractors. Thus, the same
factors that the Federal Circuit found
sufficient to apply the Christian
doctrine to the Miller Act also apply to
the DBA and suggest that the proposed
operation-of-law regulation would be
appropriate.115
The Department’s proposal, however,
differs from the Christian doctrine in
two critical respects. First, as noted
above, the proposed language at § 5.5(e)
would be paired with a contractor
compensation provision similar to the
existing provision in § 1.6(f). The
Christian doctrine does not incorporate
such protection for contractors, and as
a result, can have the effect of shifting
cost burdens from the government to the
contractor. In K-Con, for example, the
doctrine supported the government’s
defense against a claim for equitable
adjustment by the contractor. 908 F.3d
at 724–28.
Second, the Christian doctrine is
effectively self-executing and renders
contract clauses applicable by operation
of law solely on the basis of the
underlying requirement that they be
inserted into covered contracts. The
doctrine contains no specific
mechanism through which the
government can limit its application to
avoid any unexpected or unjust
results—other than simply deciding not
to raise it as a defense or affirmative
argument in litigation. The proposed
provision here at § 5.5(e), on the other
hand, would pair the enactment of the
operation-of-law language with the
traditional authority of the
Administrator to waive retroactive
enforcement or grant a variance,
tolerance, or exemption from the
regulatory requirement under 29 CFR
1.6(f) and 5.14, which the Department
believes will foster a more orderly and
predictable process and reduce the
115 The
Federal Circuit has also noted that the
Christian doctrine applies to the SCA, which has a
similar purpose as the DBA and dates only to 1965.
See Call Henry, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d 1348,
1351 & n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Because the DavisBacon Act and Service Contract Act are similar
statutes with the same basic purpose, the
Department has long noted that court decisions
relating to one of these acts have a direct bearing
on the other. See WHD Opinion Letter SCA–3 (Dec.
7, 1973).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
likelihood of any unintended
consequences.
In proposing this new regulatory
provision, the Department has
considered the implications of
Universities Research Ass’n, Inc. v.
Coutu. In that case, the Supreme Court
held that there was no implied private
right of action for workers to sue under
the Davis-Bacon Act—at least when the
contract clauses were not included in
the contract. Coutu, 450 U.S. at 768–69
& nn.17, 19. The Court also stated that
the workers could not rely on the
Christian doctrine to read the missing
DBA contract clause into the contract.
Id. at 784 & n.38. The Department has
carefully considered the Coutu decision,
and for the reasons discussed below, has
determined that the proposed regulation
is consistent with Coutu and that the
distinctions between the proposed
regulation and the Christian doctrine
address the concerns that animated the
Coutu Court in that case.
One of the Court’s fundamental
concerns in Coutu was that an implied
private right of action could allow
parties to evade the Department of
Labor’s review of whether a contract
should be covered by the Act. The Court
noted that there was at the time ‘‘no
administrative procedure that expressly
provides review of a coverage
determination after the contract has
been let.’’ 450 U.S. at 761 n.9.116 If an
implied private right of action existed
under those circumstances, private
parties could effectively avoid raising
any questions about coverage with the
Department or with the contracting
agency—and instead bring them directly
to a Federal court to second-guess the
administrative determinations. Id. at
783–84.
Another of the Court’s concerns was
that such an implied private right of
action would undermine Federal
contractors’ reliance on the wage
determinations that the Federal
government had (or had not)
incorporated into bid specifications.
The Supreme Court noted that one of
the purposes of the 1935 amendments to
the DBA was to ensure that contractors
could rely on the predetermination of
wage rates that apply to each contract.
450 U.S. at 776. If, after a contract had
116 Subsection 1.6(f) did not go into effect until
April 29, 1983, nearly 2 years after the Coutu
decision. See 48 FR 19532. Moreover, although the
Department has used § 1.6(f) to address post-award
coverage determinations, as discussed above, the
language of that subsection references wage
determinations and does not explicitly address the
omission of required contract clauses. The
Department now seeks to remedy that ambiguity in
§ 1.6(f) by adding similar language to § 5.6, as
discussed below, in addition to the proposed
operation-of-law language at § 5.5(e).
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
already been awarded, a court could
find that a higher prevailing wage
applied to that contract than had been
previously determined, the contractor
could lose money because of its
mistaken reliance on the prior rates—all
of which would undermine Congress’s
intent. Id. at 776–77.
The Department’s current proposed
procedure would alleviate both of these
concerns. As described above, the
procedure differs from the Christian
doctrine because—as under the existing
regulation at § 1.6(f)—contractors will
be compensated for any increase in
costs caused by the government’s failure
to properly incorporate the clauses or
wage determinations. The proposed
procedure therefore will not undermine
contractors’ reliance on an initial
determination by the contracting agency
that the DBRA did not apply or that a
wage determination with lower rates
applied.
Nor does the proposal risk creating an
end-run around the administrative
procedures set up by contracting
agencies and the Department pursuant
to Reorganization Plan No. 14. Instead,
the operation-of-law provision would
function as part of an administrative
structure implemented by the
Administrator and subject to the
Administrator’s decision to grant a
variance, tolerance, or exemption. Its
enactment should not affect one way or
another whether any implied private
right of action exists under the statute.
Executive Order 11246 provides a
helpful comparator. In 1968, the
Department promulgated the regulation
clarifying that the Executive Order’s
equal opportunity contract clause would
be effective by ‘‘operation of the Order’’
regardless of whether it is physically
incorporated into the contract. 41 CFR
60–1.4(e). That regulation was upheld,
and the Christian doctrine was also
found to apply to the required equal
opportunity contract clause. See Miss.
Power & Light, 638 F.2d at 905–06.
Nonetheless, courts have widely held
that E.O. 11246 does not convey an
implied private right of action. See, e.g.,
Utley v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 811 F.2d
1279, 1288 (9th Cir. 1987).
The Department has also considered
whether the proposal would lead to an
increase in bid protest litigation or
expand the authority of the Court of
Federal Claims or other contracting
appeal tribunals to develop their own
case law on the application of the DBRA
without the input of the Department. In
exploring this question, the Department
considered proposing an alternative
procedure in which the operation-of-law
rule would only become effective after
a determination by the Administrator or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
a contracting agency that a contract was
in fact covered. The Department,
however, does not believe that such an
approach is necessary because both the
GAO and the Federal Circuit maintain
strict waiver rules that prohibit postaward bid protests based on errors or
ambiguities in the solicitation. See NCS/
EML JV, LLC, B–412277, 2016 WL
335854, at *8 n.10 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 14,
2016) (citing GAO decisions); Blue &
Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492
F.3d 1308, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2007).117
The proposal as currently drafted also
would not affect the well-settled case
law—developed after the Coutu
decision—that only the Department of
Labor has jurisdiction to resolve
disputes arising out of the labor
standards provisions of the contract. As
part of the post-Coutu 1982 final rule,
the Department enacted a provision at
29 CFR 5.5(a)(9) that requires a disputes
clause with that jurisdictional limitation
to be included in all DBRA-covered
contracts. See 47 FR 23660–61 (final
rule addressing comments received on
the proposal). The labor standards
disputes clause creates an exception to
the Contract Disputes Act of 1974 and
effectively bars the Court of Federal
Claims from deciding substantive
matters related to the Davis-Bacon Act
and Related Acts. See, e.g., Emerald
Maint., Inc. v. United States, 925 F.2d
1425, 1428–29 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Under
the Department’s current operation-oflaw proposal, the disputes clause at
§ 5.5(a)(9) would continue to be
effective even when it has been omitted
from a contract because the
Department’s proposal applies the
operation-of-law principle to all of the
required contract clauses in § 5.5(a)—
including § 5.5(a)(9). As a result, under
the proposal, disputes regarding DBRA
coverage or other related matters would
continue to be heard only through the
Department’s administrative process
prior to any judicial review, and there
is no reason to believe that the
implementation of the operation-of-law
provision would lead to a parallel body
of case law in the Court of Federal
Claims.
Given all of these continued
safeguards, the Department believes it is
not necessary to expressly limit the
117 In Blue & Gold, the National Park Service
failed to include the SCA contract clauses in a
contract that the Department of Labor later
concluded was covered by the Act. The Federal
Circuit denied the bid protest from a the losing
bidder because ‘‘a party who has the opportunity
to object to the terms of a government solicitation
containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to
the close of the bidding process waives its ability
to raise the same objection subsequently in a bid
protest action in the Court of Federal Claims.’’ 492
F.3d at 1313.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15751
proposed operation-of-law provision to
be effective only after an administrative
determination. However, in addition to
input on the proposed regulatory text at
§ 5.5(e), the Department also seeks input
from commenters regarding the
alternative proposal to require such a
determination. Under that alternative,
the operation-of-law provision would
only become effective after a
determination by the Administrator or a
contracting agency that the contract
clauses or wage determination was
wrongly omitted.
Regardless of whether the proposed
operation-of-law language will be
subject to a threshold requirement of an
administrative determination, the
provision would operate in tandem with
the continued requirements that
contracting agencies must insert the
contract clause in full into any new
contracts and into existing contracts by
modification where the clause had been
wrongly omitted. The Department
proposes language to clarify that these
parallel provisions are both effective,
with proposed language in §§ 1.6(f),
5.5(a)(1)(i), and 5.6(a)(1)(ii) that explains
that contracting agencies continue to be
required to insert the relevant clauses
and wage determinations in full
notwithstanding that the clauses and
wage determinations are also effective
by operation of law. As the clauses and
applicable wage determination(s) will
still be effective as a matter of law even
if omitted from the contract, it will be
advisable for contractors to promptly
raise any such errors of omission with
their contracting agencies. A
contractor’s failure to raise such issues
will not relieve the contractor from any
of their obligations under the DavisBacon labor standards. See, e.g.,
Coleman Construction Co., ARB No. 15–
002, 2016 WL 4238468, at *6 & n.40
(June 8, 2016) (holding that ‘‘[t]he law
is clear that, if a contract subject to
Davis-Bacon lacks the wage
determination, it is the employer’s
obligation . . . to get it’’); 48 CFR
52.222–52(c).
Similarly, proposed § 5.5(d) also
includes a parallel provision that
clarifies that the clauses and wage
determinations are equally effective if
they are incorporated by reference, as a
contract that contains a provision
expressly incorporating the clauses and
the applicable wage determination by
reference may be tantamount to
insertion in full under the FAR. See 48
CFR 52.107, 52.252–2. In addition,
independent of the FAR, the terms of a
document appropriately incorporated by
reference into a contract effectively bind
the parties to that contract. See 11
Williston on Contracts section 30:25
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15752
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(4th ed.) (‘‘Interpretation of several
connected writings’’).
These various proposed parallel
regulatory provisions are consistent and
work together. They require the best
practice of physical insertion or
modification of contract documents (or,
where warranted, incorporation by
reference), so as to provide effective
notice to all interested parties, such as
contract assignees, subcontractors,
sureties, and employees and their
representatives. At the same time, they
create a safety net to ensure that where
any mistakes are made in initial
determinations, the prevailing wage
required by statute will still be paid to
the laborers and mechanics on covered
projects.
(2) § 1.6(f) Post-Award Correction of
Wage Determinations
In addition to the operation-of-law
language at § 5.5(e), the Department
proposes to make several changes to the
current regulation at § 1.6(f) that
contains the post-award procedure
requiring contracting agencies to
incorporate an omitted wage
determination. First, as discussed above
in section III.B.1.vi. of this NPRM
(Section 1.6 Use and effectiveness of
wage determinations), the Department
proposes adding titles for each
subsection in § 1.6 in order to improve
readability of the section as a whole.
The proposed title for § 1.6(f) is ‘‘Postaward determinations and procedures.’’
The Department also proposes dividing
§ 1.6(f) into multiple subsections to
improve the organization and
readability of the important rules it
articulates.
At the beginning of the section, the
Department proposes a new § 1.6(f)(1),
which explains generally that if a
contract subject to the labor standards
provisions of the Acts referenced by
§ 5.1 is entered into without the correct
wage determination(s), the relevant
agency must incorporate the correct
wage determination into the contract or
require its incorporation. The
Department proposes to add language to
§ 1.6(f)(1) expressly providing for an
agency to incorporate the correct wage
determination post-award ‘‘upon its
own initiative’’ as well as upon the
request of the Administrator. The
current version of § 1.6(f) explicitly
provides only for a determination by the
Administrator that a correction must be
made. Some contracting agencies had
interpreted the existing language as
precluding an action by a contracting
agency alone—without action by the
Administrator—to modify an existing
contract to incorporate a correct wage
determination. The Department now
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
proposes the new language to clarify
that the contracting agency can take
such action alone. Where a contracting
agency does intend to take such an
action, proposed language at
§ 1.6(f)(3)(iii) would require it to notify
the Administrator of the proposed
action.
In the proposed reorganization of
§ 1.6(f), the Department would locate
the discussion of the Administrator’s
determination that a correction is
necessary in a new § 1.6(f)(2). The only
change to the language of that
subsection is not substantive. The
current text of § 1.6(f) refers to the
action that the Administrator may take
as an action to ‘‘issue a wage
determination.’’ However, in the
majority of cases, where a wage
determination was not included in the
contract, the proper action by the
Administrator will not be to issue a new
or updated wage determination, as that
term is used in § 1.6(c), but to identify
the appropriate existing wage
determination that applies to the
contract. Thus, to eliminate any
confusion, the Department proposes to
amend the language in this subsection
to describe the Administrator’s action as
‘‘requir[ing] the agency to incorporate’’
the appropriate wage determination. To
the extent that, in an exceptional case,
the Department would need to ‘‘issue’’
a new project wage determination to be
incorporated into the contract, the
proposed new language would require
the contracting agency to incorporate or
require the incorporation of that newly
issued wage determination.
The Department also proposes to
amend the language in § 1.6(f) that
describes the potential corrective
actions that an agency may take. In a
nonsubstantive change, the Department
proposes to refer to the wage
determinations that must be newly
incorporated as ‘‘correct’’ wage
determinations instead of ‘‘valid’’ wage
determinations. This is because the
major problem addressed in § 1.6(f)—in
addition to the failure to include any
wage determination at all—is the use of
the wrong wage determinations. Even
while wrong for one contract, a wage
determination may be valid if used on
a different contract to which it properly
applies. It is therefore more precise to
describe a misused wage determination
as incorrect rather than invalid. The
proposed amendment would also add to
the reference in the current regulation at
§ 1.6(f) to ‘‘supplemental agreements’’ or
‘‘change orders’’ as the methods for
modifying contracts post-award to
incorporate valid wage determinations.
The Department, in a new § 1.6(f)(3),
would instruct that agencies make such
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
modifications additionally through the
exercise of ‘‘any other authority that
may be needed.’’ This language parallels
the Department’s regulation at 29 CFR
4.5 for similar circumstances under the
SCA.
The Department also proposes to
make several changes to § 1.6(f) to
clarify that the requirements apply
equally to projects carried out with
Federal financial assistance as they do
to DBA projects. The proposed initial
paragraph at § 1.6(f)(1) contains new
language that states expressly that
where an agency is providing Federal
financial assistance, ‘‘the agency must
ensure that the recipient or subrecipient of the Federal assistance
similarly incorporates the correct wage
determination(s) into its contracts.’’
Similarly, the reference to agencies’
responsibilities in proposed new
§ 1.6(f)(3) requires an agency to
terminate and resolicit the contract or to
‘‘ensure’’ the incorporation (in the
alternative to ‘‘incorporating’’ the
correct wage determination itself)—in
recognition that this language applies
equally to direct procurement where the
agency is a party to a DBA-covered
contract and Related Acts where the
agency must ensure that the relevant
State or local agency incorporates the
corrected wage determination into the
covered contract. Finally, the
Department also proposes to amend the
requirement that the incorporation
should be ‘‘in accordance with
applicable procurement law’’ to instead
reference ‘‘applicable law.’’ This change
is intended to recognize that the
requirements in § 1.6 apply also to
projects executed with Federal financial
assistance under the Related Acts, for
which the Federal or State agency’s
authority may not be subject to Federal
procurement law. None of these
proposed changes represent substantive
changes, as the Department has
historically applied § 1.6(f) equally to
both DBA and Related Act projects. See,
e.g., City of Ellsworth, ARB No. 14–042,
at *6–8.
In the new § 1.6(f)(3)(iv), the
Department proposes to include the
requirements from the existing
regulations that contractors must be
compensated for any change and that
the incorporation must be retroactive to
the beginning of the construction. That
retroactivity requirement, however, is
amended to include the qualification
that the Administrator may direct
otherwise. As noted above, the
Administrator may make determinations
of non-retroactivity on a case-by-case
basis. In addition, consistent with the
SCA regulation on post-award
incorporation of wage determinations at
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
29 CFR 4.5(c), the Department proposes
including language in a new
§ 1.6(f)(3)(ii) to require that
incorporation of the correct wage
determination be accomplished within
30 days of the Administrator’s request,
unless the agency has obtained an
extension.
The Department also proposes to
include new language at § 1.6(f)(3)(v),
applying to Related Acts, instructing
that the agency must suspend further
payments or guarantees if the recipient
refuses to incorporate the specified
wage determination and that the agency
must promptly refer the dispute to the
Administrator for further proceedings
under § 5.13. This language is a
clarification and restatement of the
existing enforcement regulation at
§ 5.6(a)(1), which provides that no such
payment or guarantee shall be made
‘‘unless [the agency] ensures that the
clauses required by § 5.5 and the
appropriate wage determination(s) are
incorporated into such contracts.’’
In proposed new language at
§ 1.6(f)(3)(vi), the Department includes
additional safeguards for the
circumstances in which an agency does
not retroactively incorporate the missing
clauses or wage determinations and
instead seeks to terminate the contract.
The proposed language provides that
before termination, the agency must
withhold or cross-withhold sufficient
funds to remedy any back wage liability
or otherwise identify and obligate
sufficient funds through a termination
settlement agreement, bond, or other
satisfactory mechanism. This language
is consistent with the existing FAR
provision at 48 CFR 49.112–2(c) that
requires contracting officers to ascertain
whether there are any outstanding labor
violations and withhold sufficient funds
if possible before forwarding the final
payment voucher. It is also consistent
with the language of the template
termination settlement agreements at 48
CFR 49.602–1 and 49.603–3 that seek to
assure that any termination settlement
agreement does not undermine the
government’s ability to fully satisfy any
outstanding contractor liabilities under
the DBRA or other labor clauses.
Finally, the Department includes a
proposed provision at § 1.6(f)(4) that
clarifies that the specific requirements
of § 1.6(f) to physically incorporate the
correct wage determination operate in
addition to the proposed requirement in
§ 5.5(e) that makes the correct wage
determination applicable by operation
of law. As discussed above, such
amendment and physical incorporation
(including incorporation by reference) is
necessary in order to provide notice to
all interested parties, such as contract
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
assignees, subcontractors, sureties, and
employees and their representatives.
(3) § 5.6(a)(1) Post-Award
Incorporation of Contract Clauses
The Department proposes to revise
§ 5.6(a)(1) to include language expressly
providing a procedure for determining
that the required contract clauses were
wrongly omitted from a contract. As
noted above, the Department has
historically sought the retroactive
incorporation of missing contract
clauses by reference to the language
regarding wage determinations in
§ 1.6(f). The Department now proposes
to eliminate any confusion by creating
a separate procedure at § 5.6(a)(1)(ii)
that applies specifically to missing
contract clauses in a similar manner as
§ 1.6(f) continues to apply to missing or
incorrect wage determinations.
The Department proposes to revise
§ 5.6(a)(1) by renumbering the existing
regulatory text § 5.6(a)(1)(i), and adding
an additional paragraph, (a)(1)(ii), to
include the provision clarifying that
where a contract is awarded without the
incorporation of the required DavisBacon labor standards clauses required
by § 5.5, the agency must incorporate
the clauses—or require their
incorporation. This includes
circumstances where the agency does
not award a contract directly but instead
provides funding assistance for such a
contract; in such instances, the Federal
agency, or other agency where
appropriate, must ensure that the
recipient or sub-recipient of the Federal
assistance incorporates the required
labor standards clauses retroactive to
the date of contract award, or the start
of construction if there is no award. The
paragraph contains a similar set of
provisions as § 1.6(f), with its proposed
amendments—including that the
incorporation must be retroactive unless
the Administrator directs otherwise;
that retroactive incorporation is
required by the request of the
Administrator or upon the agency’s own
initiative; that incorporation must take
place within 30 days of a request by the
Administrator, unless an extension is
granted; that the agency must withhold
or otherwise obligate sufficient funds to
satisfy back wages before any contract
termination; and that the contractor
should be compensated for any increase
in costs resulting from any change
required by the paragraph.
The Department also proposes to
clarify the application of the current
regulation at § 5.6(a)(1), which states
that no payment, advance, grant, loan,
or guarantee of funds will be approved
unless the Federal agency ensures that
the funding recipient or sub-recipient
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15753
has incorporated the required clauses
into any contract receiving the funding.
Similar to the proposed provision in
§ 1.6(f)(3)(v), a new proposed provision
at § 5.6(a)(1)(ii)(C) would explain that
such a required suspension also applies
if the funding recipient refuses to
retroactively incorporate the required
clauses. In such circumstances, the
issue must be referred promptly to the
Administrator for resolution.
Similar to the proposed provision at
§ 1.6(f)(4), the Department also proposes
a provision at § 5.6(a)(1)(ii)(E) that
explains that the physical-incorporation
requirements of § 5.6(a)(1)(ii) would
operate in tandem with the proposed
language at § 5.5(e) making the contract
clauses and wage determinations
effective by operation of law.
The proposed changes to § 5.6 do not
impose any additional requirements on
Federal agencies, as the existing
regulation at § 5.6 clearly states that the
Federal agency is responsible for
incorporating the required clauses into
its own contracts subject to the DavisBacon labor standards and for ensuring
the incorporation of the required clauses
into contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon
labor standards entered into by the
Federal agency’s funding recipients.
Moreover, as noted above, this
additional language is analogous to the
existing language at 29 CFR 1.6(f) under
which the Department historically has
requested the incorporation of missing
contract clauses.
The proposed changes clarify that the
requirement to incorporate the DavisBacon labor standards clauses is an
ongoing responsibility that does not end
upon contract award, and the changes
expressly state the Department’s
longstanding practice of requiring the
relevant agency to retroactively
incorporate, or ensure retroactive
incorporation of, the required clauses in
such circumstances. As discussed
above, such clarification is warranted
because agencies occasionally have
expressed confusion about—and even
questioned whether they possess—the
authority to incorporate, or ensure the
incorporation of, the required contract
clauses after a contract has been
awarded or construction has started.
The Department’s proposal similarly
makes clear that while agencies must
retroactively incorporate the required
clauses upon the request of the
Administrator, agencies also have the
authority to make such changes on their
own initiative when they discover that
an error has been made. The proposed
changes also eliminate any confusion of
the recipients of Federal funding as to
the extent of the Federal funding
agency’s authority to require such
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15754
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
retroactive incorporation in federally
funded contracts subject to the DavisBacon labor standards. Finally, the
proposed changes do not alter the
provisions of 29 CFR 1.6(g), including
its provisos.
Retroactive incorporation of the
required contract clauses ensures that
agencies take every available step to
ensure that workers on covered
contracts are paid the prevailing wages
that Congress intended. The Department
welcomes comments on all aspects of
this proposal.
xxi. Debarment
In accordance with the Department’s
goal of updating and modernizing the
DBA and Related Act regulations, as
well as enhancing the implementation
of Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950,
the Department proposes a number of
revisions to the debarment regulations
that are intended both to promote
consistent enforcement of the DavisBacon labor standards provisions and to
clarify the debarment standards and
procedures for the regulated
community, adjudicators, investigators,
and other stakeholders.
The regulations implementing the
DBA and the Related Acts currently
reflect different standards for
debarment. Since 1935, the DBA has
mandated 3-year debarment ‘‘of persons
. . . found to have disregarded their
obligations to employees and
subcontractors.’’ 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(1)
and (b)(2) (emphasis added); see also 29
CFR 5.12(a)(1) and (2) (setting forth the
DBA’s ‘‘disregard of obligations’’
standard). Although the Related Acts
themselves do not contain debarment
provisions, since 1951, their
implementing regulations have imposed
a heightened standard for debarment for
violations under the Related Acts,
providing that ‘‘any contractor or
subcontractor . . . found . . . to be in
aggravated or willful violation of the
labor standards provisions’’ of any
DBRA will be debarred ‘‘for a period not
to exceed 3 years.’’ 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1)
(emphasis added). The Department
proposes to harmonize the DBA and the
Related Act debarment-related
regulations by applying the
longstanding DBA debarment standard
and related provisions to the Related
Acts as well. Specifically, in order to
create a uniform set of substantive and
procedural requirements for debarment
under the DBA and the Related Acts, the
Department proposes five changes to the
Related Act debarment regulations so
that they mirror the provisions
governing DBA debarment.
First, the Department proposes to
adopt the DBA statutory debarment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
standard—disregard of obligations to
employees or subcontractors—for all
debarment cases and to eliminate the
Related Acts’ regulatory ‘‘aggravated or
willful’’ debarment standard. Second,
the Department proposes to adopt the
DBA’s mandatory 3-year debarment
period for Related Act cases and to
eliminate the process under the Related
Acts regulations for early removal from
the ineligible list (also known as the
debarment list 118). Third, the
Department proposes to expressly
permit debarment of ‘‘responsible
officers’’ under the Related Acts. Fourth,
the Department proposes to clarify that
under the Related Acts as under the
DBA, entities in which debarred entities
or individuals have an ‘‘interest’’ may
be debarred. Related Acts regulations
currently require a ‘‘substantial
interest.’’ Finally, the Department
proposes to make the scope of
debarment under the Related Acts
consistent with the scope of debarment
under the DBA by providing, in
accordance with the current scope of
debarment under the DBA, that Related
Acts debarred persons and firms may
not receive ‘‘any contract or subcontract
of the United States or the District of
Columbia,’’ as well as ‘‘any contract or
subcontract subject to the labor
standards provisions of the statutes
listed in § 5.1.’’ See 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1)
and (2).
(A) Relevant Legal Authority
The 1935 amendments to the DBA
gave the Secretary authority to enforce—
not just set—prevailing wages,
including through the remedy of
debarment. See Coutu, 450 U.S. at 758
& n.3, 759, 776; see also S. Rep. No. 74–
332, pt. 3, at 11, 14–15 (1935). Since
then, the DBA has required 3-year
debarment of persons or firms that have
been found to ‘‘have disregarded their
obligations to employees and
subcontractors.’’ 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)
(formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a–2 and known
as section 3(a) of the DBA). The DBA
also mandates debarment of entities in
which debarred persons or firms have
an ‘‘interest.’’ 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(2).
Approximately 15 years later, the
Truman Administration developed and
Congress accepted Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950, a comprehensive plan to
improve Davis-Bacon enforcement and
administration. The Reorganization Plan
provided that ‘‘[i]n order to assure
coordination of administration and
consistency of enforcement’’ of the
118 There are several terms referring to the same
list (e.g., ineligible list, debarment list, debarred
bidders list) and the terms for this list may continue
to change over time.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DBRA by the agencies who are
responsible for administering them, the
Secretary of Labor was empowered to
‘‘prescribe appropriate standards,
regulations, and procedures, which
shall be observed by these agencies.’’
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5
U.S.C. app. 1. In transmitting the
Reorganization Plan to Congress,
President Truman observed that ‘‘the
principal objective of the plan is more
effective enforcement of labor
standards’’ with ‘‘more uniform and
more adequate protection for workers
through the expenditures made for the
enforcement of the existing legislation.’’
Id. (1950 Special Message to Congress).
Shortly after Reorganization Plan No.
14 of 1950 was adopted, the Department
promulgated regulations adding ‘‘a new
Part 5,’’ effective July 1, 1951. 16 FR
4430, 4430. These regulations added the
‘‘aggravated or willful’’ debarment
standard for the Related Acts. Id. at
4431. The preamble to that final rule
explained that adding the new part 5
was to comply with Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950’s directive to prescribe
standards, regulations, and procedures
‘‘to assure coordination of
administration and consistency of
enforcement.’’ Id. at 4430. Since then,
the two debarment standards—disregard
of obligations in DBA cases and willful
or aggravated violations in Related Acts
cases—have co-existed, but with
challenges along the way that the
Department seeks to resolve through
this proposal.
(B) Proposed Regulatory Revisions
(1) Debarment Standard
a. Proposed Change to Debarment
Standard
As noted previously, the DBA
generally requires the payment of
prevailing wages to laborers and
mechanics working on contracts with
the Federal Government or the District
of Columbia for the construction of
public buildings and public works. 40
U.S.C. 3142(a). In addition, Congress
has included DBA prevailing wage
provisions in numerous Related Acts
under which Federal agencies assist
construction projects through grants,
loans, guarantees, insurance, and other
methods. The same contract clauses are
incorporated into DBA—and Related
Act—covered contracts, and the laws
apply the same labor standards
protections (including the obligation to
pay prevailing wages) to laborers and
mechanics without regard to whether
they are performing work on a project
subject to the DBA or one of the Related
Acts. Indeed, not only are some projects
subject to the requirements of both the
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DBA and one of the Related Acts due to
the nature and source of Federal
funding, but also the great majority of
DBA-covered projects are also subject to
CWHSSA, one of the Related Acts.
Against this backdrop, there is no
apparent need for a different level of
culpability for Related Acts debarment
than for DBA debarment. The sanction
for failing to compensate covered
workers in accordance with applicable
prevailing wage requirements should
not turn on the source or form of
Federal funding. Nor is there any
principled reason that it should be
easier for prime contractors,
subcontractors, and their responsible
officials to avoid debarment in Related
Acts cases. Accordingly, the Department
proposes to revise the governing
regulations so that conduct that
warrants debarment on DBA
construction projects would also
warrant debarment on Related Acts
projects. This proposal fits within the
Department’s well-established authority
to adopt regulations governing
debarment of Related Acts contractors.
See, e.g., Janik Paving & Constr., 828
F.2d at 91; Copper Plumbing & Heating
Co. v. Campbell, 290 F.2d 368, 372–73
(D.C. Cir. 1961).
The potential benefits of adopting a
single, uniform debarment standard
outweigh any benefits of retaining the
existing dual-standard framework. Other
than debarment, contractors who violate
the DBA and Related Acts run the risk
only of having to pay back wages, often
long after violations occurred. Even if
these violations are discovered or
disclosed through an investigation or
other compliance action, contractors
that violate the DBA or Related Acts can
benefit from the use of workers’ wages,
an advantage which can allow such
contractors to underbid more lawabiding contractors. If the violations
never come to light, such contractors
pocket wages that belong to workers.
Strengthening the remedy of debarment
encourages such unprincipled
contractors to comply with Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements by
expanding the reach of this remedy
when they do not. Facchiano Constr.
Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 987 F.2d 206,
214 (3d Cir. 1993) (observing that
debarment ‘‘may in fact ‘be the only
realistic means of deterring contractors
from engaging in willful [labor]
violations based on a cold weighing of
the costs and benefits of
noncompliance’ ’’ (quoting Janik Paving
& Constr., 828 F.2d at 91)).
In proposing a unitary debarment
standard, the Department intends that
well-established case law applying the
DBA ‘‘disregard of obligations’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
debarment standard would now also
apply to Related Acts debarment
determinations. Under this standard, as
a 2016 ARB decision explained, ‘‘DBA
violations do not, by themselves,
constitute a disregard of an employer’s
obligations,’’ and, to support debarment,
‘‘evidence must establish a level of
culpability beyond negligence’’ and
involve some degree of intent. Interstate
Rock Prods., Inc., ARB No. 15–024, 2016
WL 5868562, at *4 (Sept. 27, 2016)
(footnotes omitted). For example, the
underpayment of prevailing wages,
coupled with the falsification of
certified payrolls, constitute a disregard
of a contractor’s obligations sufficient to
establish the requisite level of ‘‘intent’’
under the DBA debarment provisions.
See id. Bad faith and gross negligence
regarding compliance have also been
found to constitute a disregard of DBA
obligations. See id.119 The Department’s
proposal to apply the DBA ‘‘disregard of
obligations’’ standard as the sole
debarment standard would maintain
safeguards for law-abiding contractors
and responsible officers by retaining the
bedrock principle that DBA violations,
by themselves, generally do not
constitute a sufficient predicate for
debarment. Moreover, the determination
of whether debarment is warranted will
continue to be based on a consideration
of the particular facts found in each
investigation and to include the same
procedures and review process that are
currently in place to determine whether
debarment is to be pursued.
For these reasons and those discussed
in more detail below, the Department
proposes to harmonize debarment
standards by reorganizing § 5.12. As
proposed, paragraph (a)(1) sets forth the
disregard of obligations debarment
standard, which would apply to both
DBA and Related Acts violations. The
proposed changes accordingly remove
the ‘‘willful or aggravated’’ language
from § 5.12, with conforming changes
proposed in 29 CFR 5.6(b) and 5.7(a).
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) combines the
parts of current §§ 5.12(a)(1) and (a)(2)
concerning the different procedures for
effectuating debarment under the DBA
and Related Acts.
b. Impacts of Proposed Debarment
Standard Change
Because behavior that is willful or
aggravated is also a disregard of
obligations, in many instances the
119 For the same reason, except in unusual
circumstances, it would generally not be
appropriate to debar a contractor for violations in
circumstances where the contracting agency
omitted the contract clause and the clause was
subsequently incorporated retroactively or found to
be effective by operation of law.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15755
proposed harmonization of the
debarment standards would apply to
conduct that under the current
regulations would already be debarrable
under both the DBA and Related Acts.
For example, falsification of certified
payrolls to simulate compliance with
Davis-Bacon labor standards has long
warranted debarment under both the
DBA and Related Acts. See, e.g., R.J.
Sanders, Inc., WAB No. 90–25, 1991 WL
494734, at *1–2 (Jan. 31, 1991) (DBA);
Coleman Constr. Co., ARB No. 15–002,
2016 WL 4238468, at *11 (Related Acts).
Kickbacks also warrant debarment
under the DBA and Related Acts. See,
e.g., Killeen Elec. Co., Inc., WAB No.
87–49, 1991 WL 494685, at *5–6 (DBA
and Related Act). In fact, any violation
that meets the ‘‘willful or aggravated’’
standard would necessarily also be a
disregard of obligations.
Under the proposed revisions, the
subset of violations that would only
have been debarrable under the DBA
disregard of obligations standard now
will be potentially subject to debarment
under both the DBA and Related Acts.
The ARB recently discussed one
example of this type of violation, stating
that intentional disregard of obligations
‘‘may . . . include acts that are not
willful attempts to avoid the
requirements of the DBA’’ since
contractors may not avoid debarment
‘‘by asserting that they did not
intentionally violate the DBA because
they were unaware of the Act’s
requirements.’’ Interstate Rock Prods.,
ARB No. 15–024, 2016 WL 5868562, at
*4 (citations omitted). Similarly,
‘‘failures to set up adequate procedures
to ensure that their employees’ labor
was properly classified,’’ which might
not have been found to be willful or
aggravated Related Act violations, were
debarrable under the DBA disregard of
obligations standard. Id. at *8. Under
the Department’s proposed revisions to
§ 5.12, these types of violations could
now result in debarment in Related Acts
as well as DBA cases. Additionally,
under the disregard of obligations
standard, prime contractors and uppertier subcontractors may be debarred if
they fail to flow down the required
contract clauses into their lower-tier
subcontracts as required by § 5.5(a)(6),
or if they otherwise fail to ensure that
their subcontractors are in compliance
with the Davis-Bacon labor standards
provisions. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(6)–(a)(7).
See Ray Wilson Co., ARB No. 02–086,
2004 WL 384729, at *10 (affirming
debarment under DBA of upper-tier
subcontractor and its principals because
of subcontractor’s ‘‘abdication from—
and, thus, its disregard of—its
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15756
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
obligations to employees of . . . its own
lower-tier subcontractor’’).
c. Benefits of Proposed Debarment
Standard Change
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
i. Improved Compliance and
Enforcement
Applying the DBA’s disregard of
obligations debarment standard in a
uniform, consistent manner would
advance the purpose of the DBA, ‘‘ ‘a
minimum wage law designed for the
benefit of construction workers.’ ’’ Abhe
& Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052,
1055 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting
Binghamton Const. Co., 347 U.S. at 178).
Both the DBA statutory and the Related
Acts regulatory debarment sanctions are
intended to foster compliance with
labor standards. Interstate Rock
Products, ARB No. 15–024, 2016 WL
5868562, at *8 (‘‘Debarment has
consistently been found to be a remedial
rather than punitive measure so as to
encourage compliance and discourage
employers from adopting business
practices designed to maximize profits
by underpaying employees in violation
of the Act.’’ (citations omitted)); Howell
Constr., Inc., WAB No. 93–12, 1994 WL
269361, at *7 (May 31, 1994). Using the
disregard of obligations debarment
standard for all DBA and DBRA work
would enhance enforcement of and
compliance with Davis-Bacon labor
standards in multiple ways.
First, it would better enlist the
regulated community in Davis-Bacon
enforcement by increasing their
incentive to comply with DBA
standards. See, e.g., Facchiano Constr.,
987 F.2d at 214 (‘‘Both § 5.12(a)(1) and
§ 5.12(a)(2) are designed to ensure the
cooperation of the employer, largely
through self-enforcement.’’); Brite
Maint. Corp., WAB No. 87–07, 1989 WL
407462, at *2 (May 12, 1989)
(debarment is a ‘‘preventive tool to
discourage violation[s]’’).
Second, applying the disregard of
obligations standard to Related Act
cases will serve the important public
policy of holding contractors’
responsible officials accountable for
non-compliance in a more consistent
manner, regardless of whether they are
performing on a Federal or federally
funded project. Responsible officials
currently may be debarred under both
the DBA and the Related Acts. See, e.g.,
P.B.M.C., Inc., WAB No. 87–57, 1991
WL 494688, at *7 (Feb. 8, 1991) (stating
that ‘‘Board precedent does not permit
a responsible official to avoid
debarment by claiming that the labor
standards violations were committed by
agents or employees of the firm’’ in
Related Act case); P.J. Stella Constr.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Corp., WAB No. 80–13, 1984 WL
161738, at *3 (Mar. 1, 1984) (affirming
DBA debarment recommendation
because ‘‘an employer cannot take cover
behind actions of his inexperienced
agents or representatives or the
employer’s own inexperience in
fulfilling the requirements of
government construction contracts’’);
see also Howell Constr., Inc., WAB No.
93–12, 1994 WL 269361, at *7 (DBA
case) (debarment could not foster
compliance if ‘‘corporate officials . . .
are permitted to delegate . . .
responsibilities . . . , [and] to delegate
away any and all accountability for any
wrong doing’’). Applying a unitary
debarment standard would further
incentivize compliance by all
contractors and responsible officers.
ii. Greater Consistency and Clarity
The Department also believes that
applying the DBA debarment and
debarment-related standards to all
Related Act prevailing wage cases
would eliminate confusion, and
attendant litigation, that have resulted
from erroneous and inconsistent
application of the two different
standards. The incorrect debarment
standard has been applied in various
cases over the years, continuing to the
present, notwithstanding the ARB’s
repeated clarification. See, e.g., J.D.
Eckman, Inc., ARB No. 2017–0023, 2019
WL 3780904, at *3 (July 9, 2019) (ALJ
applied inapplicable DBA standard
rather than applicable aggravated or
willful standard; legal error of ALJ
required remand for consideration of
debarment under the correct standard);
Coleman Constr. Co., ARB No. 15–002,
2016 WL 4238468, at *9–11 (noting that
the ALJ had applied the wrong
debarment standard but concluding that
the ALJ’s ‘‘conflat[ion of the] two
different legal standards’’ was harmless
error under the circumstances). Most
recently, the ARB vacated and
remanded an ALJ’s decision to debar a
subcontractor and its principal under
the DBA, noting that, even though the
Department had not argued that the
DBA applied, the ALJ had applied the
incorrect standard because ‘‘the contract
was for a construction project of a non[F]ederal building that was funded by
the U.S. Government but did not
include the United States as a party.’’
Jamek Eng’g Servs., Inc., ARB No. 2020–
0043, 2021 WL 2935807, at *8 (June 23,
2021).
Additionally, the ‘‘aggravated or
willful’’ Related Acts standard has been
interpreted inconsistently over the past
decades. In some cases, the ARB has
required actual knowledge of violations,
while in others it has applied (or at least
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recited with approval) a less stringent
standard that encompasses intentional
disregard or plain indifference to the
statutory requirements but does not
require actual knowledge of the
violations. Compare J.D. Eckman, Inc.,
ARB No. 2017–0023, 2019 WL 3780904,
at *3 (requiring actual knowledge or
awareness of the violation) and A. Vento
Constr., WAB No. 87–51, 1990 WL
484312, at *3 (Oct. 17, 1990) (aggravated
or willful violations are ‘‘intentional,
deliberate, knowing violations of the
[Related Acts’] labor standards
provisions’’) with Fontaine Bros., Inc.,
ARB No. 96–162, 1997 WL 578333, at *3
(Sept. 16, 1997) (stating in Related Act
case that ‘‘mere inadvertent or negligent
conduct would not warrant debarment,
[but] conduct which evidences an intent
to evade or a purposeful lack of
attention to, a statutory responsibility
does’’ and that ‘‘[b]lissful ignorance is
no defense to debarment’’); see also
Pythagoras Gen. Cont. Corp., ARB Nos.
08–107, 09–007, 2011 WL 1247207, at
*12 (‘‘[A] ‘willful’ violation
encompasses intentional disregard or
plain indifference to the statutory
requirements.’’), aff’d sub. nom. on
other grounds Pythagoras Gen. Cont.
Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 926 F.
Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
The Department believes that a single
debarment standard would provide
consistency for the regulated
community. Under the proposed single
‘‘disregard of obligations’’ debarment
standard, purposeful inattention and
gross negligence with regard to DavisBacon labor standards obligations—as
well as actual knowledge of or
participation in violations—could
warrant debarment. The Department
would continue to carefully consider all
of the facts involved in determining
whether a particular contractor’s actions
meet the proposed single standard.
(2) Length of Debarment Period
The Department also proposes to
revise § 5.12 (see proposed § 5.12(a)(1)
and (2)) to make 3-year debarment
mandatory under both the DBA and
Related Acts and to eliminate the
regulatory provision permitting early
removal from the debarment list under
the Related Acts.
As noted above, since 1935, the DBA
has mandated a 3-year debarment of
contractors whose conduct has met the
relevant standard. In 1964, the
Department added two regulatory
provisions that permit Related Acts
debarment for less than 3 years as well
as early removal from the debarment
list. According to the final rule
preamble, the Department added these
provisions ‘‘to improve the debarment
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
provisions under Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950 by providing for a
flexible period of debarment up to three
years and by providing for removal from
the debarred bidders list upon a
demonstration of current
responsibility.’’ 29 FR 95.
The Department’s experience over the
nearly 60 years since then has shown
that those Related Act regulatory
provisions that differ from the DBA
standard have not improved the
debarment process for any of its
participants. Rather, they have added
another element of confusion and
inconsistency to the administration and
enforcement of the DBA and Related
Acts. For example, contractors and
subcontractors have been confused
about which provision applies. See, e.g.,
Bob’s Constr. Co., Inc., WAB No. 87–25,
1989 WL 407467, at *1 (May 11, 1989)
(stating that ‘‘[t]he [DBA] does not
provide for less than a 3-year
debarment’’ in response to contractor’s
argument that ‘‘if the Board cannot
reverse the [ALJ’s DBA] debarment
order, it should consider reducing the 3year debarment.’’).
Requiring a uniform 3-year debarment
period would reduce confusion.
Although the regulations currently
provide for an exception to 3-year
debarment, debarment in Related Acts
cases is usually, but not always, for 3
years. At times, the WAB has treated a
3-year debarment period as presumptive
and therefore has reversed ALJ
decisions imposing debarment for fewer
than 3 years. See, e.g., Brite Maint.
Corp., WAB No. 87–07, at *1, *3
(imposing a 3-year debarment instead of
the 2-year debarment ordered by the
ALJ); Early & Sons, Inc., WAB No. 86–
25, at *1–2 (same); Warren E. Manter
Co., Inc., WAB No. 84–20, 1985 WL
167228, at *2–3 (June 21, 1985) (same).
Under current case law, ‘‘aggravated or
willful’’ violations of the Related Acts
labor standards provisions warrant a
three-year debarment period ‘‘absent
extraordinary circumstances.’’ A. Vento
Constr., WAB No. 87–51, 1990 WL
484312, at *6 (emphasis added). ALJs
have grappled with what constitutes
‘‘extraordinary circumstances,’’ and
when to consider the factors outlined in
the DBRA early removal process. Id.; see
also current 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1) and
(c).120 The Department believes that
120 See 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1) (‘‘shall be ineligible for
a period not to exceed 3 years (from the date of
publication by the Comptroller General of the name
or names of said contractor or subcontractor on the
ineligible list’’ (emphasis added)); 29 CFR 5.12(c)
(‘‘Any person or firm debarred under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section may in writing request removal
from the debarment list after six months from the
date of publication by the Comptroller General of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
setting a uniform 3-year debarment
period would provide clarity and
promote consistency.
Further, the Department has
concluded that in instances—usually
decades ago—when debarment for a
period of less than 3 years was
warranted, it has not improved the
debarment process or compliance. See,
e.g., Rust Constr. Co., Inc., WAB No. 87–
15, 1987 WL 247054, at *2 (Oct. 2, 1987)
(1-year debarment), aff’d sub nom. Rust
Constr. Co., Inc. v. Martin, 779 F. Supp.
1030, 1031–32 (E.D. Mo. 1992)
(affirming WAB’s imposition of 1-year
debarment instead of no debarment,
noting ‘‘plaintiffs could have easily been
debarred for three years.’’); Progressive
Design & Build Inc., WAB No. 87–31,
1990 WL 484308, at *3 (Feb. 21, 1990)
(18-month debarment); Morris
Excavating Co., Inc., WAB No. 86–27,
1987 WL 247046, at *1 (Feb. 4, 1987) (6month, instead of no, debarment).
For the above reasons, the Department
proposes to modify the period of
Related Acts debarment to mirror the
DBA’s mandatory 3-year debarment
when contractors are found to have
disregarded their obligations to workers
or subcontractors.
The Department also proposes to
eliminate the provision at 29 CFR
5.12(c) that allows for Related Acts
contractors and subcontractors the
possibility of early removal from the
debarment list. Just as Related Acts
debarment for fewer than 3 years has
rarely been permitted, early removal
from the debarment list has seldom been
requested, and has been granted even
less often. The Department’s experience
has shown that the possibility of early
removal from the debarment list has not
improved the debarment process.
Likewise, the ARB and WAB do not
appear to have addressed early removal
for decades. At that time, the ARB and
WAB affirmed denials of early removal
requests. See Atlantic Elec. Servs., AES,
Inc., ARB No. 96–191, 1997 WL 303981,
at *1–2 (May 28, 1997); Fred A.
Nemann, WAB No. 94–08, 1994 WL
574114, at *1, 3 (June 27, 1994). Around
the same time, early removal was
affirmed on the merits in only one case.
See IBEW Loc. No. 103, ARB No. 96–
123, 1996 WL 663205, at *4–6 (Nov. 12,
1996). Additionally, the early-removal
provision has caused confusion among
judges and the regulated community
concerning the proper debarment
standard. For example, an ALJ
erroneously relied on the regulation for
early relief from Related Acts debarment
in recommending that a DBA contractor
such person or firm’s name on the ineligible list.’’
(emphasis added)).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15757
not be debarred. Jen-Beck Assocs., Inc.,
WAB No. 87–02, 1987 WL 247051, at
*1–2 (July 20, 1987) (remanding case to
ALJ for a decision ‘‘in accordance with
the proper standard for debarment for
violations of the [DBA]’’). Accordingly,
the Department proposes to amend
§ 5.12 by deleting paragraph (c) and
renumbering the remaining paragraph to
accommodate this revision.
(3) Debarment of Responsible Officers
The Department also proposes to
revise 29 CFR 5.12 to expressly state
that responsible officers of both DBA
and Related Acts contractors and
subcontractors may be debarred if they
disregard obligations to workers or
subcontractors. The purpose of
debarring individuals along with the
entities in which they are, for example,
owners, officers, or managers is to close
a loophole where such individuals
could otherwise continue to receive
Davis-Bacon contracts by forming or
controlling another entity that was not
debarred. The current regulations
mention debarment of responsible
officers only in the paragraph
addressing the DBA debarment
standard. See 29 CFR 5.12(a)(2). But it
is well-settled that they can be debarred
under both the DBA and Related Acts.
See Facchiano Constr. Co., 987 F.2d at
213–14 (noting that debarment of
responsible officers is ‘‘reasonable in
furthering the remedial goals of the
Davis-Bacon Act and Related Acts’’ and
that there is ‘‘no rational reason for
including debarment of responsible
officers in one regulation, but not the
other’’); Hugo Reforestation, Inc., ARB
No. 99–003, 2001 WL 487727, at *12
(Apr. 30, 2001) (CWHSSA; citing
Related Acts cases); see also Coleman
Constr. Co., ARB No. 15–002, 2016 WL
4238468, at *12. Thus, by expressly
stating that responsible officers may be
debarred under both the DBA and
Related Acts, this proposed revision is
consistent with current law. The
Department intends that Related Acts
debarment of individuals will continue
to be interpreted in the same way as
debarment of DBA responsible officers
has been interpreted.
(4) Debarment of Other Entities
The Department proposes another
revision so that the Related Acts
regulations mirror the DBA regulations
not only in practice, but also in letter.
Specifically, the Department proposes to
revise 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1) (with
conforming changes in 5.12 and
elsewhere in part 5) to state that ‘‘any
firm, corporation, partnership, or
association in which such contractor,
subcontractor, or responsible officer has
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15758
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
an interest’’ must be debarred under the
Related Acts, as well as the DBA. The
DBA states that ‘‘No contract shall be
awarded to persons appearing on the list
or to any firm, corporation, partnership,
or association in which the persons
have an interest . . .’’ 40 U.S.C.
3144(b)(2) (emphasis added); see also 29
CFR 5.12(a)(2). In contrast, the current
regulations for Related Acts require
debarment of ‘‘any firm, corporation,
partnership, or association in which
such contractor or subcontractor has a
substantial interest.’’ 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1)
(emphasis added); see also 29 CFR
5.12(b)(1), (d).
The 1982 final rule preamble for these
provisions indicates that the
determination of ‘‘interest’’ (DBA) and
‘‘substantial interest’’ (Related Acts) are
intended to be the same: ‘‘In both cases,
the intent is to prohibit debarred
persons or firms from evading the
ineligibility sanctions by using another
legal entity to obtain Government
contracts.’’ 47 FR 23658, 23661,
implemented by 48 FR 19540. It is ‘‘not
intended to prohibit bidding by a
potential contractor where a debarred
person or firm holds only a nominal
interest in the potential contractor’s
firm’’ and ‘‘[d]ecisions as to whether ‘an
interest’ exists will be made on a caseby-case basis considering all relevant
factors.’’ 47 FR 23658, 23661. The
Department now proposes to eliminate
any confusion by requiring the DBA
‘‘interest’’ standard to be the standard
for both DBA and Related Acts
debarment.
(5) Debarment Scope
The Department proposes to revise
the scope of Related Acts debarment so
that it mirrors the scope of DBA
debarment set out in current 29 CFR
5.12(a)(1). Currently, under the Related
Acts, contractors are not generally
debarred from being awarded any
contracts or subcontracts of the United
States or the District of Columbia, but
rather are only barred from being
awarded contracts subject to DavisBacon prevailing wage standards. As
proposed in revised § 5.12(a)(1), in
Related Acts as well as DBA cases, any
debarred contractor, subcontractor, or
responsible officer would be barred for
3 years from ‘‘[being] awarded any
contract or subcontract of the United
States or the District of Columbia and
any contract or subcontract subject to
the labor standards provisions of any of
the statutes referenced by § 5.1.’’
The Department believes that there is
no reasoned basis to prohibit debarred
contractors or subcontractors whose
violations have warranted debarment for
Related Acts violations from receiving
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Related Acts contracts or subcontracts,
but to permit them to continue to be
awarded direct DBA contracts during
the Related Acts debarment period. The
proposed changes to § 5.12(a)(1) would
eliminate this anomalous situation, and
apply debarment consistently to
contractors, subcontractors, and their
responsible officers who have
disregarded their obligations to workers
or subcontractors, regardless of the
source of Federal funding or assistance
for the work.
xxii. Employment Relationship Not
Required
The Department proposes a few
changes to reinforce the wellestablished principle that Davis-Bacon
labor standards requirements apply
even when there is no employment
relationship between a contractor and
worker.
The DBA states that ‘‘the contractor or
subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers employed directly on the
site of the work, unconditionally and at
least once a week, and without
subsequent deduction or rebate on any
account, the full amounts accrued at
time of payment, computed at wage
rates not less than those stated in the
advertised specifications, regardless of
any contractual relationship which may
be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and the
laborers and mechanics.’’ 40 U.S.C.
3142(c)(1). The Department has
interpreted this coverage to include
‘‘[a]ll laborers and mechanics employed
or working upon the site of the work,’’
§ 5.5(a)(1)(i), and the definitions of
‘‘employed’’ in parts 3 and 5 similarly
make it clear that the term includes all
workers on the project and extends
beyond the traditional common-law
employment relationship. See §§ 3.2(e)
(‘‘Every person paid by a contractor or
subcontractor in any manner for his
labor . . . is employed and receiving
wages, regardless of any contractual
relationship alleged to exist between
him and the real employer.’’ (emphasis
in original)); 5.2(o) (‘‘Every person
performing the duties of a laborer or
mechanic [on DBRA work] is employed
regardless of any contractual
relationship alleged to exist between the
contractor and such person.’’ (emphasis
in original)); cf. 41 U.S.C. 6701(3)(B)
(defining ‘‘service employee’’ under the
Service Contract Act to ‘‘include[ ] an
individual without regard to any
contractual relationship alleged to exist
between the individual and a contractor
or subcontractor’’); 29 CFR 4.155
(providing that whether a person is a
‘‘service employee’’ does not depend on
any alleged contractual relationship).
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The ARB and its predecessors have
reached similar conclusions. See Star
Brite Constr. Co., Inc., ARB No. 98–113,
2000 WL 960260, at *5 (June 30, 2000)
(‘‘the fact that the workers [of a
subcontractor] were engaged in
construction of the . . . project triggered
their coverage under the prevailing
wage provisions of the [DBA]; lack of a
traditional employee/employer
relationship between [the prime
contractor] and these workers did not
absolve [the prime contractor] from the
responsibility to insure that they were
compensated in accordance with the
requirements of the [DBA].’’); Labor
Servs., Inc., WAB No. 90–14, 1991 WL
494728, at *2 (May 24, 1991) (stating
that the predecessor to section 3142(c)
‘‘ ‘applies a functional rather than a
formalistic test to determine coverage: If
someone works on a project covered by
the Act and performs tasks
contemplated by the Act, that person is
covered by the Act, regardless of any
label or lack thereof,’ ’’ and requiring a
contractor to pay DBA prevailing wages
to workers labeled as ‘‘subcontractors’’).
This broad scope of covered workers
also extends to CWHSSA, the Copeland
Act, and other Related Acts. See 40
U.S.C. 3703(e) (Reorganization Plan No.
14 of 1950 and 40 U.S.C. 3145—the
authority for the 29 CFR parts 3 and 5
regulations— apply to CWHSSA); 29
CFR 3.2(e); see also, e.g., Ray Wilson
Co., ARB No. 02–086, 2004 WL 384729,
at *6 (finding workers met the DBA’s
‘‘functional [rather than formalistic] test
of employment’’ and affirming ALJ’s
order of prevailing wages and overtime
due workers of second-tier
subcontractor); Joseph Morton Co., WAB
No. 80–15, 1984 WL 161739, at *2–3
(July 23, 1984) (rejecting contractor’s
argument that workers were
subcontractors not subject to DBA
requirements and affirming ALJ finding
that contractor owed prevailing wage
and overtime back wages on contract
subject to DBA and CWHSSA); cf.
Charles Igwe, ARB No. 07–120, 2009 WL
4324725, at *3–5 (Nov. 25, 2009)
(rejecting contractors’ claim that
workers were independent contractors
not subject to SCA wage requirements,
and affirming finding that contractors
‘‘violated both the SCA and the
CWHSSA by failing to pay required
wages, overtime, fringe benefits, and
holiday pay, and failing to keep proper
records’’).
The Department proposes a few
specific changes to the regulations in
recognition of this principle. First, the
Department proposes to amend §§ 1.2
and 3.2 to include a definition of
‘‘employed’’ that is substantively
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
identical to the definition in § 5.2. This
change would clarify that the DBA’s
expansive scope of ‘‘employment’’ also
applies in the context of wage surveys
and determinations under part 1 and
certified payrolls under part 3. Second,
references to employment (e.g.,
employee, employed, employing, etc.)
in § 5.5(a)(3) and (c), as well as
elsewhere in the regulations, have been
revised to refer instead to ‘‘workers,’’
‘‘laborers and mechanics,’’ or ‘‘work.’’
Notwithstanding the broad scope of
employment reflected in the existing
and proposed definitions and in case
law, the Department believes that this
language, particularly in the contract
clauses themselves, will clarify this
principle and eliminate ambiguity.
Consistent with the above, however, to
the extent that the words ‘‘employee,’’
‘‘employed,’’ or ‘‘employment’’ are used
in this preamble or in the regulations,
the Department intends that those
words be interpreted expansively to not
limit coverage to workers in an
employment relationship. Finally, the
Department proposes to clarify in the
definitions of ‘‘employed’’ in parts 1, 3,
and 5 that the broad definition applies
equally to ‘‘public building[s] or public
work[s]’’ and to ‘‘building[s] or work[s]
financed in whole or in part by
assistance from the United States
through loan, grant, loan guarantee or
insurance, or otherwise.’’
xxiii. Withholding
The DBA, CWHSSA, and the
regulations at 29 CFR part 5 authorize
withholding from the contractor accrued
payments or advances equal to the
amount of unpaid wages due laborers
and mechanics under the DBRA. See 40
U.S.C. 3142(c)(3), 3144(a)(1) (DBA
withholding), 3702(d), 3703(b)(2)
(CWHSSA withholding); 29 CFR
5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 5.9. Withholding
helps to realize the goal of protecting
workers by ensuring that money is
available to pay them for the work they
performed but for which they were
undercompensated. Withholding plays
an important role in the statutory
schemes to ensure payment of
prevailing wages and overtime to
laborers and mechanics on Federal and
federally assisted construction projects.
The regulations currently require,
among other things, that upon a request
from the Department, contracting
agencies must withhold so much of the
contract funds as may be considered
necessary to pay the full amount of
wages required by the contract, and in
the case of CWHSSA, liquidated
damages. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3)
and 5.9. The Department proposes a
number of regulatory revisions to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
reinforce the current withholding
provisions.
(A) Cross-Withholding
Cross-withholding is currently
permitted and is a procedure through
which agencies withhold contract
monies due a contractor from contracts
other than those on which the alleged
violations occurred. Prior to the 1981–
1982 rulemaking, Federal agencies
generally refrained from crosswithholding for DBRA liabilities
because neither the DBA nor the
CWHSSA regulations specifically
provided for it. In 1982, however, the
Department amended the contract
clauses to specifically provide for crosswithholding. See 47 FR 23658, 23659–
60 121 (cross-withholding permitted as
stated in § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3)); Group
Dir., Claims Grp./GGD, B–225091 et al.,
1987 WL 101454, at *2 (Comp. Gen.
Feb. 20, 1987) (the Department’s 1983
Davis-Bacon regulatory revisions, e.g.,
§ 5.5(a)(2), ‘‘now provide that the
contractor must consent to crosswithholding by an explicit clause in the
contract’’).
The Department proposes additional
amendments to the cross-withholding
contract clause language at § 5.5(a)(2)
and (b)(3) to strengthen the
Department’s ability to cross-withhold
when contractors use single-purpose
entities, joint ventures or partnerships,
or other similar vehicles to bid on and
enter into DBRA-covered contracts. As
noted above with reference to the
proposed definition of prime contractor,
the interposition of another entity
between the agency and the general
contractor is not a new phenomenon. In
general, however, the use of singlepurpose limited liability company (LLC)
entities and similar joint ventures and
teaming agreements in government
contracting has been increasing in
recent decades. See, e.g., John W.
Chierichella & Anne Bluth Perry, Fed.
Publ’ns LLC, Teaming Agreements and
Advanced Subcontracting Issues, TAASI
GLASS–CLE A at *1–6 (2007); A. Paul
Ingrao, Joint Ventures: Their Use in
Federal Government Contracting, 20
Pub. Cont. L.J. 399 (1991).
In response to this increase in the use
of such single-purpose legal entities or
arrangements, Federal agencies have
often required special provisions to
assure that liability among joint
venturers will be joint and several. See,
e.g., Ingrao, supra, at 402–03 (‘‘Joint and
several liability special provisions vary
with each procuring agency and range
121 The
May 28, 1982 final rule was implemented
in part, including §§ 5.5(a)(2) and 5.5(b)(3), in 1983.
48 FR 19540, 19540, 19545–47 (Apr. 29, 1983).
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15759
from a single statement to complex
provisions regarding joint and several
liability to the government or third
parties.’’). While the corporate form may
be a way for joint venturers to attempt
to insulate themselves from liability,
commentators have noted that this
‘‘advantage will rarely be available in a
Government contracts context, because
the Government will customarily
demand financial and performance
guarantees from the parent companies
as a condition of its ‘responsibility’
determination.’’ Chierichella & Perry,
supra, at *15–16.
Without amendment to the existing
regulations, however, the Government is
not able to effectively demand similar
guarantees to secure performance of
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements. Unless the crosswithholding regulations are amended,
the core DBRA remedy of crosswithholding may be of limited
effectiveness as to joint ventures and
other similar contracting vehicles such
as single-purpose LLCs. This
enforcement gap exists because, as a
general matter, cross-withholding
(referred to as ‘‘offset’’ under the
common law) is not available unless
there is a ‘‘mutuality of debts’’ in that
the creditor and debtor involved are
exactly the same person or legal entity.
See R.P. Newsom, 39 Comp. Gen. 438,
439 (1959). That general rule, however,
can be waived by agreement of the
parties. See Lila Hannebrink, 48 Comp.
Gen. 365, 365 (1968) (allowing crosswithholding against a joint venture for
debt of an individual joint venturer on
a prior contract, where all parties
agreed).
The structure of the Davis-Bacon Act,
with its implementation in part through
the mechanism of contract clauses,
provides both the opportunity and the
responsibility of the Government to
ensure—by contract—that the use of the
corporate form does not interfere with
Congress’s mandate that workers be
paid the required prevailing wage and
that withholding ensures the payment of
any back wages owed. It is a cardinal
rule of law that ‘‘the interposition of a
corporation will not be allowed to
defeat a legislative policy, whether that
was the aim or only the result of the
arrangement.’’ Anderson v. Abbott, 321
U.S. 349, 363 (1944). This principle is
generally applied to allow, in
appropriate circumstances, for corporate
forms to be disregarded by ‘‘piercing of
corporate veil.’’ 122 However, where a
122 The Department has long applied corporate
veil-piercing principles under the DBRA. See, e.g.,
Thomas J. Clements, Inc., ALJ No. 82–DBA–27,
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
Continued
18MRP3
15760
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
policy is enacted by contract, it is
inefficient and unnecessary to rely on
post hoc veil-piercing to assure that the
legislative policy is enacted. The
Government can instead, by contract,
assure that the use of single-purpose
entities, subsidiaries, or joint ventures
interposed as nominal ‘‘prime
contractors’’ does not inhibit the
application of the Congressional
mandate to assure back wages are
recovered through withholding.123
Accordingly, the Department
proposes amending the withholding
contract clauses at § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3)
to ensure that any entity that directly
enters into a contract covered by the
DBRA must agree to cross-withholding
against it to cover any violations of
specified affiliates under other covered
contracts entered into by those affiliates.
The covered affiliates are those entities
included within the proposed definition
of prime contractor in § 5.2: Controlling
shareholders or members, joint
venturers or partners, and contractors
(e.g., general contractors) that have been
delegated significant construction and/
or compliance responsibilities. Thus, for
example, if a general contractor secures
two prime contracts for two Related Actcovered housing projects through
separate single-purpose entities that it
controls, the new cross-withholding
language would allow the Department to
seek cross-withholding on either
contract even though the contracts are
nominally with separate legal entities.
Or, if a general contractor is delegated
all of the construction and compliance
duties on a first contract held by an
unrelated developer-owner, but the
general contractor itself holds a prime
contract on a separate second contract,
the Department could seek crosswithholding from the general contractor
on the second contract, which it holds
directly, to remedy violations on the
first contract.
The Department also proposes to add
language to § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) to
1984 WL 161753, at *9 (June 14, 1984) (recognizing,
in the context of a Davis-Bacon Act enforcement
action, that a court may ‘‘pierce the corporation veil
where failure to do so will produce an unjust
result’’), aff’d, WAB No. 84–12, 1985 WL 167223,
at *1 (Jan. 25, 1985) (adopting ALJ’s decision as the
Wage Appeals Board’s own decision); Griffin v.
Sec’y of Labor, ARB Nos. 00–032, 00–033, 2003 WL
21269140, at *8, n.2 (May 30, 2003) (various
contractors and their common owner, who ‘‘made
all decisions regarding operations of all of the
companies,’’ were one another’s ‘‘alter egos’’ in Act
debarment action).
123 Cf. Robert W. Hamilton, The Corporate Entity,
49 Tex. L. Rev. 979, 984 (1971) (noting the
difference in application of ‘‘piercing the veil’’
concepts in contract law because ‘‘the creditor more
or less assumed the risk of loss when he dealt with
a ‘shell’; if he was concerned, he should have
insisted that some solvent third person guarantee
the performance by the corporation’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
clarify that the Government may pursue
cross-withholding regardless of whether
the contract on which withholding is
sought was awarded by, or received
Federal assistance from, the same
agency that awarded or assisted the
prime contract on which the violations
necessitating the withholding occurred.
This revision is in accordance with the
Department’s longstanding policy, the
current language of the withholding
clauses, and case law on the use of
setoff procedures in other contexts
dating to 1946. See, e.g., United States
v. Maxwell, 157 F.3d 1099, 1102 (7th
Cir. 1998) (‘‘[T]he [F]ederal
[G]overnment is considered to be a
single-entity that is entitled to set off
one agency’s debt to a party against that
party’s debt to another agency.’’); Cherry
Cotton Mills v. United States, 327 U.S.
536, 539 (1946) (same). However,
because the current Davis-Bacon
regulatory language does not explicitly
state that funds may be withheld from
contracts awarded by other agencies,
some agencies have questioned whether
cross-withholding is appropriate in such
circumstances. This proposed addition
would expressly dispel any such
uncertainty or confusion. Conforming
edits have also been proposed for § 5.9.
The Department also proposes certain
non-substantive changes to streamline
the withholding clauses. The
Department proposes to include in the
withholding clause at § 5.5(a)(2)(i)
similar language as in the CWHSSA
withholding clause at § 5.5(b)(3)
authorizing withholding necessary ‘‘to
satisfy the liabilities . . . for the full
amount of wages . . .and monetary
relief’’ of the contractor or subcontractor
under the contract—instead of the
specific language currently in § 5.5(a)(2)
that re-states the lists of the types of
covered employees already listed in
§ 5.5(a)(1)(i). The Department also
proposes using the same term ‘‘so much
of the accrued payments or advances’’
in both § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3), instead of
simply ‘‘sums’’ as currently written in
§ 5.5(b)(3). Finally, the Department also
proposes to adopt in § 5.5(b)(3) the use
of the term ‘‘considered,’’ as used in
§ 5.5(a)(2), instead of ‘‘determined’’ as
currently used in § 5.5(b)(3), to refer to
the determination of the amount of
funds to withhold, as this mechanism
applies in the same manner under both
clauses.
Conforming edits for each of the
above changes to the withholding
clauses at § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) have also
been proposed for the explanatory
section at § 5.9. In addition, the
Department proposes clarifying in a new
paragraph (c) of § 5.9 that crosswithholding from a contract held by a
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
different legal entity is not appropriate
unless the withholding provisions in
that entity’s contract were incorporated
in full or by reference. Absent
exceptional circumstances, crosswithholding would not be permitted
from a contract held by a different legal
entity where the labor standards were
incorporated only by operation of law
into that contract.
(B) Suspension of Funds for
Recordkeeping Violations
The Department also proposes to add
language clarifying that, as proposed in
§ 5.5(a)(3)(iv), funds may be suspended
when a contractor has refused to submit
certified payroll or provide the required
records as set forth at § 5.5(a)(3).
(C) The Department’s Priority To
Withheld Funds
The Department proposes revising
§§ 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 5.9 to codify
the Department’s longstanding position
that, consistent with the DBRA’s
remedial purpose to ensure that
prevailing wages are fully paid to
covered workers, the Department has
priority to funds withheld (including
funds that have been cross-withheld) for
violations of Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage requirements and CWHSSA
overtime requirements. See also
PWRB,124 DBA/DBRA/CWHSSA
Withholding and Disbursement, at 4. In
order to ensure that underpaid workers
receive the monies to which they are
entitled, contract funds that are
withheld to reimburse workers owed
Davis-Bacon or CWHSSA wages, or
both, must be reserved for that purpose
and may not be used or set aside for
other purposes until such time as the
prevailing wage and overtime issues are
resolved.
Affording the Department first
priority to withheld funds, above
competing claims, ‘‘effectuate[s] the
plain purpose of these Federal labor
standards laws . . . [to] insure that
every laborer and mechanic is paid the
wages and fringe benefits to which [the
DBA and DBRA] entitle them.’’ Quincy
Hous. Auth. LaClair Corp., WAB No.
87–32, 1989 WL 407468, at *3 (Feb. 17,
1989) (holding that ‘‘the Department of
Labor has priority rights to all funds
remaining to be paid on a [F]ederal or
federally assisted contract, to the extent
necessary to pay laborers and mechanics
employed by contractors and
subcontractors under such contract the
full amount of wages required by
[F]ederal labor standards laws and the
contract . . .’’). The proposed
withholding priority serves an
124 See
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
note 14, supra.
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
important public policy of providing
restitution for work that laborers and
mechanics have already performed, but
for which they were not paid the full
DBA or DBRA wages they were owed in
the first place.
Specifically, the Department proposes
to set forth expressly that it has priority
to funds withheld for DBA, CWHSSA,
and other Related Act wage
underpayments over competing claims
to such withheld funds by:
(1) A contractor’s surety(ies),
including without limitation
performance bond sureties, and
payment bond sureties;
(2) A contracting agency for its
reprocurement costs;
(3) A trustee(s) (either a courtappointed trustee or a U.S. trustee, or
both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or
a contractor’s bankruptcy estate;
(4) A contractor’s assignee(s);
(5) A contractor’s successor(s); or
(6) A claim asserted under the Prompt
Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901–3907.
To the extent that a contractor did not
have rights to funds withheld for DavisBacon wage underpayments, nor do
their sureties, assignees, successors,
creditors (e.g., the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service), or bankruptcy estates have
greater rights than the contractor. See,
e.g., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., ARB No. 00–
018, 2003 WL 21499861, at *7–9 (DOL
priority to DBA withheld funds where
surety ‘‘ha[d] not satisfied all of the
bonded [and defaulted prime]
contractor’s obligations, including the
obligation to ensure the payment of
prevailing wages’’); Unity Bank & Trust
Co. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 380, 384
(1984) (assignees acquire no greater
rights than their assignors); Richard T.
D’Ambrosia, 55 Comp. Gen. 744, 746
(1976) (IRS tax levy cannot attach to
money withheld for DBA
underpayments in which contractor has
no interest).
Withheld funds always should, for
example, be used to satisfy DBA and
DBRA wage claims before any
reprocurement costs (e.g., following a
contractor’s default or termination from
all or part of the covered work) are
collected by the Government. See WHD
Opinion Letter DBRA–132 (May 8,
1985). The Department has explained
that ‘‘[t]o hold otherwise . . . would be
inequitable and contrary to public
policy since the affected employees
already have performed work from
which the Government has received the
benefit and that to give contracting
agency reprocurement claims priority in
such instances would essentially require
the employees to unfairly pay for the
breach of contract between their
employer and the Government.’’ Id.; see
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
also PWRB, DBA/DBRA/CWHSSA
Withholding and Disbursement, at 4.125
This rationale applies with equal force
in support of the Department’s priority
to withheld funds over the other types
of competing claims listed in this
proposed regulation.
The Department’s rights to withheld
funds for unpaid earnings also are
superior to performance and payment
bond sureties of a DBA or DBRA
contractor. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 567, 581–
82 (2002) (surety did not acquire rights
that contractor itself did not have);
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., ARB No. 00–018,
2003 WL 21499861 at *7–9 (ARB found
that Administrator’s claim to withheld
contract funds for DBA wages took
priority over performance (and
payment) bond surety’s claim); see also
Quincy Hous. Auth. LaClair Corp., WAB
No. 87–32, 1989 WL 407468, at *3. The
Department can withhold unaccrued
funds such as advances until ‘‘sufficient
funds are withheld to compensate
employees for the wages to which they
are entitled’’ under the DBA. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., ARB No. 00–018, 2003 WL
21499861, at *6; see also 29 CFR 5.9.
Similarly, the Department has priority
over assignees (e.g., assignees under the
Assignment Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C.
3727, 41 U.S.C. 6305) to DBRA withheld
funds. For example, in Unity Bank &
Trust Co., 5 Cl. Ct. at 383, the
employees’ claim to withheld funds for
a subcontractor’s DBA wage
underpayments had priority over a
claim to those funds by the assignee—
a bank that had lent money to the
subcontractor to finance the work.
Nor are funds withheld pursuant to
the DBRA for prevailing wage
underpayments property of a
contractor’s (debtor’s) bankruptcy estate.
See In re Quinta Contractors, Inc., 34
B.R. 129 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1983); cf.
Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S.
132, 135–36 (1962) (concluding, in a
case under the Miller Act, that ‘‘the
Bankruptcy Act simply does not
authorize a trustee to distribute other
people’s property among a bankrupt’s
creditors’’). When a contractor has
violated its contract with the
government—as well as the DBA or
DBRA—by failing to pay required wages
and fringe benefits, it has not earned its
contractual payment. Therefore,
withheld funds are not property of the
contractor-debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
Cf. Professional Tech. Servs., Inc. v. IRS,
No. 87–780C(2), 1987 WL 47833, at *2
(E.D. Mo. Oct. 15, 1987) (when DOL
finds [an SCA] violation and issues a
withholding letter, that act
125 See
PO 00000
note 14, supra.
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15761
‘‘extinguishe[s]’’ whatever property
right the debtor (contractor) might
otherwise have had to the withheld
funds, subject to administrative review
if the contractor chooses to pursue it);
In re Frank Mossa Trucking, Inc., 65
B.R. 715, 7–18 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985)
(pre-petition and post-petition SCA
withholding was not property of the
contractor-debtor’s bankruptcy estate).
Various Comptroller General
decisions further underscore these
principles. See, e.g., Carlson Plumbing
& Heating, B–216549, 1984 WL 47039
(Comp. Gen. Dec. 5, 1984) (DBA and
CWHSSA withholding has first priority
over IRS tax levy, payment bond surety,
and trustee in bankruptcy); Watervliet
Arsenal, B–214905, 1984 WL 44226, at
*2 (Comp. Gen. May 15, 1984) (DBA and
CWHSSA wage claims for the benefit of
unpaid workers had first priority to
retained contract funds, over IRS tax
claim and claim of payment bond
surety), aff’d sub nom on
reconsideration Int’l Fidelity Ins. Co., B–
214905, 1984 WL 46318 (Comp. Gen.
July 10, 1984); Forest Serv. Request for
Advance Decision, B–211539, 1983 WL
27408, at *1 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 26, 1983)
(DOL’s withholding claim for unpaid
DBA wages prevailed over claims of
payment bond surety and trustee in
bankruptcy).
The Department proposes codifying
its position that DBRA withholding has
priority over claims under the Prompt
Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901–3907. The
basis for this proposed provision is that
a contractor’s right to prompt payment
does not have priority over legitimate
claims—such as withholding—arising
from the contractor’s failure to fully
satisfy its obligations under the contract.
See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 3905(a) (concerning
requirement that payments to prime
contractors be for performance by such
contractor that conforms to the
specifications, terms, and conditions of
its contract).
The Department welcomes comments
on whether the listed priorities should
be effectuated by different language in
the contract clause, such as an
agreement between the parties that a
contractor forfeits any legal or equitable
interest in withheld payments once it
commits violations, subject to
procedural requirements that allow the
contractor to contest the violations.
xxiv. Subpart C—Severability
The Department proposes to add a
new subpart C, titled ‘‘Severability’’,
which would contain a new § 5.40, also
titled ‘‘Severability.’’ The proposed
severability provision explains that each
provision is capable of operating
independently from one another, and
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15762
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that if any provision of part 5 is held to
be invalid or unenforceable by its terms,
or as applied to any person or
circumstance, or stayed pending further
agency action, the Department intends
that the remaining provisions remain in
effect.
4. Non-Substantive Changes
xxv. Plain Language
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to
write documents in a clear, concise,
well-organized manner. The Department
has written this document to be
consistent with the Plain Writing Act as
well as the Presidential Memorandum,
‘‘Plain Language in Government
Writing,’’ published June 10, 1998 (63
FR 31885). The Department requests
comment on the proposed rule with
respect to clarity and effectiveness of
the language used.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
xxvi. Other Changes
The Department proposes to make
non-substantive revisions throughout
the regulations to address typographical
and grammatical errors and to remove or
update outdated or incorrect regulatory
and statutory cross-references. The
Department also proposes to adopt more
inclusive language, including
terminology that is gender-neutral, in
the proposed regulations. These changes
are consistent with general practice for
Federal government publications; for
example, guidance from the Office of
the Federal Register advises agencies to
avoid using gender-specific job titles
(e.g., ‘‘foremen’’).126 These nonsubstantive revisions do not alter the
substantive requirements of the
regulations.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its
attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320,
require the Department to consider the
agency’s need for its information
collections, their practical utility, as
well as the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens
imposed on the public, and how to
minimize those burdens. The PRA
typically requires an agency to provide
notice and seek public comments on
any proposed collection of information
contained in a proposed rule. See 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B); 5 CFR 1320.8.
This rulemaking would affect existing
information collection requirements
previously approved under OMB
126 See Office of the Federal Register, Drafting
Legal Documents: Principles of Clear Writing § 18,
available at https://www.archives.gov/Federalregister/write/legal-docs/clear-writing.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
control number 1235–0008 (DavisBacon Certified Payroll) and OMB
control number 1235–0023 (Requests to
Approve Conformed Wage
Classifications and Unconventional
Fringe Benefit Plans Under the DavisBacon and Related Acts/Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act). As
required by the PRA, the Department
has submitted information collection
revisions to OMB for review to reflect
changes that will result from the
proposed rule.
Summary: This rulemaking proposes
to amend regulations issued under the
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts that set
forth rules for the administration and
enforcement of the Davis-Bacon labor
standards that apply to Federal and
federally assisted construction projects.
The Department proposes to add two
new recordkeeping requirements
(telephone number and email address)
to the collection under 1235–0008;
however, it does not propose that such
data be added to the certified weekly
payroll submission. The Department
proposes to add paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to
29 CFR 5.5, which will require all
contractors, subcontractors, and
recipients of Federal assistance to
maintain and preserve Davis-Bacon
contracts, subcontracts, and related
documents for 3 years after all the work
on the prime contract is completed.
These related documents include
contractor and subcontractor bids and
proposals, amendments, modifications,
and extensions to contracts,
subcontracts, and agreements. The
Department notes that it is a normal
business practice to keep such
documents and does not expect an
increase in burden associated with this
requirement. The Department requests
public comment on its assumption that
contractors and subcontractors already
maintain these records as a matter of
good business practice. Further, the
Department adds proposed regulatory
citations to the collection under 1235–
0023, however there is no change in
burden.
Purpose and use: This proposed rule
continues the already existing
requirements that contractors and
subcontractors must certify their
payrolls by attesting that persons
performing work on DBRA covered
contracts have received the proper
payment of wages and fringe benefits.
Contracting officials and WHD
personnel use the records and certified
payrolls to verify contractors pay the
required rates for work performed.
Additionally, the Department reviews
a proposed conformance action report to
determine the appropriateness of a
conformance action. Upon completion
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of review, the Department approves,
modifies, or disapproves a conformance
request and issues a determination. The
Department also reviews requests for
approval of unfunded fringe benefit
plans to determine the propriety of the
plans.
WHD obtains PRA clearance under
control number 1235–0008 for an
information collection covering the
Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll and
certain proposed new recordkeeping
requirements. An Information
Collection Request has been submitted
to revise the approval to incorporate the
regulatory citations in this proposed
rule applicable to the proposed rule and
adjust burden estimates to reflect a
slight increase in burden associated
with the proposed new recordkeeping
requirements.
WHD obtains PRA clearance under
OMB control number 1235–0023 for an
information collection related to
reporting requirements related to
Conformance Reports and Unfunded
Fringe Benefit Plans. This Information
Collection Request is being submitted as
the proposed rule proposes to revise the
location within the regulatory text of
certain requirements. An Information
Collection Request has been submitted
to OMB to revise the approval to
incorporate the regulatory citations in
this proposed rule.
Information and technology: There is
no particular order or form of records
prescribed by the proposed regulations.
A respondent may meet the
requirements of this proposed rule using
paper or electronic means.
Public comments: The Department
seeks comments on its analysis that this
NPRM creates a slight increase in
paperwork burden associated with ICR
1235–0008 and no increase in burden to
ICR 1235–0023. Commenters may send
their views on the Department’s PRA
analysis in the same way they send
comments in response to the NPRM as
a whole (e.g., through the
www.regulations.gov website), including
as part of a comment responding to the
broader NPRM. While much of the
information provided to OMB in
support of the information collection
request appears in the preamble,
interested parties may obtain a copy of
the full copy of the supporting
statements by sending a written request
to the mail address shown in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this preamble or by calling the number
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. Alternatively, a copy of the
ICR with applicable supporting
documentation; including a description
of the likely respondents, proposed
frequency of response, and estimated
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
total burden may be obtained free of
charge from the RegInfo.gov website on
the day following publication of this
notice or by visiting https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain
website. In addition to having an
opportunity to file comments with the
Department, comments about the
paperwork implications of the proposed
regulations may be addressed to the
OMB. Comments to the OMB should be
directed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Attention:
Desk Officer for WHD, New Executive
Office Building, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503. The OMB will
consider all written comments that the
agency receives during the comment
period of this proposed rule. As
previously indicated, written comments
directed to the Department may be
submitted during the comment period of
this proposed rule.
The OMB and the Department are
particularly interested in comments
that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Total burden for the subject
information collections, including the
burdens that will be unaffected by this
proposed rule and any changes are
summarized as follows:
Type of review: Revisions to currently
approved information collections.
Agency: Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
Title: Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll.
OMB Control Number: 1235–0008.
Affected public: Private sector,
businesses or other for-profits and
Individuals or Households.
Estimated number of respondents:
154,500 (0 from this rulemaking).
Estimated number of responses:
9,194,616 (1,200,000 from this
rulemaking).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Estimated annual burden hours:
7,464,975 (3,333 burden hours due to
this NPRM).
Capital/Start-up costs: $0 ($0 from
this rulemaking).
Title: Requests to Approve Conformed
Wage Classifications and
Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans
Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
and Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act.
OMB Control Number: 1235–0023.
Affected public: Private sector,
businesses or other for-profits and
Individuals or Households.
Estimated number of respondents:
8,518 (0 from this rulemaking).
Estimated number of responses: 8,518
(0 from this rulemaking).
Frequency of response: on occasion.
Estimated annual burden hours: 2,143
(0 from this rulemaking).
Estimated annual burden costs: 0.
V. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review; Executive Order
13563, Improved Regulation and
Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB’s
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a
regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive Order and OMB
review.127 Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as a regulatory action
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities
(also referred to as economically
significant); (2) create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order. OIRA
has determined that this proposed rule
is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 and is economically significant.
Although the Department has only
quantified costs of $12.6 million in Year
1, there are multiple components of the
rule that could not be quantified due to
127 See
PO 00000
58 FR 51735, 51741 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15763
data limitations, so it is possible that the
aggregate effect of the rule is larger.
Executive Order 13563 directs
agencies to, among other things, propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs; that it is tailored to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining the regulatory
objectives; and that, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, the
agency has selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. Executive
Order 13563 recognizes that some costs
and benefits are difficult to quantify and
provides that, when appropriate and
permitted by law, agencies may
consider and discuss qualitatively
values that are difficult or impossible to
quantify, including equity, human
dignity, fairness, and distributive
impacts. The analysis below outlines
the impacts that the Department
anticipates may result from this
proposed rule and was prepared
pursuant to the above-mentioned
executive orders.
A. Introduction
1. Background and Need for Rulemaking
In order to provide greater clarity and
enhance their usefulness in the modern
economy, the Department proposes to
update and modernize the regulations
that implement the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts. The Davis-Bacon Act
(DBA), enacted in 1931, requires the
payment of locally prevailing wages and
fringe benefits on Federal contracts for
construction. See 40 U.S.C. 3142. The
law applies to workers on contracts
awarded directly by Federal agencies
and the District of Columbia that are in
excess of $2,000 and for the
construction, alteration, or repair of
public buildings or public works.
Congress subsequently incorporated
DBA prevailing wage requirements into
numerous statutes (referred to as
Related Acts) under which Federal
agencies assist construction projects
through grants, loans, guarantees,
insurance, and other methods.
The Department seeks to address a
number of outstanding challenges in the
program while also providing greater
clarity in the DBA and Related Acts
(collectively, the DBRA) regulations and
enhancing their usefulness in the
modern economy. In this rulemaking,
the Department proposes to update and
modernize the regulations
implementing the DBRA at 29 CFR parts
1, 3, and 5. Among other proposals as
discussed more fully earlier in this
preamble, the Department proposes:
• To return to the definition of
‘‘prevailing wage’’ in § 1.2 that it used
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15764
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
from 1935 to 1983.128 Currently, a single
wage rate may be identified as
prevailing in the area only if it is paid
to a majority of workers in a
classification on the wage survey;
otherwise a weighted average is used.
The Department proposes to return
instead to the ‘‘three-step’’ method in
effect before 1983. Under that method
(also known as the 30-percent rule), in
the absence of a wage rate paid to a
majority of workers in a particular
classification, a wage rate will be
considered prevailing if was paid to at
least 30 percent of such workers. Only
if no single wage rate is paid to at least
30 percent of workers in a classification
will an average rate be used.
• To revise § 1.6(c)(1) to provide a
mechanism to regularly update certain
non-collectively bargained prevailing
wage rates based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Employment Cost Index. The
mechanism is intended to keep such
rates more current between surveys so
that they do not become out-of-date and
fall behind prevailing wage rates in the
area.
• To expressly give the Administrator
authority and discretion to adopt State
or local wage determinations as the
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage where
certain specified criteria are satisfied.
• To return to a prior policy made
during the 1981–1982 rulemaking
related to the delineation of wage survey
data submitted for ‘‘metropolitan’’ or
‘‘rural’’ counties in § 1.7(b). Through
this change, the Department seeks to
more accurately reflect modern labor
force realities, to allow more wage rates
to be determined at smaller levels of
geographical aggregation, and to
increase the sufficiency of data at the
statewide level.
• To include provisions to reduce the
need for the use of ‘‘conformances’’
where the Department has received
insufficient data to publish a prevailing
wage for a classification of worker—a
process that currently is burdensome for
contracting agencies, contractors, and
the Department.
• To strengthen enforcement,
including by making effective by
operation of law contract clauses or
wage determinations that were wrongly
omitted from contracts, and by
codifying the principle of annualization
used to calculate the amount of DavisBacon credit that a contractor may
receive for contributions to a fringe
benefit plan when the contractor’s
workers also work on private projects.
• To clarify and strengthen the scope
of coverage under the DBRA, including
by revising the definition of ‘‘site of the
work’’ to further encompass certain
construction of significant portions of a
building or work at secondary
worksites, to better clarify when
demolition and similar activities are
covered by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards, and to clarify that the
regulatory definitions of ‘‘building or
work’’ and ‘‘public building or public
work’’ can be met even when the
construction activity involves only a
portion of an overall building, structure,
or improvement.
2. Summary of Affected Contractors,
Workers, Costs, Transfers, and Benefits
The Department evaluates the impacts
of two components of this proposed rule
in this regulatory impact analysis:
• The return to the ‘‘three-step’’
method for determining the prevailing
wage and
• The provision of a mechanism to
regularly update certain noncollectively bargained prevailing wage
rates based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Employment Cost Index.
This proposed rule predominantly
affects firms that hold federally funded
or assisted construction contracts
because of its impact on prevailing wage
and fringe benefit rate determinations.
The Department identified a range of
potentially affected firms. The more
narrowly defined population (those
actively holding DBRA-covered
contracts) includes 113,900 firms. The
broader population (including those
bidding on contracts but without active
contracts, or those considering bidding
in the future) includes 154,800 firms.
Only a subset of potentially affected
firms will be substantively affected and
fewer may experience a change in
payroll costs because some firms
already pay above the prevailing wage
rates that may result from this proposal.
The Department estimated there are 1.2
million workers on DBRA covered
contracts and therefore potentially
affected by this proposed rule. Some of
these workers will not be affected
because they work in occupations not
covered by DBRA or, if they are covered
by DBRA, workers may not be affected
by the prevailing wage updates of this
proposed rule because they may already
earn above the updated prevailing wage
and fringe benefit rates.
The Department estimated both
regulatory familiarization costs and
implementation costs for affected firms.
Year 1 costs are estimated to total $12.6
million. Average annualized costs
across the first 10 years are estimated to
be $3.9 million (using a 7 percent
discount rate). The transfer analysis
discussed in Section IV.D. draws on two
illustrative analyses conducted by the
Department. However, the Department
does not definitively quantify annual
transfer payments due to data
limitations and uncertainty. Similarly,
benefits are discussed qualitatively due
to data limitations and uncertainty. See
Table 1 for a summary of affected
contractor firms, workers, and costs.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED CONTRACTOR FIRMS, WORKERS, AND COSTS
[2020 dollars]
Future years
Average annualized value
Year 1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Year 2
Firms: Narrow Definition a ....................................................
Firms: Broad Definition b ......................................................
Potentially Affected Workers (millions) ................................
Direct employer costs (million) ............................................
Regulatory familiarization .............................................
Implementation .............................................................
a Firms
b Firms
154,500
192,400
1.2
$12.6
$10.1
$2.5
154,500
192,400
1.2
$2.5
$0.0
$2.5
Year 10
154,500
192,400
1.2
$2.5
$0.0
$2.5
3% real rate
7% real rate
........................
........................
........................
$3.7
1.2
2.5
........................
........................
........................
$3.9
1.4
2.5
actively holding DBRA-covered contracts.
who may be bidding on DBA contracts or considering bidding in the future.
128 The 1981–1982 rulemaking went into effect
April 29, 1983. 48 FR 19532.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
B. Number of Potentially Affected
Contractor Firms and Workers
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
1. Number of Potentially Affected
Contractor Firms
The Department identified a range of
potentially affected firms. This includes
both firms impacted by the DBA and
firms impacted by the Related Acts. The
more narrowly defined population
(firms actively holding DBRA-covered
contracts) includes 154,500 firms:
61,200 Impacted by DBA and 93,300
impacted by the Related Acts (Table 2).
The broader population (including those
bidding on DBA contracts but without
active contracts, or those considering
bidding in the future) includes 192,400
firms: 99,100 Impacted by DBA and
93,300 impacted by the Related Acts.
Additionally, only a subset of these
firms will experience a change in
payroll costs. Those firms that already
pay above the new wage determination
rates calculated under the 30-percent
rule will not be substantively affected.
Because there is no readily usable
source of data on the earnings of
workers of these affected firms, the
Department cannot definitively identify
the number of firms that will experience
changes in payroll costs due to changes
in prevailing wage rates.
i. Firms Currently Holding DBA
Contracts
USASpending.gov—the official source
for spending data for the U.S.
Government—contains Government
award data from the Federal
Procurement Data System Next
Generation (FPDS–NG), which is the
system of record for Federal
procurement data. The Department used
these data to identify the number of
firms that currently hold DBA contracts.
Although more recent data are available,
the Department used data from 2019 to
avoid any shifts in the data associated
with the COVID–19 pandemic in 2020.
Any long-run impacts of COVID–19 are
speculative because this is an
unprecedented situation, so using data
from 2019 may be the best
approximation the Department has for
future impacts. The pandemic could
cause structural changes to the
economy, resulting in shifts in industry
employment and wages. The
Department welcomes comments and
data on how the COVID–19 pandemic
has impacted firms and workers on
DBRA contracts, as well as the impact
on construction and other affected
industries as a whole.
The Department identified firms
working on DBRA contracts as contracts
with an assigned NAICS code of 23 or
if the ‘‘Construction Wage Rate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Requirements’’ element is ‘‘Y,’’ meaning
that the contracting agency flagged that
the contract is covered by DBRA.129 130
The Department also excluded (1)
contracts for financial assistance such as
direct payments, loans, and insurance;
and (2) contracts performed outside the
U.S. because DBA coverage is limited to
the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the U.S. territories.131
In 2019, there were 14,000 unique
prime contractors with active
construction contracts in USASpending.
However, subcontractors are also
impacted by this proposed rule. The
Department examined 5 years of
USASpending data (2015 through 2019)
and identified 47,200 unique
subcontractors who did not hold
contracts as primes in 2019. The
Department used 5 years of data for the
count of subcontractors to compensate
for lower-tier subcontractors that may
not be included in USASpending.gov. In
total, the Department estimates 61,200
firms currently hold DBA contracts and
are potentially affected by this
rulemaking under the narrow definition;
however, to the extent that any of these
firms already pay above the prevailing
wage rates as determined under this
proposed rule they will not actually be
impacted by the rule.
ii. All Potentially Affected Contractors
(DBA Only)
The Department also cast a wider net
to identify other potentially affected
contractors, both those directly affected
(i.e., holding contracts) and those that
plan to bid on DBA-covered contracts in
the future. To determine the number of
these firms, the Department identified
construction firms registered in the
General Services Administration’s
(GSA) System for Award Management
(SAM) since all entities bidding on
129 The North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) is a method by which Federal
statistical agencies classify business establishments
in order to collect, analyze, and publish data about
certain industries. Each industry is categorized by
a sequence of codes ranging from 2 digits (most
aggregated level) to 6 digits (most granular level).
https://www.census.gov/naics/.
130 The Department acknowledges that there may
be affected firms that fall under other NAICS codes
and for which the contracting agency did not flag
in the FPDS–NG system that the contract is covered
by DBRA. Including these additional NAICS codes
could result in an overestimate because they would
only be affected by this proposed rule if DavisBacon covered construction occurs. The data does
not allow the Department to determine this.
131 The DBA only applies in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia and does not apply in the
territories. However, some Related Acts provided
Federal funding of construction in the territories
that, by virtue of the Related Act, is subject to DBA
prevailing wage requirements. For example, the
DBA does not apply in Guam, but a Related Act
provides that base realignment construction in
Guam is subject to DBA requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15765
Federal procurement contracts or grants
must register in SAM. The Department
believes that firms registered in SAM
represent those that may be affected if
the proposed rulemaking impacts their
decision to bid on contracts or their
competitiveness in the bidding process.
However, it is possible that some firms
that are not already registered in SAM
could decide to bid on DBA-covered
contracts after this proposed
rulemaking; these firms are not included
in the Department’s estimate. The
proposed rule could also impact them if
they are awarded a future contract.
Using May 2021 SAM data, the
Department identified 51,900 registered
firms with construction listed as the
primary NAICS code.132 The
Department excluded firms with
expired registrations, firms only
applying for grants,133 government
entities (such as city or county
governments),134 foreign organizations,
and companies that only sell products
and do not provide services. SAM
includes all prime contractors and some
subcontractors (those who are also
prime contractors or who have
otherwise registered in SAM). However,
the Department is unable to determine
the number of subcontractors that are
not in the SAM database. Therefore, the
Department added the subcontractors
identified in USASpending to this
estimate. Adding these 47,200 firms
identified in USASpending to the
number of firms in SAM, results in
99,100 potentially affected firms.
iii. Firms Impacted by the Related Acts
USASpending does not adequately
capture all work performed under the
Related Acts. Additionally, there is not
a central database, such as SAM, where
contractors working on Related Acts
contracts must register. Therefore, the
Department used a different
methodology to estimate the number of
firms impacted by the Related Acts. The
Department estimated 883,900 workers
work on Related Acts contracts (see
section V.B.2.iii.), then divided that
number by the average number of
workers per firm (9.5) in the
132 Data released in monthly files. Available at:
https://www.sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/extracts/
samPublicAccessData.jsf.
133 Entities registering in SAM are asked if they
wish to bid on contracts. If the firm answers ‘‘yes,’’
then they are included as ‘‘All Awards’’ in the
‘‘Purpose of Registration’’ column in the SAM data.
The Department included only firms with a value
of ‘‘Z2,’’ which denotes ‘‘All Awards.’’
134 The Department believes that there may be
certain limited circumstances in which State and
local governments may be contractors, but believes
that this number would be minimal and including
government entities would result in an
inappropriate overestimation.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15766
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
construction industry.135 This results in
93,300 firms. Some of these firms likely
also perform work on DBA contracts.
However, because the Department has
no information on the size of this
overlap, the Department has assumed all
are unique firms. The Department
welcomes comments and data on the
number of firms working on Related
Acts contracts.
TABLE 2—RANGE OF NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FIRMS
Source
Number
Total Count (Davis-Bacon and Related Acts)
Narrow definition a ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Broad definition b .................................................................................................................................................................................
154,500
192,400
DBA (Narrow Definition)
Total .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Prime contractors from USASpending .........................................................................................................................................
Subcontractors from USASpending .............................................................................................................................................
61,200
14,000
47,200
DBA (Broad Definition)
Total .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
SAM ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Subcontractors from USASpending .............................................................................................................................................
99,100
51,900
47,200
Related Acts
Total .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Related Acts workers ...................................................................................................................................................................
Employees per firm (SUSB) .........................................................................................................................................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
b
Firms actively holding DBRA-covered contracts.
Firms who may be bidding on DBA contracts or considering bidding in the future.
2. Number of Potentially Affected
Workers
There are no readily available
government data on the number of
workers working on DBA contracts;
therefore, to estimate the number of
these workers, the Department
employed the approach used in the
2021 final rule, ‘‘Increasing the
Minimum Wage for Federal
Contractors,’’ which implements
Executive Order 14026.136 That
methodology is based on the 2016
rulemaking implementing Executive
Order 13706’s paid sick leave
requirements, which contained an
updated version of the methodology
used in the 2014 rulemaking for
Executive Order 13658.137 Using this
methodology, the Department estimated
the number of workers who work on
DBRA contracts, representing the
number of ‘‘potentially affected
workers,’’ is 1.2 million potentially
affected workers. Some of these workers
will not be affected because while they
work on DBRA-covered contracts they
are not in occupations covered by the
DBRA prevailing wage determinations
(e.g., laborers or mechanics).
The Department estimated the
number of potentially affected workers
in three parts. First, the Department
estimated employees and self-employed
workers working on DBA contracts in
the 50 States and the District of
Columbia. Second, the Department
estimated the number of workers and
self-employed DBRA workers in the
U.S. territories. Third, the Department
estimated the number of potentially
affected workers working on contracts
covered by Davis-Bacon Related Acts.
The Department used Federal
contracting expenditures from
USASpending.gov data excluding (1)
financial assistance such as direct
payments, loans, and insurance; and (2)
contracts performed outside the U.S.
To determine the share of all output
associated with Federal Government
contracts, the Department divided
contracting expenditures by gross
output in NAICS 23.138 This results in
an estimated 3.27 percent of output in
135 2018 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB).
U.S., NAICS sectors, larger employment sizes up to
20,000+. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/
econ/susb/2018-susb-annual.html.
136 See 86 FR 38816, 38816–38898.
137 See 81 FR 9591, 9591–9671 and 79 FR 60634–
60733.
138 Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2020). Table 8.
Gross Output by Industry Group. https://
www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-productindustry-fourth-quarter-and-year-2019. ‘‘Gross
output of an industry is the market value of the
goods and services produced by an industry,
including commodity taxes. The components of
gross output include sales or receipts and other
operating income, commodity taxes, plus inventory
change. Gross output differs from value added,
which measures the contribution of the industry’s
labor and capital to its gross output.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
i. Workers on DBA Contracts in the 50
States and the District of Columbia
DBA contract employees were
estimated by calculating the ratio of
Federal contracting expenditures to total
output in NAICS 23: Construction. Total
output is the market value of the goods
and services produced by an industry.
This ratio is then applied to total private
employment in that industry (Table 3).
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
EP18MR22.036</GPH>
a
93,300
883,900
9.5
15767
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the construction industry covered by
Federal Government contracts (Table 3).
The Department then multiplied the
ratio of covered-to-gross output by
private sector employment in the
construction industry (9.1 million) to
estimate the share of employees working
on covered contracts. The Department’s
private sector employment number is
primarily comprised of construction
industry employment from the May
2019 Occupational Employment and
Wage Statistics (OEWS), formerly the
Occupational Employment Statistics.139
However, the OEWS excludes
unincorporated self-employed workers,
so the Department supplemented OEWS
data with data from the 2019 Current
Population Survey Merged Outgoing
Rotation Group (CPS MORG) to include
unincorporated self-employed in the
estimate of workers.
According to this methodology, the
Department estimated there are 297,900
workers on DBA covered contracts in
the 50 States and the District of
Columbia. However, these laws only
apply to wages for mechanics and
laborers, so some of these workers
would not be affected by these changes
to DBA.
This methodology represents the
number of year-round-equivalent
potentially affected workers who work
exclusively on DBA contracts. Thus,
when the Department refers to
potentially affected employees in this
analysis, the Department is referring to
this conceptual number of people
working exclusively on covered
contracts. The total number of
potentially affected mechanics and
laborers will likely exceed this number
because affected workers likely do not
work exclusively on DBA contracts.
ii. Workers on DBRA Contracts in the
U.S. Territories
The methodology to estimate
potentially affected workers in the U.S.
territories is similar to the methodology
above for the 50 States and the District
of Columbia. The primary difference is
that data on gross output in the
territories are not available, and so the
Department had to make some
additional assumptions. The
Department approximated gross output
in the territories by calculating the ratio
of gross output to Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) for the U.S. (1.8), then
multiplying that ratio by GDP in each
territory to estimate total gross
output.140 To limit gross output to the
construction industry, the Department
multiplied it by the share of the
territory’s payroll in NAICS 23. For
example, the Department estimated that
Puerto Rico’s gross output in the
construction industry totaled $3.6
billion.141
The rest of the methodology follows
the methodology for the 50 States and
the District of Columbia. To determine
the share of all output associated with
Government contracts, the Department
divided contract expenditures by gross
output. Federal contracting
expenditures from USASpending.gov
data show that the Government spent
$993.3 million on construction contracts
in 2019 in American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. The Department then
multiplied the ratio of covered contract
spending to gross output by private
sector employment to estimate the
number of workers working on covered
contracts (6,100).142
iii. Workers on Related Acts Contracts
This proposed rulemaking will also
impact workers on DBRA-covered
contracts in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia. Data are not
available on the number of workers
covered by the Related Acts.
Additionally, neither USASpending nor
any other database fully captures this
population.143 Therefore, the
Department used a different approach to
estimate the number of potentially
affected workers for DBRA contracts.
The Department identified that the
total State and local government
construction spending as reported by
the Census Bureau was $318 billion in
2019.144 The Department then applied
adjustment factors to adjust for the share
of State and local expenditures that are
covered by the Related Acts. Data on the
share of State and local expenditures
covered by the Related Acts are not
available, therefore the Department used
rough approximations. The Department
requests comments and data on the
appropriate adjustment factors. The
Department assumed half of the total
State and local government construction
expenditures are subject to a DBRA,
resulting in estimated expenditures of
$158 billion. To this, the Department
added $3 billion to represent U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) backed mortgage
insurance for private construction
projects.145
As was done for DBA, the Department
divided contracting expenditures by
gross output, and multiplied that ratio
by the estimate of private sector
employment used above to estimate the
share of workers working on Related
Acts-covered contracts (883,900).
TABLE 3—NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WORKERS
Private output
(billions) a
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
DBA, excl. territories ............................................................
DBRA, territories ..................................................................
Related Acts .........................................................................
139 Bureau of Labor Statistics. OEWS. May 2019.
Available at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/.
140 GDP limited to personal consumption
expenditures and gross private domestic
investment.
141 In Puerto Rico, personal consumption
expenditures plus gross private domestic
investment equaled $71.2 billion. Therefore, Puerto
Rico gross output was calculated as $71.2 billion ×
1.8 × 2.7 percent.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Contracting
output
(millions) b
$1,662
5
1,667
$54,400
993
161,297
142 For the U.S. territories, the unincorporated
self-employed are excluded because CPS data are
not available on the number of unincorporated selfemployed workers in U.S. territories.
143 USASpending includes information on grants,
assistance, and loans provided by the Federal
government. However, this does not include all
covered projects, it does not capture the full value
of the project because it is just the Federal share
(i.e., excludes spending by State and local
governments or private institutions that are also
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Share output
from covered
contracting
3.27%
(e)
9.68%
Private-sector
workers
(1,000s) c
9,100
35
9,135
Workers
DBRA
contracts
(1,000s) d
297.9
6.1
883.9
subject to DBRA labor standards because of the
Federal share on the project), and it cannot easily
be restricted to construction projects because there
is no NAICS or product service code (PSC) variable.
144 Census Bureau. Annual Value of Public
Construction Put in Place 2009–2020. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/
historical_data.html.
145 Estimate based on personal communications
with the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and
Economic Opportunity at HUD.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15768
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WORKERS—Continued
Private output
(billions) a
Total ..............................................................................
Contracting
output
(millions) b
........................
216,700
Share output
from covered
contracting
Private-sector
workers
(1,000s) c
........................
........................
Workers
DBRA
contracts
(1,000s) d
1,188.0
a Bureau
of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Gross output. 2019. For territories, gross output estimated by multiplying (1) total GDP for the
territory by the ratio of total gross output to total GDP for the U.S. and (2) the share of national gross output in the construction industry.
b For DBA, and DBRA in the territories, data from USASpending.gov for contracting expenditures for covered contracts in 2019. For Related
Acts, data from Census Bureau on value of State and local government construction put in place, adjusted for coverage ratios. The Census data
includes some data for territories but may be underestimated.
c OEWS May 2019. For non-territories, also includes unincorporated self-employed workers from the 2019 CPS MORG.
d Assumes share of expenditures on contracting is same as share of employment. Assumes workers work exclusively, year-round on DBRA
covered contracts.
e Varies by U.S. Territory.
3. Demographics of the Construction
Industry
In order to provide information on the
types of workers that may be affected by
this rule, the Department presents
demographic characteristics of
production workers in the construction
industry. For purposes of this
demographic analysis only, the
Department is defining the construction
industry as workers in the following
occupations:
• Construction and extraction
occupations
• Installation, maintenance, and repair
occupations
• Production occupations
• Transportation and material moving
occupations
The Department notes that the
demographic characteristics of workers
on DBRA projects may differ from the
general construction industry; however,
data on the demographics of workers on
DBRA projects is unavailable.
Demographics of the general workforce
are also presented for comparison. The
Department welcomes comments and
data on how the demographics of
workers on DBRA projects would differ
from the demographics of workers in the
construction industry as a whole.
Tabulated numbers are based on 2019
CPS data for consistency with the rest
of the analysis and to avoid potential
impacts of COVID–19. Additional
information on the demographics of
workers in the construction industry
can be found in The Construction Chart
Book: The U.S. Construction Industry
and Its Workers.146
The vast majority of workers in the
construction industry are men, 97
percent (Table 4), which is significantly
higher than the general workforce where
53 percent are men. Workers in
construction are also significantly more
likely to be Hispanic than the general
workforce; 38 percent of construction
workers are Hispanic, compared with 18
percent of the workforce. Lastly, while
many construction workers may have
completed registered apprenticeship
programs 84 percent of workers in the
construction industry have a high
school diploma or less, compared with
54 percent of the general workforce.
TABLE 4—DEMOGRAPHICS OF WORKERS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Production
workers in
construction
Total
workforce
(%)
By Region
Northeast .................................................................................................................................................
Midwest ....................................................................................................................................................
South ........................................................................................................................................................
West .........................................................................................................................................................
16.4
16.4
41.7
25.5
17.9
21.9
36.9
23.3
97.1
2.9
53.4
46.6
87.1
7.5
5.4
77.2
12.4
10.4
38.0
62.0
18.1
81.9
By Sex
Male .........................................................................................................................................................
Female .....................................................................................................................................................
By Race
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
White only ................................................................................................................................................
Black only ................................................................................................................................................
All others ..................................................................................................................................................
By Ethnicity
Hispanic ...................................................................................................................................................
Not Hispanic ............................................................................................................................................
146 Dong, Xiuwen, Xuanwen Wang, Rebecca Katz,
Gavin West, and Bruce Lippy. The Construction
Chart Book: The U.S. Construction Industry and Its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Workers, 6th ed. Silver Spring: CPWR-The Center
for Construction Research and Training, 2018, 18.
https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
publications/The_6th_Edition_Construction_
eChart_Book.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
15769
TABLE 4—DEMOGRAPHICS OF WORKERS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY—Continued
Production
workers in
construction
Total
workforce
(%)
By Race and Ethnicity
White only, Not Hispanic .........................................................................................................................
Black only, Not Hispanic ..........................................................................................................................
52.2
6.2
61.1
11.6
15.2
71.6
13.3
16.7
64.2
19.1
23.0
60.6
9.3
7.2
8.9
45.3
10.7
35.1
By Age
16–25 .......................................................................................................................................................
26–55 .......................................................................................................................................................
56+ ...........................................................................................................................................................
By Education
No degree ................................................................................................................................................
High school diploma ................................................................................................................................
Associate’s degree ..................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s degree or advanced ...............................................................................................................
Note: CPS data for 2019.
The Department has also presented
some demographic data on Registered
Apprentices, as they are the pipeline for
future construction workers. These
demographics come from Federal
Workload data, which covers the 25
states administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Office of
Apprenticeship and national registered
apprenticeship programs.147 Note that
this data includes apprenticeships for
other industries beyond construction,
but 68 percent of the active apprentices
are in the construction industry, so the
Department believes this data could be
representative of that industry. Of the
active apprentices in this data set, 9.1
percent are female and 90.9 percent are
male. The data show that 58.4 percent
of active apprentices are White, 10.5
percent are Black or African American,
2.4 percent are American Indian or
Alaska Native, 1.5 percent are Asian,
and 0.8 percent are Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander. The data also
show that 23.6 percent of active
apprentices are Hispanic.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. Costs of the Proposed Rule
This section quantifies direct
employer costs associated with the
proposed rule. The Department
considered employer costs associated
with both (a) the return to the ‘‘threestep’’ method for determining the
prevailing wage (i.e., the change from a
50 percent threshold to a 30 percent
threshold) and (b) the incorporation of
a mechanism to periodically update
certain non-collectively bargained
147 FY2019 Data and Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor, Office of Apprenticeship. https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/
statistics/2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
prevailing wage rates. Costs presented
are combined for both provisions.
However, the Department believes most
of the costs will be associated with the
second provision, as will be discussed
below. The Department estimated both
regulatory familiarization costs and
implementation costs. Year 1 costs are
estimated to total $12.6 million. Average
annualized costs across the first 10 years
of implementation are estimated to be
$3.9 million (using a 7 percent discount
rate). Transfers resulting from these
provisions are discussed in section V.D.
1. Regulatory Familiarization Costs
The proposed rule will impose direct
costs on some covered contractors who
will review the regulations to
understand how the prevailing wage
determination methodology will change
and how certain non-collectively
bargained rates will be periodically
updated. However, the Department
believes these time costs will be small.
Firms are simply required to pay no less
than the prevailing wage and fringe
benefit rates set forth in the wage
determinations applicable to their
covered contracts; they do not need to
familiarize themselves with the
methodology used to develop those
prevailing wage rates in order to comply
with them. Costs associated with
ensuring compliance are included as
implementation costs.
For this analysis, the Department has
included all firms who either hold DBA
or Related Acts contracts or who are
considering bidding on work (192,400
firms). However, this may be an
overestimate, because firms who are
registered in SAM might not bid on a
DBA contract, and therefore may not
review these regulations. The
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Department assumes that, on average, 1
hour of a human resources staff
member’s time will be spent reviewing
the rulemaking. Some firms will spend
more time reviewing the rule, but others
will spend less or no time reviewing the
rule. The cost of this time is the median
loaded wage for a Compensation,
Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialist of
$52.65 per hour.148 Therefore, the
Department has estimated regulatory
familiarization costs to be $10.1 million
($52.65 per hour × 1.0 hour × 192,400
contractors) (Table 5). The Department
has included all regulatory
familiarization costs in Year 1. New
entrants will not incur any additional
regulatory familiarization costs
attributable to this rule; had this rule
not been proposed, they still would
have incurred the costs of regulatory
familiarization with existing provisions.
Average annualized regulatory
familiarization costs over 10 years,
using a 7 percent discount rate, are $1.4
million.
2. Implementation Costs
Firms will incur costs associated with
implementing updated prevailing wage
rates. When preparing a bid on a DBRAcovered contract, the contractor must
review the wage determination
identified by the contracting agency as
appropriate for the work and determine
the wage rates applicable for each
occupation or classification to perform
work on the contract. Once that contract
148 This includes the median base wage of $32.30
from the 2020 OEWS plus benefits paid at a rate of
46 percent of the base wage, as estimated from the
BLS’s Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
(ECEC) data, and overhead costs of 17 percent.
OEWS data available at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/
current/oes131141.htm.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15770
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
is signed, the specified prevailing wages
generally remain in effect through the
life of that contract.149
The proposed periodic adjustment
rule will generally affect the frequency
with which prevailing wage rates are
updated through both the provision to
update old, outmoded rates, and moving
forward, the provision to periodically
update rates when that does not occur
through the survey process (see section
V.D.). Implementation costs may be
incurred by affected firms through the
need to update compensation rates in
their relevant payroll systems.
Currently, only a fraction of prevailing
wages can be expected to change each
year. Because the Department intends to
update older rates to more accurately
represent wages and benefits being paid
in the construction industry, and,
moving forward, more published wage
rates will change more frequently than
in the past, firms will spend more time
updating prevailing wage rates for
contractual purposes than they have in
the past.
To estimate the additional cost
attributable to the need to update outof-date rates, it is necessary to estimate
the number of firms that need to update
rates each year and the additional time
these firms will spend implementing the
new wage and fringe benefit rates due
to this provision. The Department
estimates that on average new wage
rates are published from 7.8 surveys per
year.150 These surveys may cover an
entire State or a subset of counties, and
multiple construction types or a single
type of construction. For simplicity, the
Department assumed that each survey
impacts all contractors in the State, all
construction types, and all classes of
laborers and mechanics covered by
DBRA. Under these assumptions, the
Department assumed that each year 15.6
percent of firms with DBRA contracts,
roughly 24,100 firms (0.156 × 154,500
firms), might already be affected by
changes in prevailing wage rates in any
given year and thus will not incur
additional implementation costs
attributable to the rule.151
Additionally, there may be some firms
that already update prevailing wage
rates periodically to reflect CBA
increases. These firms generally will not
incur any additional implementation
costs because of this rule. The
Department lacks specific data on how
many firms fall into this category, but
used information on the share of rates
that are collectively bargained under the
current method to help refine the
estimate of firms with implementation
costs. According to section V.D., 24
percent of rates are CBA rates under the
current method, meaning 37,080 firms
(0.24 × 154,500) might already be
affected by changes in prevailing wages
in any given year. Combining this
number with the 24,100 firms calculated
above, 61,180 firms in total would not
incur additional implementation costs
with this rule. The Department
welcomes comments and data on what
is the appropriate share of firms who
already update wage rates due to CBA
increases.
Therefore, 93,320 firms (154,500 firms
¥ 61,180 firms) are assumed to not
update prevailing wage information in
any given year because prevailing wage
rates were unchanged in their areas of
operation, and would therefore incur
implementation costs. Under the
proposed provisions, the Department
intends to first update certain outdated
non-collectively bargained rates 152
(currently designated as ‘‘SU’’ rates) up
to their current value to better track
wages and benefits being paid in the
construction industry over a staggered
period. Then, in the future, the
Department intends to update noncollectively bargained rates afterward as
needed, and not more frequently than
every 3 years. Therefore, all firms that
intend to bid on future contracts may
need to update relevant prevailing wage
rates and thus incur implementation
costs. The Department therefore
assumes that these 93,230 firms may be
expected to incur additional costs
updating rates each year. The
Department acknowledges that this
estimate of firms may be an
overestimate, because this proposed rule
states that rates will be updated no more
frequently than every 3 years. In each
year, only a fraction of firms will have
to update their prevailing wage rates,
but the Department has included all
firms in the estimate so as to not
underestimate costs.
The Department estimated it will take
a half hour on average for firms to adjust
their wage rates each year for purposes
of bidding on DBRA contracts. The
Department believes that this average
estimated time is appropriate because
some firms will spend no time on
implementation costs. Only a subset of
firms will experience a change in
payroll costs, because those firms that
already pay above the new wage
determination rates calculated under the
30-percent rule will not need to incur
any implementation costs.
Implementation time will be incurred
by human resource workers (or a
similarly compensated employee) who
will implement the changes. As with
previous costs, these workers earn a
loaded hourly wage of $52.65.
Therefore, total Year 1 implementation
costs were estimated to equal $2.5
million ($52.65 × 0.5 hour × 93,320
firms). The average annualized
implementation cost over 10 years,
using a 7 percent discount rate, is $2.5
million. The Department welcomes
comments on exactly how long it will
take firms to adjust their wage rates each
year.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF COSTS
[2020 dollars]
Variable
Regulatory
familiarization costs
Total
Implementation
costs
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Year 1 Costs
Potentially affected firms .....................................................................................
Hours per firm ......................................................................................................
Loaded wage rate a ..............................................................................................
149 With the exception of certain significant
changes; see section III.B.1.vi.(B).
150 The Department used the number of surveys
started between 2002 (first year with data readily
available) and 2019 (last year prior to COVID–19)
to estimate that 7.8 surveys are started annually.
This is a proxy for the number of surveys published
on average in a year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
................................
................................
................................
151 The Department divided 7.8 surveys per year
by 50 states. The District of Columbia and the
territories were excluded from the denominator
because these tend to be surveyed less often (with
the exception of Guam which is surveyed regularly
due to Related Act funding).
152 The ‘‘SU’’ designation currently is used on
general wage determinations when the prevailing
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
192,400
1
$52.65
93,320
0.5
$52.65
wage is set through the weighted average method
based on non-collectively bargained rates or a mix
of collectively bargained rates and non-collectively
bargained rates, or when a non-collectively
bargained rate prevails.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
15771
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF COSTS—Continued
[2020 dollars]
Variable
Regulatory
familiarization costs
Total
Cost ($1,000s) .....................................................................................................
Implementation
costs
$12,600
$10,100
$2,500
$2,500
$0
$2,500
$3,700
$3,900
$1,200
$1,400
$2,500
$2,500
Years 2–10 ($1,000s)
Annual cost ..........................................................................................................
Average Annualized Costs ($1,000s)
3% discount rate ..................................................................................................
7% discount rate ..................................................................................................
a 2020 OEWS median wage for Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists (SOC 13–1141) of $32.30 multiplied by 1.63: The ratio
of loaded wage to unloaded wage from the 2020 ECEC (46 percent) plus 17 percent for overhead.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
3. Other Provisions Not Analyzed
For certain provisions contained in
this proposal, the Department expects
that any impacts of the provision would
be negligible, as discussed below. The
Department welcomes comments with
data to help analyze these provisions.
The Department proposes that
prevailing wage rates set by State and
local governments may be adopted as
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates
under specified conditions. Specifically,
the Department proposes that the
Administrator may adopt such a rate if
the Administrator determines that: (1)
The State or local government sets wage
rates, and collects relevant data, using a
survey or other process that is open to
full participation by all interested
parties; (2) the wage rate reflects both a
basic hourly rate of pay as well as any
prevailing fringe benefits, each of which
can be calculated separately; (3) the
State or local government classifies
laborers and mechanics in a manner that
is recognized within the field of
construction; and (4) the State or local
government’s criteria for setting
prevailing wage rates are substantially
similar to those the Administrator uses
in making wage determinations. These
conditions are intended to provide
WHD with the flexibility to adopt State
and local rates where appropriate while
also ensuring that adoption of such rates
is consistent with the statutory
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act.
These conditions are also intended to
ensure that arbitrary distinctions are not
created between jurisdictions where
WHD makes wage determinations using
its own surveys and jurisdictions where
WHD adopts State or local prevailing
wage rates.
The Department does not possess
sufficient data to conduct an analysis
comparing prevailing wage rates set by
State and local governments nationwide
to those established by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Administrator. However, by definition,
any adopted State or local prevailing
wage must be set using criteria that are
substantially similar to those used by
the Administrator, so the resulting wage
rates are likely to be similar to those
which would have been established by
the Administrator. The proposed change
would also allow WHD to have more
current rates in places where wage
surveys are out-of-date, and to avoid
WHD duplicating wage survey work that
states and localities are already doing.
The Department believes that this
proposal could result in cost savings,
which are discussed further in section
V.E.
The Department also proposes to
eliminate the across-the-board
restriction on mixing rural and
metropolitan county data to allow for a
more flexible case-by-case approach to
using such data. Under this proposal, if
sufficient data were not available to
determine a prevailing wage in a
county, the Department would be
permitted to use data from surrounding
counties whether those counties may be
designated overall as rural or
metropolitan. While sufficient data for
analyzing the impact of this proposal
are not available, the Department
believes this proposal will improve the
quality and accuracy of wage
determinations by including data from
counties that likely share and reflect the
same labor market conditions when
appropriate.
The proposal to expressly authorize
WHD to list classifications and
corresponding wage and fringe benefit
rates on wage determinations even
when WHD has received insufficient
data through its wage survey process is
expected to ease the burden on
contracting entities, both public and
private, by improving the timeliness of
information about conformed wage
rates. For classifications for which
conformance requests are regularly
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submitted, the Administrator would be
authorized to list the classification on
the wage determination along with wage
and fringe benefit rates that bear a
‘‘reasonable relationship’’ to the wage
and fringe benefit rates contained in the
wage determination, in the same
manner that such classifications and
rates are currently conformed by WHD
pursuant to current § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3).
In other words, for a classification for
which conformance requests are
regularly submitted, WHD would be
expressly authorized to essentially ‘‘preapprove’’ certain conformed
classifications and wage rates, thereby
providing contracting agencies,
contractors and workers with advance
notice of the minimum wage and fringe
benefits required to be paid for work
within those classifications, reducing
uncertainty and costly delays in
determining wage rates for the
classifications.
For example, suppose the Department
was not able to publish a prevailing
wage rate for carpenters on a building
wage determination for a county due to
insufficient data. Currently, every
contractor in that county working on a
Davis-Bacon building project that
needed a carpenter would have to
submit a conformance request for each
of their building projects in that county.
Moreover, because conformances cannot
be submitted until after contract award,
those same contractors would have a
certain degree of uncertainty in their
bidding procedure, as they would not
know the exact rate that they would
have to pay to their carpenters. This
proposal would eliminate that
requirement for classifications where
conformance requests are common.
While the Department does not have
information on how much
administrative time and money is spent
on these tasks, for the commonlyrequested classifications, this proposal
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15772
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
could make things more streamlined
and efficient for the contractors.
There are a few places in the NPRM
where the Department is proposing to
add language that clarifies existing
policies. For example, the Department
proposes to add language to the
definitions of ‘‘building or work’’ and
‘‘public building or public work’’ to
clarify that these definitions can be met
even when the construction activity
involves only a portion of an overall
building, structure, or improvement.
Also, the Department proposes to add
language regarding the ‘‘material
suppliers’’ exemption. Although this
language is just a clarification of
existing guidelines and not a change in
policy, the Department understands that
contracting agencies may have differed
in their implementation of Davis-Bacon
labor standards. In these cases, there
may be firms who are newly applying
Davis-Bacon labor standards because of
the clarifications in this rule. This could
result in additional rule familiarization
and implementation costs for these
firms, and transfers to workers in the
form of higher in wages if the
contractors are currently paying below
the prevailing wage.
The Department does not have data to
estimate to what extent contracting
agencies have not been implementing
Davis-Bacon labor standards but
welcomes comments and data to help
inform an estimate of the impact of
these provisions. Specifically, the
Department welcomes comments from
commercial building owners who lease
space to the Federal Government on
how this provision would affect costs
and the wages paid to workers.
Other proposed provisions are also
likely to have no significant economic
impact, such as the proposed
clarification of the ‘‘material supplier’’
exception in § 5.2, and the proposal
regarding the applicable apprenticeship
ratios and wage rates when work is
performed by apprentices in a different
State than the State in which the
apprenticeship program was originally
registered.
D. Transfer Payments
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
1. The Return to the ‘‘Three-Step’’
Method for Determining the Prevailing
Wage
i. Overview
The proposed revision to the
definition of prevailing wage (i.e., the
return to the ‘‘three-step process’’) may
lead to income transfers to or from
workers. Under the ‘‘three-step process’’
when a wage rate is not paid to a
majority of workers in a particular
classification, a wage rate will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
considered prevailing if it is paid to at
least 30 percent of such workers. Thus,
under this proposal fewer future wage
determinations will be established
based on a weighted average.
Consequently, some future wage
determinations may be different than
they otherwise would as a result of this
proposed provision. The Department is
not able to quantify the impact of this
proposed change because it will apply
to surveys yet to be conducted, covering
classifications and projects in locations
not yet determined. Nonetheless in an
effort to illustrate the potential impact,
the Department conducted a
retrospective analysis that considers the
impact of the 30-percent rule had it
been used to set the wage
determinations for a few occupations in
recent years.
Specifically, to demonstrate the
impact of this provision, the Department
compiled data for seven select
classifications from 19 surveys across 17
states from 2015 to 2018 (see Appendix
A).153 This sample of rates covers all
four construction types, and includes
metro and rural counties, and a variety
of geographic regions. The seven select
key classifications considered are as
follows:
• Building and residential
construction: Bricklayers, common
laborers, plumbers, and roofers.
• Heavy and highway construction:
Common laborers, cement masons, and
electricians.
In total, the sample is comprised of
3,097 county-classification observations.
Because this sample only covers seven
out of the many occupations covered by
DBRA and all classification-county
observations are weighted equally in the
analysis, the Department believes the
results need to be interpreted with care
and cannot be extrapolated to
definitively quantify the overall impact
of the 30-percent rule. Instead, these
results should be viewed as an
informative illustration of the potential
direction and magnitude of transfers
that will be attributed to this proposed
provision.
The Department began its
retrospective analysis by applying the
current prevailing wage setting
protocols (see Appendix B) to this
sample of wage data to calculate the
current prevailing wage and fringe
153 Data were obtained from the Automated
Survey Data System (ASDS), the data system used
by the Department to compile and process WD–10
submissions. Out of the 21 surveys that occurred
during this time period and met sufficiency
standards, these 19 surveys are all of the ones with
usable data for this analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
benefit rates.154 The Department then
applied the proposed 30-percent rule to
the same sample of wage data.155 Then
the Department compared the wage
rates determined by the proposed
protocol with current wage
determinations. Results are reported at
the county level (i.e., one observation
represents one classification in one
county).
The results differ depending on how
heavily unionized the construction
industry is in the states analyzed (and
thus how many union rates are
submitted in response to surveys). In
Connecticut, for example, the
Department found that estimated rates
were little changed because the
construction industry in Connecticut is
highly unionized and union rates
prevail under both the 30 percent and
the 50 percent threshold. Conversely, in
Florida, which is less unionized, there
is more variation in how wage rates
would change. For Florida, calculated
prevailing wage rates generally changed
from an average rate (e.g., insufficient
identical rates to determine a single
prevailing rate under the current
protocol) to a non-collectively bargained
single prevailing rate. Depending on the
classification and county, the prevailing
hourly wage rate may have increased or
decreased because of the change in
methodology.
Results may also differ by
construction type. In particular, changes
to highway prevailing wages may differ
from changes in other construction
types because they frequently rely on
certified payroll. Thus, many of the
wages used to calculate the prevailing
wage reflect prevailing wages at the time
of the survey.
ii. Results
Table 6 compares the share of
counties with calculated wage
determinations by ‘‘publication rule’’
(i.e., the rule under which the wage rate
was or would be published): (1) An
average rate, (2) a collectively bargained
154 The Department chose to calculate prevailing
wages under the current and proposed definitions
to ensure comparability between the methods. The
Department compared calculated current rates to
the published wage determinations to verify the
accuracy of its method. The calculated current rates
generally match the wage and the fringe benefit
rates within a few cents. However, there are a few
instances that do not match, but the Department
does not believe these differences bias the
comparisons to the calculated proposed 30 percent
prevailing definition.
155 This model, while useful for this illustrative
analysis, may not be relevant for future surveys.
The methodology assumes that the level of
participation by firms in WHD’s wage survey
process would be the same if the standard were 30
percent and is mostly reflective of states with lower
union densities.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15773
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
single prevailing rate, and (3) a noncollectively bargained single prevailing
rate. Fringe benefit rate results also
include the number of counties where
the majority of workers received zero
fringe benefits. It also shows the change
in the number of rates in each
publication rule category.
For the surveys analyzed, the majority
of current county wage rates were based
on averages (1,954 ÷ 3,097 = 63 percent),
about 25 percent were a single
prevailing collectively bargained rate,
and 12 percent were a single prevailing
non-collectively bargained rate. Using
the 30 percent requirement for a single
prevailing rate, the number of county
wage rates that would be based on
averages decreased to 31 percent (948 ÷
3,097). The percentage of rates that
would be based on a single wage rate
increased for both non-collectively
bargained and collectively bargained
rates, although more wage rates would
be based on non-collectively bargained
rates than collectively bargained rates.
For fringe benefit rates, fringe benefits
do not prevail for a similar percent in
both scenarios, (i.e., ‘‘no fringes’’): 50
percent of current rates, 48 percent of
proposed ‘‘three-step process’’ rates.
The share determined as average rates
decreased from 22 percent to 10 percent.
The prevalence of single prevailing
fringe benefit rates increased for both
non-collectively bargained and
collectively bargained rates, with
slightly more becoming collectively
bargained rates than non-collectively
bargained rates.
The total number of counties will
differ by classification based on the
State, applicable survey area (e.g.,
statewide, metro only), and whether the
data submitted for the classification met
sufficiency requirements.
TABLE 6—PREVALENCE OF CALCULATED PREVAILING WAGES BY PUBLICATION RULE
Laborers
Count .............................................................
Plumbers
949
504
Roofers
Cement
masons
Bricklayers
545
Elec-tricians
Total
379
360
360
3,097
42%
39%
19%
68%
4%
28%
53%
44%
4%
63%
25%
12%
18%
45%
37%
40%
7%
53%
11%
80%
9%
31%
34%
36%
¥23
5
18
¥28
3
25
¥42
36
5
¥32
9
23
13%
39%
2%
46%
9%
4%
2%
85%
48%
44%
0%
8%
22%
25%
3%
50%
5%
7%
3%
85%
13%
80%
7%
0%
10%
34%
7%
48%
¥4
3
1
0
¥35
36
7
¥8
¥11
9
4
¥2
Current Hourly Rate
Average .........................................................
Single Prevailing—Union ..............................
Single Prevailing—Non-Union .......................
82%
12%
6%
57%
40%
3%
55%
23%
22%
Proposed ‘‘Three-Step Process’’ Hourly Rate a
Average .........................................................
Single Prevailing—Union ..............................
Single Prevailing—Non-Union .......................
47%
21%
32%
22%
46%
31%
26%
25%
49%
Change for Hourly Rate (Percentage Points)
¥35
9
26
Average .........................................................
Single Prevailing—Union ..............................
Single Prevailing—Non-Union .......................
¥35
7
28
¥29
2
27
Current Fringe Benefit Rate
Average .........................................................
Single Prevailing—Union ..............................
Single Prevailing—Non-Union .......................
No fringes ......................................................
23%
14%
4%
59%
27%
41%
5%
27%
12%
23%
3%
62%
Proposed ‘‘Three-Step Process’’ Fringe Benefit Rate a
Average .........................................................
Single Prevailing—Union ..............................
Single Prevailing—Non-Union .......................
No fringes ......................................................
13%
21%
9%
57%
13%
47%
13%
27%
9%
25%
4%
62%
6%
46%
2%
46%
Change for Fringe Benefit Rate (Percentage Points)
¥11
7
6
¥2
Average .........................................................
Single Prevailing—Union ..............................
Single Prevailing—Non-Union .......................
No fringes ......................................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a Using
¥14
6
8
0
¥3
2
1
0
¥7
7
0
0
a threshold of 30 percent of employees’ wage or fringe benefit rates being identical.
Table 7 summarizes the difference in
calculated prevailing wage rates using
the proposed three-step process
compared to the current process. The
results highlighted in Table 7 show both
average changes across all observations
and average changes when limited to
those classification-county observations
where rates are different (about 32
percent of all observations in the
sample). Notably, all classificationcounties are weighted equally in the
calculations. On average:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
• Across all observations, the average
hourly rate increases by only one cent.
Across affected classification-counties,
the calculated hourly rate increases by
4 cents on average. However, there is
significant variation. The calculated
hourly rate may increase by as much as
$7.80 or decrease by as much as $5.78.
• Across all observations, the average
hourly fringe benefit rate increases by
19 cents. Across affected classificationcounties, the calculated hourly fringe
benefit rate increases by $1.42 on
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
average (with a range from -$6.17 to
$11.16).
Based on this demonstration of the
impact of changing from the current to
the proposed definition of ‘‘prevailing,’’
some published wage rates and fringe
benefit rates may increase and others
may decrease. In the sample considered,
wage rates changed very little on
average but fringe benefit rates
increased on average. As discussed
above, the Department believes that
these results need to be interpreted with
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15774
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
care and cannot be extrapolated to
definitively quantify the overall impact
of the 30-percent rule. Instead, these
results should be viewed as an
informative illustration of the potential
direction and magnitude of transfers
that will be attributed to this proposed
provision.
TABLE 7—CHANGE IN RATES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CHANGE IN DEFINITION OF ‘‘PREVAILING’’
Laborers
Plumbers
Roofers
Cement
masons
Bricklayers
Electricians
Total
Hourly Rate
Total ..............................................................
Number changed ...........................................
Percent changed ...........................................
Average (non-zero) .......................................
Average (all) ..................................................
Maximum .......................................................
Minimum ........................................................
949
330
35%
$0.37
$0.13
$7.80
¥$3.93
504
175
35%
$1.10
$0.38
$7.07
¥$4.23
545
160
29%
¥$1.06
¥$0.31
$4.40
¥$2.51
379
89
23%
$0.44
$0.10
$1.02
¥$0.95
360
101
28%
¥$1.35
¥$0.38
$2.54
¥$5.78
360
150
42%
$0.94
$0.39
$4.14
¥$4.74
3,097
1,005
32%
$0.04
$0.01
$7.80
¥$5.78
379
26
7%
$1.21
$0.08
$2.19
¥$0.17
360
14
4%
$0.74
$0.03
$6.00
¥$6.17
360
184
51%
$2.11
$1.08
$4.61
¥$0.86
3,097
447
14%
$1.42
$0.19
$11.16
¥$6.17
Fringe Benefit Rate
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Total ..............................................................
Number changed ...........................................
Percent changed ...........................................
Average (non-zero) .......................................
Average (all) ..................................................
Max ................................................................
Min .................................................................
949
137
14%
$2.10
$0.30
$9.42
¥$4.82
2. Adjusting Out-of-Date Prevailing
Wage and Fringe Benefit Rates
Updating old Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage and fringe benefit rates will
increase the minimum required hourly
compensation required to be paid to
workers on Davis-Bacon projects. This
would result in transfers of income to
workers on Davis-Bacon projects who
are currently being paid only the
required minimum hourly rate. Because
the Federal Government generally pays
for increases to the prevailing wage
through higher contract bids, an
increase in the prevailing wage will
transfer income from the Federal
Government to the worker. This transfer
will be reflected in increased costs paid
by the Federal Government for
construction.
However, to estimate a transfer
estimate, many assumptions need to be
made with little or no supporting
evidence. For example, the Department
would need to determine if workers
really are being paid the prevailing wage
rate; some published rates are so
outdated that it is highly likely effective
labor market rates exceed the published
rates, and the published prevailing wage
rates are functionally irrelevant. In
addition, the Department would need to
predict which Davis-Bacon projects
would occur each year, in which
counties these projects will occur, and
the number of hours of work required
from each class of laborer and
mechanic. Because of many
uncertainties, the Department instead
characterizes the number and size of the
changes in published Davis-Bacon
hourly rates and fringe benefits rather
than formally estimating the income
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
504
69
14%
$2.14
$0.29
$11.16
¥$1.35
545
17
3%
¥$1.67
¥$0.05
$1.42
¥$4.61
change to those potentially affected by
the proposal to update rates.
To provide an illustrative analysis,
the Department used the entire set of
wage and fringe benefit rates on Wage
Determinations (WDs) as of May 2019 to
demonstrate the potential changes in
Davis-Bacon wage and fringe benefit
rates resulting from updating old rates
to 2021 values using the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Employment Cost
Index (ECI).156 For this demonstration,
the Department considered the impact
of updating rates for key classification
wage and fringe benefit rates published
prior to 2019 that were based on
weighted averages, which comprises
172,088 wage and fringe benefit rates
lines in 3,997 WDs.157 The Department
has focused on wage and fringe benefit
rates prior to 2019 because these are the
universe of key classification rates that
may be more than 3 years old by the
time a final rule is issued, and the
proposal calls for updating noncollectively-bargained wage rates that
are more than 3 years old.
After dropping hourly wages greater
than $100 and wage rates that were less
than $7.25 but were updated to $7.25,
159,545 wage rates were updated for
this analysis.158 To update these wage
rates, the Department used the BLS’ ECI,
which measures the change over time in
the cost of labor total compensation.159
The Department believes that the ECI for
private industry workers, total
compensation, ‘‘construction, and
extraction, farming, fishing, and
forestry’’ occupations, not seasonally
adjusted is the most appropriate index.
However, the index for this group is
only available starting in 2001. Thus, for
updating wages and fringe benefits from
1979 through 2000, the Department
determined the ECI for private industry
workers in the goods-producing
industries was the most appropriate
series to use that was available back to
1979.160
To consider potential transfers to
workers due to changes in wages, the
full increase in the hourly rate would
only occur if workers on DBRA projects
are currently paid the original published
rates.161 However, due to market
conditions in some areas, workers may
be receiving more than the published
156 At the time of the analysis, ECI was only
available for the first two quarters of 2021. Thus,
the wage and fringe benefit rates were updated to
values representative of the first half of 2021.
157 In each type of construction covered by the
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, some classifications
are called ‘‘key’’ because most projects require these
workers. Building construction currently has 16 key
classifications, residential construction has 12 key
classifications and heavy and highway construction
each have the same eight key classifications. A line
reflects a wage rate (or fringe benefit rate) for a key
classification by construction type in a specific
geographic area. For example, a line could reflect
a plumber in building construction in Fulton
County, GA.
158 The 54 wage rates greater than $100 were day
or shift rates. The remaining 12,489 rates excluded
were less than $7.25 prior to July 24, 2009, but were
published from surveys conducted before the
establishment of DOL’s Automated Survey Data
System (ASDS) in 2002. The Department no longer
has records of the original published wage rates in
these cases.
159 Available at: https://www.bls.gov/ect/.
160 Continuous Occupational and Industry Series,
Table 5. https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/ecicontinuous-dollar.txt.
161 The hourly wage rate increase would only
occur when the next contract goes into effect and
a new WD with an updated wage rate is
incorporated into the contract.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15775
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
rate. While completely comparable data
on wages paid to workers on DBRA
projects in specific classifications and
counties are not readily available and
usable for this analysis, the BLS’s
Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics (OEWS) data provide a general
estimate of wages paid to certain
categories of workers performing
construction and construction-related
duties. Although the OEWS data can be
informative for this illustrative analysis,
it is not a representative data set of
professional construction workers
performing work on DBRA projects. To
estimate the approximate median 2021
wage rates, the Department used the
median hourly wage rate for each key
classification in the construction
industry in the State 2020 OEWS data,
then approximated a 2021 value using
ECI.162
To provide an example of transfers,
the Department compared the ECIupdated Davis-Bacon wage rates to the
applicable median hourly rate in the
OEWS data.163 Using the OEWS as a
general measure of the market
conditions for construction worker
wages in a given State, the Department
assumed that an updated Davis-Bacon
wage rate below the median OEWS rates
would likely not lead to any income
transfers to construction workers
because most workers are likely already
paid more than the updated DavisBacon rate. After removing the 99,111
updated Davis-Bacon wage rates that
were less than the OEWS median, there
remained 60,434 updated Davis-Bacon
wage rates that may result in transfers
to workers. However, the Department
notes that some of the updated DavisBacon rates may be lower because they
are a wage rate for a rural county, and
the OEWS data represents the statewide
median.
Further investigating the ECI-updated
Davis-Bacon wage rates that were
substantially above the OEWS median
wage rate, the Department found that
24,044 of the originally published
Davis-Bacon wage rates were already
higher than the OEWS median. For at
least some of these wage rates, the
comparison to the OEWS median may
not be appropriate because such DavisBacon wage rates are for work in
specialty construction. For example,
most of the prevailing wage rates
published specifically for a 2014 WD for
Iowa Heavy Construction River Work
exceed the 2021 OEWS median rates for
the same classifications in Iowa.164 This
may be an indication that comparing
Davis-Bacon rates for this type of
construction to a more general measure
of wages may not be appropriate
because workers are generally paid more
for this type of specialty construction
than for more other types of
construction work measured by the
OEWS data.
Therefore, to measure possible
transfers per hour to workers on DavisBacon projects due to the updating of
wage rates, the Department began by
taking the lesser of:
• The difference between the updated
wage rate and the OEWS median wage
rate.
• The difference between the updated
and originally published wage rates.
The second difference accounts for
the 24,044 Davis-Bacon wage rates that
were higher than the 2021 OEWS
median rate even before they were
updated because otherwise the
Department would overestimate the
potential hourly wage transfer.
The Department also examined an
additional adjustment for DBA wage
rates because they are also subject to
Executive Order 13658: Establishing a
Minimum Wage for Contractors, which
sets the minimum wage paid to workers
on Federal contracts at $11.25 in
2022.165 Thus, the Department analyzed
an additional restriction that the
maximum possible hourly transfer to
workers on Davis-Bacon projects cannot
exceed the difference between the
updated wage rate and $11.25.
However, the added restriction has no
impact on estimated transfers because
any updated wage rates that were less
than $11.25 were also less than the
OEWS median wage rate. Thus, the
maximum possible hourly transfers
attributable to updated Davis-Bacon
wage rates are identical for construction
projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act
and by the Related Acts.
Table 8 provides the summary
statistics of the per hour transfers to
workers that may occur due to updating
old Davis-Bacon wage rates. Among the
wage rates considered in this
demonstration, there are 60,434 wage
rates updates that may result in transfers
to workers. On average, the maximum
hourly transfer is $3.92.
TABLE 8—DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL PER-HOUR TRANSFERS DUE TO UPDATED RATES
Number of
rates
Coverage
Mean
Median
Standard
deviation
Wages
Davis-Bacon Related Acts ...............................................................................
Davis-Bacon Act ..............................................................................................
60,434
60,434
$3.92
3.92
$3.11
3.11
$3.92
3.92
75,495
1.43
1.02
1.58
94,547
3.65
2.13
4.62
Fringe Benefits
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts ........................................................................
Total Compensation
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts ........................................................................
Of the 172,088 pre-2019 SU key
classification wage and fringe benefit
rates, 75,495 were non-zero, and thus
would be updated, possibly resulting in
162 Because the May 2021 OEWS data are not yet
available, the Department used the ECI for private
industry workers, wages and salaries,
‘‘construction, and extraction, farming, fishing, and
forestry’’ occupations, not seasonally adjusted,
applied to the May 2020 OEWS estimates to
approximate the median wage rates for May 2021.
May 2020, Sectors 21, 22, & 23: Mining, Utilities,
and Construction. https://www.bls.gov/oes/
special.requests/oes_research_2020_sec_21-2223.xlsx.
163 The Department used OEWS data for certain
occupations matching key classifications in the
construction industry by State.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
some transfers to workers (Table 8). On
164 WD
IA20190002.
Department also ran an analysis using the
minimum wage of $15.00 as proposed by Executive
Order 14026, ‘‘Increasing the Minimum Wage for
Federal Contractors.’’ The results were similar.
165 The
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15776
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
average, these non-zero fringe benefits
would increase by $1.43 per hour.
Adding the required Davis-Bacon
wage and fringe benefit rates together
measures the required total
compensation rate on DBRA projects.
Due to updating old rates, 94,547 DavisBacon total compensation hourly rates
would increase by $3.65 on average.166
The Department conducted these two
demonstrations to provide an indication
of the possible changes to Davis-Bacon
wage rates and fringe benefit rates
attributable to the proposed provision
revising the definition of ‘‘prevailing,’’
and the provision to update out-of-date
SU rates using the ECI (only one of
which would affect a locationoccupation pair at a particular time).
Both provisions may lead to higher
hourly payments, while the former also
has the potential to lead to lower hourly
payments.
However, because accurate data to
measure the current county-level labor
conditions for specific construction
classifications are not available, it is
unclear if an increase or decrease in
Davis-Bacon minimum required rates
will impact what workers earn on DBRA
projects. Furthermore, even if some of
these rate changes do lead to different
rates paid to workers on DBRA projects,
data are not available to estimate how
large transfers might be. To do so would
require detailed information on what
federally funded construction contracts
will be issued, the types of projects
funded, where the projects will occur
(specific county or counties), the value
of the projects, and the labor mix
needed to complete the project. Due to
these many uncertainties in calculating
a transfer estimate, the Department
instead tried to characterize what
changes in rates might occur as a result
of the rulemaking.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
E. Cost Savings
This proposed rule could lead to cost
savings for both contractors and the
Federal Government, because the
clarifications made in the rule would
reduce ambiguity and increase
efficiency, which could reduce the
amount of time necessary to comply
with the rule. For example, as discussed
in section V.C.3, the proposal to
expressly authorize WHD to list
classifications and corresponding wage
and fringe benefit rates on wage
determinations even when WHD has
received insufficient data through its
wage survey process will increase
166 The average increase in total compensation is
less than the average wage increase because more
wage and fringe benefit lines are included for total
compensation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
certainty and reduce administrative
burden for contracting entities. It would
reduce the number of compliance
requests needed, which could save time
for the contractors, contracting agencies,
and the Department. Additionally, the
proposal which permits the
Administrator to adopt prevailing wage
rates set by State and local governments
could result in cost savings for the
Department, because it avoids WHD
duplicating wage survey work that
states and localities are already doing. It
could also result in cost savings in the
form of time savings for contractors, as
they will only have one wage
determination that they will have to
reference.
Additionally, the Department is
providing clarifications throughout the
rule, which will make clear which
contract workers are covered by DBRA.
For example, the Department is
clarifying provisions related to the site
of work, demolition and removal
workers, and truck drivers and their
assistants, among others. These
clarifications will make it clear to both
contractors and contract workers who is
covered, and therefore could help
reduce legal disputes between the two,
resulting in cost savings.
Because the Department does not
have information on how much
additional time contractors and the
Federal Government currently spend
complying with this rule due to lack of
clarity, these cost savings are discussed
qualitatively. However, the Department
welcomes any comments and data that
could inform a quantitative analysis of
these cost savings.
F. Benefits
Among the multiple proposals
discussed above, the Department
recognizes that the proposal to update
the definition of prevailing wage using
the ‘‘30 percent rule’’ could have
various impacts on wage rates. The
effect of this proposal on actual wages
paid is uncertain for the reasons
discussed in Section V.D.1. However,
the Department’s proposal to update
out-of-date wage rates using the ECI
would result in higher prevailing wage
rates due to the increases in employer
costs over time. Any DBRA-covered
workers that were not already being
paid above these higher wage rates
would receive a raise when these
updated rates were implemented. These
higher wages could lead to benefits such
as improved government services,
increased productivity, and reduced
turnover, which are all discussed here
qualitatively. The magnitude of these
wage increases could influence the
magnitude of these benefits.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Department notes that the
literature cited in this section
sometimes does not directly consider
changes in the DBRA prevailing wages.
Additionally, much of the literature is
based on voluntary changes made by
firms. However, the Department has
presented the information here because
the general findings may still be
applicable in this context. The
Department welcomes comments and
data on the benefits of this proposed
rulemaking.
1. Improved Government Services
For workers who are paid higher wage
rates as a result of this proposed
rulemaking, the Department expects that
the quality of construction could
improve. Higher wages can be
associated with a higher number of
bidders for Government contracts,
which can be expected to generate
greater competition and an improved
pool of contractors. Multiple studies
have shown that the bidding for
municipal contracts remained
competitive or even improved when
living wage ordinances were
implemented (Thompson and Chapman,
2006).167 In a study on the impact of bid
competition on final outcomes of State
Department of Transportation (DOT)
construction projects, Delaney (2018)
demonstrated that each additional
bidder reduces final project cost
overruns by 2.2 percent and increases
the likelihood of achieving a highquality bid by 4.9 times.168
2. Increased Productivity
For workers whose wages increase as
a result of the Department’s proposal to
update out-of-date wage rates, these
increases could result in increased
productivity. Increased productivity
could occur through numerous
channels, such as employee morale,
level of effort, and reduced absenteeism.
A strand of economic research,
commonly referred to as ‘‘efficiency
wage’’ theory, considers how an
increase in compensation may be met
with greater productivity.169 Efficiency
wages may elicit greater effort on the
167 Thompson, J. and J. Chapman. (2006). ‘‘The
Economic Impact of Local Living Wages,’’
Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #170,
2006.
168 Delaney, J. (2018). The Effect of Competition
on Bid Quality and Final Results on State DOT
Projects. https://www.proquest.com/openview/
33655a0e4c7b8a6d25d30775d350b8ad/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
169 Akerlof, G.A. (1982). Labor Contracts as Partial
Gift Exchange. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
97(4), 543–569.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
part of workers, making them more
effective on the job.170
Allen (1984) estimates the ratio of the
marginal product of union and nonunion labor.171 He finds that union
workers are 17 to 22 percent more
productive than non-union members.
Although it is unclear whether this
entire productivity difference is
attributable to higher wages, it is likely
a large contributing factor. The
Construction Labor Research Council
(2004) compared the costs to build a
mile of highway in higher wage and
lower wage states using data reported to
the Federal Highway Administration
from 1994 to 2002.172 They found that
in higher wage states, 32 percent fewer
labor hours are needed to complete a
mile of highway than in lower wage
states, despite hourly wage rates being
69 percent higher in those states. While
this increased worker productivity
could be due in part to other factors
such as greater worker experience or
more investment in capital equipment
in higher wage states, the higher wages
likely contribute.
Conversely, Vedder (1999) compared
output per worker across states with and
without prevailing wage laws.173 Data
on construction workers is from the
Department of Labor and data on
construction contracts is from the
Department of Commerce. A worker in
a prevailing wage law State produced
$63,116 of value in 1997 while a worker
from a non-prevailing wage law State
produced $65,754. Based on this simple
comparison, workers are more
productive without prevailing wage
laws. However, this is a somewhat basic
comparison in that it does not control
for other differences between states that
may influence productivity (for
example, the amount of capital used or
other State regulations).
Studies on absenteeism have
demonstrated that there is a negative
effect on firm productivity as absentee
rates increase.174 Zhang et al., in their
study of linked employer-employee data
170 Another model of efficiency wages, which is
less applicable here, is the adverse selection model
in which higher wages raise the quality of the pool
of applicants.
171 Allen, S.G. (1984). Unionized Construction
Workers are More Productive. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 251–174.
172 The Construction Labor Research Council
(2004). The Impact of Wages on Highway
Construction Costs. https://niabuild.org/
WageStudybooklet.pdf.
173 Vedder, R. (1999). Michigan’s Prevailing Wage
Law and Its Effects on Government Spending and
Construction Employment. Midland, Michigan:
Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
174 Allen, S.G. (1983). How Much Does
Absenteeism Cost? Journal of Human Resources,
18(3), 379–393. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
145207?seq=1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
in Canada, found that a 1 percent
decline in the attendance rate reduces
productivity by 0.44 percent.175 Allen
(1983) similarly noted that a 10percentage point increase in
absenteeism corresponds to a decrease
of 1.6 percent in productivity.176 Hanna
et al. (2005) find that while absenteeism
rates of between 0 and 5 percent among
contractors on electrical construction
projects lead to no loss of productivity,
absenteeism rates of between 6 and 10
percent can spark a 24.4 percent drop in
productivity.177
Fairris et al. (2005) demonstrated that
as a worker’s wage increases there is a
reduction in unscheduled
absenteeism.178 They attribute this
effect to workers standing to lose more
if forced to look for new employment
and an increase in pay paralleling an
increase in access to paid time off.
Pfeifer’s (2010) study of German
companies provides similar results,
indicating a reduction in absenteeism if
workers experience an overall increase
in pay.179 Conversely, Dionne and
Dostie (2007) attribute a decrease in
absenteeism to mechanisms other than
an increase in worker pay, specifically
scheduling that provides both the
option to work-at-home and for fewer
compressed work weeks.180 However,
the relevance of such policies in the
context of construction is unclear. The
Department believes both the
connection between prevailing wages
and absenteeism, and the connection
between absenteeism and productivity
are well enough established that this is
a feasible benefit of the proposed rule.
175 Zhang, W., Sun, H., Woodcock, S., & Anis, A.
(2013). Valuing Productivity Loss Due to
Absenteeism: Firm-level Evidence from a Canadian
Linked Employer-Employee Data. Health
Economics Review, 7(3). https://
healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/
articles/10.1186/s13561-016-0138-y.
176 Allen, S.G. (1983). How Much Does
Absenteeism Cost? Journal of Human Resources,
18(3), 379–393. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
145207?seq=1.
177 Hanna, A., Menches, C., Sullivan, K., &
Sargent, J. (2005) Factors Affecting Absenteeism in
Electrical Construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 131(11). https://
ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2005)131:11(1212).
178 Fairris, D., Runstein, D., Briones, C., &
Goodheart, J. (2005). Examining the Evidence: The
Impact of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance
on Workers and Businesses. LAANE. https://
laane.org/downloads/Examinig_the_Evidence.pdf.
179 Pfeifer, C. (2010). Impact of Wages and Job
Levels on Worker Absenteeism. International
Journal of Manpower 31(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01437721011031694.
180 Dionne, G., & Dostie, B. (2007). New Evidence
on the Determinants of Absenteeism Using Linked
Employer-Employee Data. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 61(1), 108–120. https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/
001979390706100106.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15777
3. Reduced Turnover
Little evidence is available on the
impact of prevailing wage laws and
turnover, but an increase in the
minimum wage has been shown to
decrease both turnover rates and the rate
of worker separation (Dube, Lester and
Reich, 2011; Liu, Hyclak and Regmi,
2015; Jardim et al., 2018).181 This
decrease in turnover and worker
separation can lead to an increase in the
profits of firms, as the hiring process
can be both expensive and time
consuming. A review of 27 case studies
found that the median cost of replacing
an employee was 21 percent of the
employee’s annual salary.182 Fairris et
al. (2005) 183 found the cost reduction
due to lower turnover rates ranges from
$137 to $638 for each worker. Although
the impacts cited here are not limited to
government construction contracting,
because data specific to government
contracting and turnover are not
available, the Department believes that
a reduction in turnover could be
observed among those workers on DBRA
contracts whose wages increase
following this proposed rule. The
potential reduction in turnover is a
function of several variables: The
current wage, the change in the wage
rate, hours worked on covered contracts,
and the turnover rate. Therefore, the
Department has not quantified the
impacts of potential reduction in
reduction in turnover.
VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
(IRFA) Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996),
requires Federal agencies engaged in
rulemaking to consider the impact of
181 Dube, A., Lester, T.W., & Reich, M. (2011). Do
Frictions Matter in the Labor Market? Accessions,
Separations, and Minimum Wage Effects.
(Discussion Paper No. 5811). IZA. https://
www.iza.org/publications/dp/5811/do-frictionsmatter-in-the-labor-market-accessions-separationsand-minimum-wage-effects.
Liu, S., Hyclak, T. J., & Regmi, K. (2015). Impact
of the Minimum Wage on Youth Labor Markets.
Labour 29(4). doi: 10.1111/labr.12071.
Jardim, E., Long, M.C., Plotnick, R., van Inwegen,
E., Vigdor, J., & Wething, H. (2018, October).
Minimum Wage Increases and Individual
Employment Trajectories (Working paper No.
25182). NBER. doi:10.3386/w25182.
182 Boushey, H. and Glynn, S. (2012). There are
Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees.
Center for American Progress. Available at: https://
www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf.
183 Fairris, D., Runstein, D., Briones, C., &
Goodheart, J. (2005). Examining the Evidence: The
Impact of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance
on Workers and Businesses. LAANE. https://
laane.org/downloads/Examinig_the_Evidence.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15778
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
interagency Federal schedules.
Contractors have increased their use of
single-purpose entities such as joint
ventures and teaming agreements. Offsite construction of significant
components of public buildings and
works has also increased. The
regulations need to be updated to assure
their continued effectiveness in the face
of changes such as these.
Related Acts. 5 U.S.C. app. 1, effective
May 24, 1950, 15 FR 3176, 64 Stat. 1267.
These regulations, which have been
updated and revised periodically over
time, are primarily located in parts 1, 3,
and 5 of title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
A. Why the Department Is Considering
Action
In order to provide greater clarity and
enhance their usefulness in the modern
economy, the Department proposes to
update and modernize the regulations at
29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5, which
implement the Davis-Bacon Act and the
Davis-Bacon Related Acts (collectively,
the DBRA). The Department has not
undertaken a comprehensive revision of
the DBRA regulations since 1982. Since
that time, Congress has expanded the
reach of the DBRA regulations
significantly, adding numerous new
Related Act statutes to which they
apply. The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and
now 71 active Related Acts collectively
apply to an estimated tens of billions of
dollars in Federal and federally assisted
construction spending per year and
provide minimum wage rates for
hundreds of thousands of U.S.
construction workers. The Department
expects these numbers to continue to
grow as Congress seeks to address the
significant infrastructure needs in the
country, including, in particular, energy
and transportation infrastructure
necessary to address climate change.
These regulations will provide
additional clarity that will be helpful
given the increased number of
construction projects subject to DavisBacon requirements, due to the
substantial increases in federally funded
construction provided for in legislation
such as the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act.
In addition to expanding coverage of
the prevailing wage rate requirements of
the DBA, the Federal contracting system
itself has undergone significant changes
since 1982. Federal agencies have
increased spending through the use of
B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the
Proposed Rule
In this NPRM, the Department seeks
to address a number of outstanding
challenges in the program while also
providing greater clarity in the DBRA
regulations and enhancing their
usefulness in the modern economy.
Specifically, the Department proposes to
return to the definition of ‘‘prevailing
wage’’ that was used from 1935 to 1983
to address the overuse of average rates
and ensure that prevailing wages reflect
actual wages paid to workers in the
local community. The Department also
proposes to periodically update noncollectively bargained prevailing wage
rates to address out-of-date wage rates.
The Department proposes to give WHD
broader authority to adopt State or local
wage determinations as the Federal
prevailing wage where certain specified
criteria are satisfied, to issue
supplemental rates for key
classifications where there is
insufficient survey data, to modernize
the scope of work to include energy
infrastructure and the site of work to
include prefabricated buildings, to
ensure that DBRA requirements protect
workers by operation of law, and to
strengthen enforcement including
debarment and anti-retaliation. See
Section III.B. for a full discussion of the
Department’s proposed changes to these
regulations.
Congress has delegated authority to
the Department to issue prevailing wage
determinations and prescribe rules and
regulations for contractors and
subcontractors on DBRA-covered
construction projects.184 See 40 U.S.C.
3142, 3145. It has also directed the
Department, through Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950, to ‘‘prescribe
appropriate standards, regulations and
procedures’’ to be observed by Federal
agencies responsible for the
administration of the Davis-Bacon and
As discussed in section V.B., the
Department identified a range of firms
potentially affected by this rulemaking.
This includes both firms impacted by
the Davis-Bacon Act and firms impacted
by the Related Acts. The more narrowly
defined population includes firms
actively holding Davis-Bacon contracts
and firms affected by the Related Acts.
The broader population includes those
bidding on Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts contracts but without active
contracts, or those considering bidding
in the future. As described in section
V.B., the total number of potentially
affected firms ranges from 154,500 to
192,400. This includes firms that pay at
or above the new wage determination
rates and thus will not be substantially
affected. The Department does not have
data to identify the number of firms that
will experience changes in payroll costs.
To identify the number of small firms,
the Department began with the total
population of firms and identified some
of these firms as small based on several
methods.
• For prime contractors in
USASpending, the Department used the
variable ‘‘Contracting Officer’s
Determination of Business Size.’’ 185
• For subcontractors from
USASpending, the Department
identified those with ‘‘small’’ or ‘‘SBA’’
in the ‘‘Subawardee Business Types’’
variable.186
• For SAM data, the Department used
the small business determination in the
data, in variable ‘‘NAICS Code String.’’
This is flagged separately for each
NAICS reported for the firm; therefore,
the Department classified a company as
a small business if SAM identified it as
a small business in any 6-digit NAICS
beginning with 23.
184 The DBA and the Related Acts apply to both
prime contracts and subcontracts of any tier
thereunder. In this NPRM, as in the regulations
themselves, where the terms ‘‘contracts’’ or
‘‘contractors’’ are used, they are intended to include
reference both prime contracts and contractors and
subcontracts and subcontractors of any tier.
185 The description of this variable in the
USAspending.gov Data Dictionary is: ‘‘The
Contracting Officer’s determination of whether the
selected contractor meets the small business size
standard for award to a small business for the
NAICS code that is applicable to the contract.’’ The
Data Dictionary is available at: https://
www.usaspending.gov/data-dictionary.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
their proposals on small entities,
consider alternatives to minimize that
impact, and solicit public comment on
their analyses. The RFA requires the
assessment of the impact of a regulation
on a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for
profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Agencies
must perform a review to determine
whether a proposed or final rule would
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. 5
U.S.C. 603, 604.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Estimating the Number of Small
Businesses Affected by the Rulemaking
This results in an estimated number of
potentially affected small businesses
ranging from 103,600 to 135,200.
186 The description of this variable in the
USAspending.gov Data Dictionary is: ‘‘Comma
separated list representing sub-contractor business
types pulled from Federal Procurement Data
System—Next Generation (FPDS–NG) or the System
for Award Management (SAM).’’
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15779
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—RANGE OF NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SMALL FIRMS
Source
Small
Total Count (Davis-Bacon and Related Acts)
Narrow definition ............................................................................................................................................................................
Broad definition ..............................................................................................................................................................................
103,600
135,200
DBA (Narrow Definition)
Total ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Prime contractors from USASpending ...................................................................................................................................
Subcontractors from USASpending a .....................................................................................................................................
26,700
11,200
15,500
DBA (Broad Definition)
Total ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
SAM ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Subcontractors from USASpending a .....................................................................................................................................
58,300
42,800
15,500
Related Acts
Total ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
a Determination
77,000
based on inclusion of ‘‘small’’ or ‘‘SBA’’ in the business types.
The Department estimated in section
V.B. that 1.2 million employees are
potentially affected by the rulemaking.
That methodology does not include a
variation to identify only workers
employed by small firms. The
Department therefore assumed that the
share of contracting expenditures
attributed to small businesses is the best
approximation of the share of
employment in small businesses. In
USASpending, expenditures are
available for by firm size. For example,
in 2019, $55.4 billion was spent on DBA
covered contracts (see section V.B.2.)
and of that, $19.8 billion (36 percent)
was awarded to small business prime
contractors.187 Data on expenditures by
firm size are unavailable for the Related
Acts (Table 10). Therefore, the
Department assumed the same
percentage applies to such expenditures
as for Davis-Bacon contracts. In total, an
estimated 424,800 workers are
employed by potentially affected small
businesses.
TABLE 10—NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WORKERS IN SMALL COVERED CONTRACTING FIRMS
Total workers
(thousands)
Percent of
expenditures in
small contracting
firms a
Workers in small
businesses
(thousands)
DBA, excl. territories ..................................................................................................
DBA, territories ..........................................................................................................
Related Acts b ............................................................................................................
297.9
6.1
883.9
35.7%
38.2%
35.8%
106.4
2.3
316.0
Total ....................................................................................................................
1,188.0
..............................
424.8
a Source:
USASpending.gov. Percentage of contracting expenditures for covered contracts in small businesses in 2019.
data on expenditures by firm size are unavailable for Related Acts. The Department assumed the same percentage applied as for
Davis-Bacon.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
b Because
In several places in the NPRM, the
Department is proposing to add or
revise language to clarify existing
policies rather than to substantively
change them. For example, the
Department proposes to add language to
the definitions of ‘‘building or work’’
and ‘‘public building or public work’’ to
clarify that these definitions can be met
even when the construction activity
involves only a portion of an overall
building, structure, or improvement.
Also, the Department proposes to add
language clarifying the applicability of
the ‘‘material supplier’’ exemption to
coverage, the applicability of the DBRA
to truck drivers and flaggers, and the
extent to which demolition activities are
covered by the DBRA. However, the
Department acknowledges that some
contracting agencies may not have been
applying Davis-Bacon in accordance
with those policies. Where this was the
case, the clarity provided by this
proposed rule could lead to expanded
application of the Davis-Bacon labor
standards, which could lead to more
small firms being required to comply
with Davis-Bacon labor standards.
Additionally, the Department’s proposes
187 If subcontractors are more likely to be small
businesses than prime contractors, then this
methodology may underestimate the number of
workers who are employed by small businesses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to revise the definition of ‘‘site of the
work’’ to further encompass certain
construction of significant portions of a
building or work at secondary
worksites, which could clarify and
strengthen the scope of coverage under
DBA, which would also lead to more
small firms being required to comply
with Davis-Bacon labor standards. The
Department does not have data to
determine how many of these small
firms exist and welcomes data and
information on the extent to which
small firms would newly be applying
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15780
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Davis-Bacon and what potential
compliance costs they could incur.
D. Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule, Including Reporting and
Recordkeeping
Many of the proposals in this rule
only affect how the prevailing wage rate
is calculated. For these proposals there
will be no new compliance
requirements for small firms, as they
will still need to pay the published
prevailing wage. The Department is also
proposing a number of revisions to
existing recordkeeping requirements to
better effectuate compliance and
enforcement, including revisions to
clarify the record retention period and
add requirements to maintain worker
telephone numbers and email addresses.
The Department is proposing to clarify
language used to better distinguish the
records that contractors must make and
maintain (regular payrolls and other
basic records) from the payroll
documents that contractors must submit
weekly to contracting agencies (certified
payrolls). The Department is also
proposing to clarify that electronic
signatures and certified payroll
submission methods may be used.
E. Calculating the Impact of the
Proposed Rule on Small Business Firms
The Department considered employer
costs associated with both (a) the change
in determining the prevailing wage
based on a 30 percent threshold instead
of a 50 percent threshold and (b) the
incorporation of using the change in the
ECI to update certain non-collectively
bargained prevailing wage rates. The
Department estimated both regulatory
familiarization costs and
implementation costs. An overview of
these costs is explained here but
additional details can be found in
section V.C. Non-quantified direct
employer costs are explained in section
V.C.3.
The Department acknowledges that if
some wage rates increase due to either
of the provisions listed above, there
could be an increase in payroll costs for
some small firms. Due to data
limitations and uncertainty, the
Department did not quantify payroll
costs (i.e., transfers). The change in the
definition of prevailing wage will only
be applied to wage data received
through future surveys, for geographic
areas and classifications that have not
yet been identified. Both this provision
and the updating of out-of-date rates
will not have any impact if firms are
already paying at or above the new
prevailing wage rate because of labor
market forces. Please see section V.D.
for a more thorough discussion of these
potential payroll costs, including an
illustrative example of the potential
impact of the proposed rule on
prevailing wage rates.
The Department welcomes comments
and data on whether small firms would
incur increased payroll costs following
this rule, and the extent to which firms
are paying above the out-of-date
prevailing wage rates.
Year 1 direct employer costs for small
businesses are estimated to total $8.7
million. Average annualized costs
across the first 10 years are estimated to
be $2.6 million (using a 7 percent
discount rate). On a per firm basis,
direct employer costs are estimated to
be $78.97 in Year 1.
The proposed rule will impose direct
costs on some covered contractors who
will review the regulations to
understand how the prevailing wage
setting methodology will change.
However, the Department believes these
regulatory familiarization costs will be
small because firms are not required to
understand how the prevailing wage
rates are set in order to comply with
DBRA requirements, they are just
required to pay the prevailing wage
rates. The Department included all
small potentially affected firms (135,200
firms). The Department assumed that on
average, 1 hour of a human resources
staff member’s time will be spent
reviewing the rulemaking. The cost of
this time is the median loaded wage for
a Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialist of $52.65 per
hour.188 Therefore, the Department has
estimated regulatory familiarization
costs to be $7.1 million ($52.65 per hour
× 1.0 hour × 135,200 contractors) (Table
11). The Department has included all
regulatory familiarization costs in Year
1. New entrants will not incur any
additional regulatory familiarization
costs attributable to this rule. Average
annualized regulatory familiarization
costs over 10 years, using a 7 percent
discount rate, are $1.0 million.
TABLE 11—DIRECT EMPLOYER COSTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
[2020 dollars]
Variable
Total
Regulatory
familiarization
costs
Implementation
costs
Year 1 Costs:
Potentially affected firms ....................................................................................
Hours per firm .....................................................................................................
Loaded wage rate ...............................................................................................
Cost ($1,000s) ....................................................................................................
Years 2–10 ($1,000s):
Annual cost .........................................................................................................
Average Annualized Costs ($1,000s):
3% discount rate .................................................................................................
7% discount rate .................................................................................................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
$8,700
..............................
$1,600
..............................
$2,400
$2,600
..............................
135,200
1
$52.65
$7,100
..............................
$0
..............................
$835
$1,000
..............................
62,574
0.5
$52.65
$1,600
..............................
$1,600
..............................
$1,600
$1,600
When firms update prevailing wage
rates, they can incur costs associated
with adjusting payrolls, adjusting
contracts, and communicating this
information to employees (if
applicable). This proposed rule would
generally affect the frequency with
which prevailing wage rates are updated
through the provision to update old,
outmoded rates, and moving forward, to
periodically update rates when that
does not occur through the survey
process. Currently, only a fraction of
prevailing wages can be expected to
change each year. Because the
188 This includes the median base wage of $32.30
from the May 2020 OEWS estimates plus benefits
paid at a rate of 46 percent of the base wage, as
estimated from the BLS’s Employer Costs for
Employee ECEC data, and overhead costs of 17
percent. OEWS data available at: https://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131141.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15781
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Department intends to update older
rates to more accurately represent wages
and benefits being paid in the
construction industry, and, moving
forward, more published wage rates will
change more frequently than in the past,
firms may spend more time updating
prevailing wage rates for contractual
purposes than they have in the past,
leading to additional implementation
costs than there otherwise would have
been. The Department does not believe
that there will be additional
implementation costs associated with
the proposal to update the definition of
the prevailing wage (30 percent rule).
This proposed change would only apply
to new surveys, for which employers
would have already had to update wage
rates.
To estimate the size of the
implementation cost associated with the
periodic updates, the Department
assumed that each year 39.6 percent of
firms are already checking rates due to
newly published surveys (section
V.C.2.). Multiplying the remaining 60.4
percent by the 103,600 small firms
holding DBRA contracts results in
62,574 firms impacted annually (Table
11). The proposed change to update
current non-collectively bargained rates
will have an implementation cost to
firms. The proposed change to update
non-collectively bargained rates moving
forward will result in ongoing
implementation costs. Each time the
rate is updated, firms will incur some
costs to adjust payroll (if applicable)
and communicate the new rates to
employees. The Department assumed
that this provision would impact all
small firms currently holding DBRA
contracts (62,574 firms). For the initial
increase, the Department estimated this
will take approximately 0.5 hours per
year for firms to adjust their rates. As
with previous costs, implementation
time costs are based on a loaded hourly
wage of $52.65. Therefore, total Year 1
implementation costs were estimated to
equal $1.6 million ($52.65 × 0.5 hour ×
62,574 firms). The average annualized
implementation cost over 10 years,
using a 7 percent discount rate, is $1.6
million.
To determine direct employer costs
on a per firm basis, the Department
considers only those firms who are fully
affected. These are firms who seek to
bid on DBRA contracts, and who have
new wage rates to incorporate into their
bids and, as needed, into their payroll
systems. For these firms, the Year 1
costs are estimated as one and a half
hours of time (1 hour for regulatory
familiarization and 0.5 hours for
implementation) valued at $52.65 per
hour. This totals $78.97 in Year 1 costs
per firm. The Department welcomes
comments on all of the cost estimates
presented here.
the CPI measures movement of
consumer prices as experienced by dayto-day living expenses, unlike the ECI,
which measures changes in the costs of
labor in particular. The CPI does not
track changes in wages or benefits, nor
does it reflect the costs of construction
workers nationwide.
The Department welcomes comments
on these and other alternatives to the
proposed rule.
F. Relevant Federal Rules Duplicating,
Overlapping, or Conflicting With the
Proposed Rule
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Department is not aware of any
relevant Federal rules that conflict with
this NPRM.
G. Alternative to the Proposed Rule
The RFA directs agencies to assess the
impacts that various regulatory
alternatives would have on small
entities and to consider ways to
minimize those impacts. Accordingly,
the Department considered certain
regulatory alternatives.
For one alternative, the Department
considered requiring all contracting
agencies—not just Federal agencies—
that use wage determinations under the
DBRA to submit an annual report to the
Department outlining proposed
construction programs for the coming
year. The Department concluded,
however, that this requirement would
be unnecessarily onerous for nonFederal contracting agencies,
particularly as major construction
projects such as those related to road
and water quality infrastructure projects
may be dependent upon approved
funding or financial assistance from a
Federal partner. The Department’s
proposal to require only Federal
agencies to submit these annual reports
would be simpler and less burdensome
for the regulated community as some
Federal agencies have already been
submitting these reports pursuant to
AAM 144 (Dec. 27, 1985) and AAM 224
(Jan. 17, 2017).
Another alternative that was
considered was the use of a different
index instead of the Employment Cost
Index (ECI) for updating out-of-date
non-collectively bargained wage rates.
The Department considered proposing
to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
but considers this data source to be a
less appropriate index to use because
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies
to prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before proposing any
unfunded Federal mandate that may
result in excess of $100 million
(adjusted annually for inflation) in
expenditures in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments in the
aggregate, or by the private sector. This
rulemaking is not expected exceed that
threshold. See section V. for an
assessment of anticipated costs,
transfers, and benefits.
VIII. Executive Order 13132,
Federalism
The Department has (1) reviewed this
proposed rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13132 regarding
federalism and (2) determined that it
does not have federalism implications.
The proposed rule would not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
IX. Executive Order 13175, Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule would not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 that would require a tribal
summary impact statement. The
proposed rule would not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Appendix A—Surveys Included in the
Prevailing Wage Demonstration
Surveys Included
Survey year
Pub date
2018 ............................................
2017 ............................................
2017 ............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
12/25/2020
12/14/2018
12/25/2020
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
State
Metro/rural
Utah ............................................
Nevada .......................................
New York ...................................
Metro ..........................................
Both ............................................
Rural ...........................................
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Construction type(s)
Heavy.
Highway.
Building.
15782
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Surveys Included
Survey year
2017
2017
2017
2017
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2015
2016
2015
2015
2015
2015
2014
Pub date
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
12/25/2020
2/7/2020
2/7/2020
1/24/2020
12/14/2018
12/14/2018
9/29/2017
2/7/2020
12/8/2017
10/6/2017
2/7/2020
4/21/2017
9/28/2018
7/28/2017
9/29/2017
12/16/2016
State
Metro/rural
North Dakota ..............................
Oklahoma ...................................
Pennsylvania ..............................
Vermont ......................................
Connecticut ................................
New Mexico ...............................
New York ...................................
North Carolina ............................
South Carolina ...........................
Alabama .....................................
Alabama .....................................
Arkansas ....................................
Minnesota ...................................
Mississippi ..................................
New Hampshire .........................
Florida ........................................
Both ............................................
Metro ..........................................
East Metro ..................................
Both ............................................
Metro [b] .....................................
Metro ..........................................
4 metro counties ........................
Both ............................................
Metro [c] .....................................
Both [d] .......................................
Both ............................................
Both ............................................
Both ............................................
Both ............................................
Both ............................................
Metro [c] .....................................
Construction type(s)
Heavy.
Residential.
Residential.
Heavy, highway [a].
Building.
Building and heavy.
Building.
Residential.
Residential.
Building and heavy.
Highway.
Building and heavy.
Building.
Building and heavy.
Building and heavy.
Building.
[a] Building component not sufficient.
[b] Only one rural county so excluded.
[c] Rural component of survey was not sufficient.
[d] Excludes heavy rural which were not sufficient.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
This includes most surveys with
published rates that began in 2015 or
later. They include all four construction
types, metro and rural counties, and a
variety of geographic regions. Two
surveys were excluded because they did
not meet sufficiency standards (2016
Alaska residential and 2015 Maryland
highway). A few surveys were excluded
due to anomalies that could not be
reconciled. These include:
• 2016 Kansas highway
• 2016 Virginia highway
Appendix B: Current DOL Wage
Determination Protocols
Sufficiency requirement is: For a
classification to have sufficient
responses there generally must be data
on at least six employees from at least
three contractors. Additionally, if data is
received for either exactly six
employees or exactly three contractors,
then no more than 60 percent of the
total employees can be employed by any
one contractor. Exceptions to these
criteria are allowed under limited
circumstances. Examples include:
Surveys conducted in rural counties, or
residential and heavy surveys with
limited construction activity, or for
highly specialized classifications. In
these circumstances, the rule can be
three employees and two contractors.
Aggregation: If the classification is not
sufficient at the county level, data are
aggregated to the group level,
supergroup level, and State level (metro
or rural), respectively. For building and
residential construction, at each level of
aggregation (as well as at the county
level) WHD first attempts to calculate a
prevailing rate using data only for
projects not subject to Davis-Bacon labor
standards; if such data are insufficient
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
to calculate a prevailing rate, then data
for projects subject to Davis-Bacon labor
standards is also included.
Majority rate: If more than 50 percent
of employees are paid the exact same
hourly rate, then that rate prevails. If
not, the Department calculates a
weighted average. If more than 50
percent are not exactly the same, but
100 percent of the data are union, then
a union weighted average is calculated.
Prevailing fringe benefits: Before a
fringe benefit is applicable, it must
prevail. The first step is to determine if
more than 50 percent of the workers in
the reported classification receive a
fringe benefit. If more than 50 percent
of the employees in a single
classification are paid any fringe
benefits, then fringe benefits prevail. If
fringe benefits prevail in a classification
and:
• More than 50 percent of the
employees receiving fringe benefits are
paid the same total fringe benefit rate,
then that total fringe benefit rate
prevails.
• more than 50 percent of the
employees receiving benefits are not
paid at the same total rate, then the
average rate of fringe benefits weighted
by the number of workers who received
fringe benefits prevails. If more than 50
percent are not paid the same total rate,
but 100 percent of the data are union,
then a union weighted average is
calculated.
However, if 50 percent or less of the
employees in a single classification are
paid a fringe benefit, then fringe benefits
will not prevail, and a fringe benefit rate
of $0.00 will be published for that
classification.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Construction industry,
Government contracts, Government
procurement, Law enforcement,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and
procedure, Construction industry,
Government contracts, Government
procurement, Law enforcement,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 5
Administrative practice and
procedure, Construction industry,
Government contracts, Government
procurement, Law enforcement,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wages.
For reasons stated in the preamble,
the Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor, proposes to amend
29 CFR subtitle A as follows:
PART 1—PROCEDURES FOR
PREDETERMINATION OF WAGE
RATES
1. The authority citation for part 1 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; R.S. 161, 64 Stat.
1267; Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5
U.S.C. Appendix; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.; 40
U.S.C. 3145; 40 U.S.C. 3148; and Secretary of
Labor’s Order 01–2014 (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR
77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); and the laws
referenced by 29 CFR 5.1.
2. Amend § 1.1 by revising paragraphs
(a) and (b) to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
§ 1.1
Purpose and scope.
(a) The procedural rules in this part
apply under the Davis-Bacon Act (946
Stat. 1494, as amended; 40 U.S.C. 3141
et seq.), and any laws now existing or
subsequently enacted, which provide
for the payment of minimum wages,
including fringe benefits, to laborers and
mechanics engaged in construction
activity under contracts entered into or
financed by or with the assistance of
agencies of the United States or the
District of Columbia, based on
determinations by the Secretary of Labor
of the wage rates and fringe benefits
prevailing for the corresponding classes
of laborers and mechanics employed on
projects similar to the contract work in
the local areas where such work is to be
performed.
(1) A listing of laws requiring the
payment of wages at rates
predetermined by the Secretary of Labor
under the Davis-Bacon Act is currently
found at www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/
government-contracts.
(2) Functions of the Secretary of Labor
under these statutes and under
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (64
Stat. 1267, as amended; 5 U.S.C.
Appendix), except for functions
assigned to the Office of Administrative
Law Judges (see part 6 of this subtitle)
and appellate functions assigned to the
Administrative Review Board (see part 7
of this subtitle) or reserved by the
Secretary of Labor (see Secretary’s Order
01–2020 (Feb. 21, 2020) have been
delegated to the Administrator of the
Wage and Hour Division and authorized
representatives.
(b) The regulations in this part set
forth the procedures for making and
applying such determinations of
prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits
pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act and
any laws now existing or subsequently
enacted providing for determinations of
such wages by the Secretary of Labor in
accordance with the provisions of the
Davis-Bacon Act.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 1.2 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 1.2
Definitions.
Administrator. The term
‘‘Administrator’’ means the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, or
authorized representative.
Agency. The term ‘‘agency’’ means
any Federal, State, or local agency or
instrumentality, or other similar entity,
that enters into a contract or provides
assistance through loan, grant, loan
guarantee or insurance, or otherwise, to
a project subject to the Davis-Bacon
labor standards, as defined in § 5.2 of
this subtitle.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
(1) Federal agency. The term ‘‘Federal
agency’’ means an agency or
instrumentality of the United States or
the District of Columbia, as defined in
this section, that enters into a contract
or provides assistance through loan,
grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards.
(2) [Reserved]
Area. The term ‘‘area’’ means the city,
town, village, county or other civil
subdivision of the State in which the
work is to be performed.
(1) For highway projects, the area may
be State department of transportation
highway districts or other similar State
subdivisions.
(2) Where a project requires work in
multiple counties, the area may include
all counties in which the work will be
performed.
Department of Labor-approved
website for wage determinations (DOLapproved website). The term
‘‘Department of Labor-approved website
for wage determinations’’ means the
government website for both DavisBacon Act and Service Contract Act
wage determinations. In addition, the
DOL-approved website provides
compliance assistance information. The
term will also apply to any other
website or electronic means that the
Department of Labor may approve for
these purposes.
Employed. Every person performing
the duties of a laborer or mechanic in
the construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair of a public
building or public work, or building or
work financed in whole or in part by
assistance from the United States
through loan, grant, loan guarantee or
insurance, or otherwise, is employed
regardless of any contractual
relationship alleged to exist between the
contractor and such person.
Prevailing wage. The term ‘‘prevailing
wage’’ means:
(1) The wage paid to the majority
(more than 50 percent) of the laborers or
mechanics in the classification on
similar projects in the area during the
period in question;
(2) If the same wage is not paid to a
majority of those employed in the
classification, the prevailing wage will
be the wage paid to the greatest number,
provided that such greatest number
constitutes at least 30 percent of those
employed; or
(3) If no wage rate is paid to 30
percent or more of those so employed,
the prevailing wage will be the average
of the wages paid to those employed in
the classification, weighted by the total
employed in the classification.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15783
Type of construction (or construction
type). The term ‘‘type of construction (or
construction type)’’ means the general
category of construction, as established
by the Administrator, for the
publication of general wage
determinations. Types of construction
may include, but are not limited to,
building, residential, heavy, and
highway. As used in this part, the terms
‘‘type of construction’’ and
‘‘construction type’’ are synonymous
and interchangeable.
United States or the District of
Columbia. The term ‘‘United States or
the District of Columbia’’ means the
United States, the District of Columbia,
and all executive departments,
independent establishments,
administrative agencies, and
instrumentalities of the United States
and of the District of Columbia, and any
corporation for which all or
substantially all of the stock of which is
beneficially owned by the United States,
by the District of Columbia, or any of
the foregoing departments,
establishments, agencies, and
instrumentalities.
■ 4. Revise § 1.3 to read as follows:
§ 1.3 Obtaining and compiling wage rate
information.
For the purpose of making wage
determinations, the Administrator will
conduct a continuing program for the
obtaining and compiling of wage rate
information. In determining the
prevailing wages at the time of issuance
of a wage determination, the
Administrator will be guided by the
definition of prevailing wage in § 1.2
and will consider the types of
information listed in this section.
(a) The Administrator will encourage
the voluntary submission of wage rate
data by contractors, contractors’
associations, labor organizations, public
officials and other interested parties,
reflecting wage rates paid to laborers
and mechanics on various types of
construction in the area. The
Administrator may also obtain data from
agencies on wage rates paid on
construction projects under their
jurisdiction. The information submitted
should reflect the wage rates paid to
workers employed in a particular
classification in an area, the type or
types of construction on which such
rate or rates are paid, and whether or
not such wage rates were paid on
Federal or federally assisted projects
subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements.
(b) The following types of information
may be considered in making wage rate
determinations:
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15784
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(1) Statements showing wage rates
paid on projects, including the names
and addresses of contractors, including
subcontractors; the locations,
approximate costs, dates of construction
and types of projects, as well as whether
or not the projects are Federal or
federally assisted projects subject to
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements; and the number of
workers employed in each classification
on each project and the respective wage
rates paid such workers.
(2) Signed collective bargaining
agreements, for which the Administrator
may request that the parties to
agreements submit statements certifying
to their scope and application.
(3) Wage rates determined for public
construction by State and local officials
pursuant to State and local prevailing
wage legislation.
(4) Wage rate data submitted to the
Department of Labor by contracting
agencies pursuant to § 5.5(a)(1)(iii) of
this subtitle.
(5) For Federal-aid highway projects
under 23 U.S.C. 113, information
obtained from the highway
department(s) of the State(s) in which
the project is to be performed. For such
projects, the Administrator must consult
the relevant State highway department
and give due regard to the information
thus obtained.
(6) Any other information pertinent to
the determination of prevailing wage
rates.
(c) The Administrator may initially
obtain or supplement such information
obtained on a voluntary basis by such
means, including the holding of
hearings, and from any sources
determined to be necessary. All
information of the types described in
paragraph (b) of this section, pertinent
to the determination of the wages
prevailing at the time of issuance of the
wage determination, will be evaluated
in light of the definition of prevailing
wage in § 1.2.
(d) In compiling wage rate data for
building and residential wage
determinations, the Administrator will
not use data from Federal or federally
assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements unless it
is determined that there is insufficient
wage data to determine the prevailing
wages in the absence of such data. Data
from Federal or federally assisted
projects will be used in compiling wage
rate data for heavy and highway wage
determinations.
(e) In determining the prevailing
wage, the Administrator may treat
variable wage rates paid by a contractor
or contractors to employees within the
same classification as the same wage
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
where the pay rates are functionally
equivalent, as explained by a collective
bargaining agreement or written policy
otherwise maintained by the contractor.
(f) If the Administrator determines
that there is insufficient wage survey
data to determine the prevailing wage
for a classification for which
conformance requests are regularly
submitted pursuant to § 5.5(a)(1)(iii) of
this subtitle, the Administrator may list
the classification and wage and fringe
benefit rates for the classification on the
wage determination, provided that:
(1) The work performed by the
classification is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination;
(2) The classification is used in the
area by the construction industry; and
(3) The wage rate for the classification
bears a reasonable relationship to the
wage rates contained in the wage
determination.
(g) Under the circumstances described
in paragraph (h) of this section, the
Administrator may make a wage
determination by adopting, with or
without modification, one or more
prevailing wage rates determined for
public construction by State and/or
local officials. Provided that the
conditions in paragraph (h) are met, the
Administrator may do so even if the
methods and criteria used by State or
local officials differ in some respects
from those that the Administrator would
otherwise use under the Davis-Bacon
Act and the regulations in this part.
Such differences may include, but are
not limited to, a definition of prevailing
wage under a State or local prevailing
wage law or regulation that differs from
the definition in § 1.2, a geographic area
or scope that differs from the standards
in § 1.7, and/or the restrictions on data
use in paragraph (d) of this section.
(h) The Administrator may adopt a
State or local wage rate as described in
paragraph (g) of this section if the
Administrator, after reviewing the rate
and the processes used to derive the
rate, determines that:
(1) The State or local government sets
wage rates, and collects relevant data,
using a survey or other process that is
open to full participation by all
interested parties;
(2) The wage rate reflects both a basic
hourly rate of pay as well as any
prevailing fringe benefits, each of which
can be calculated separately;
(3) The State or local government
classifies laborers and mechanics in a
manner that is recognized within the
field of construction; and
(4) The State or local government’s
criteria for setting prevailing wage rates
are substantially similar to those the
Administrator uses in making wage
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determinations under this part. This
determination will be based on the
totality of the circumstances, including,
but not limited to, the State or local
government’s definition of prevailing
wage; the types of fringe benefits it
accepts; the information it solicits from
interested parties; its classification of
construction projects, laborers, and
mechanics; and its method for
determining the appropriate geographic
area(s).
(i) In order to adopt wage rates of a
State or local government entity
pursuant to paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this section, the Administrator must
obtain the wage rates and any relevant
supporting documentation and data,
from the State or local government
entity. Such information may be
submitted via email to
dba.statelocalwagerates@dol.gov, via
mail to U.S. Department of Labor, Wage
and Hour Division, Branch of Wage
Surveys, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210, or through other
means directed by the Administrator.
(j) Nothing in paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this section precludes the
Administrator from otherwise
considering State or local prevailing
wage rates, consistent with paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, or from giving due
regard to information obtained from
State highway departments, consistent
with paragraph (b)(4) of this section, as
part of the Administrator’s process of
making prevailing wage determinations
under this part.
■ 5. Revise § 1.4 to read as follows:
§ 1.4 Report of agency construction
programs.
At the beginning of each fiscal year,
each Federal agency using wage
determinations under the Davis-Bacon
Act or any of the laws referenced by
§ 5.1 of this subtitle, must furnish the
Administrator with a report that
contains a general outline of its
proposed construction programs for the
upcoming 3 fiscal years. This report
must include a list of proposed projects
(including those for which options to
extend the contract term of an existing
construction contract are expected
during the period covered by the
report): the estimated start date of
construction; the anticipated type or
types of construction; the estimated cost
of construction; the location or locations
of construction; and any other projectspecific information that the
Administrator requests. The report must
also include notification of any
significant changes to previously
reported construction programs, such as
the delay or cancellation of previously
reported projects. Reports must be
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
submitted no later than April 10th of
each year by email to
DavisBaconFedPlan@dol.gov, and must
include the name, telephone number,
and email address of the official
responsible for coordinating the
submission.
■ 6. Amend § 1.5 by revising paragraphs
(a) and (b) and adding a heading to
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 1.5 Publication of general wage
determinations and procedure for
requesting project wage determinations.
(a) General wage determinations. A
general wage determination contains,
among other information, a list of wage
and fringe benefit rates determined to be
prevailing for various classifications of
laborers or mechanics for specified
type(s) of construction in a given area.
The Department of Labor publishes
general wage determinations under the
Davis-Bacon Act on the DOL-approved
website.
(b) Project wage determinations. (1) A
project wage determination is specific to
a particular project. An agency may
request a project wage determination for
an individual project under any of the
following circumstances:
(i) The project involves work in more
than one county and will employ
workers who may work in more than
one county;
(ii) There is no general wage
determination in effect for the relevant
area and type(s) of construction for an
upcoming project, or
(iii) All or virtually all of the work on
a contract will be performed by a
classification that is not listed in the
general wage determination that would
otherwise apply, and contract award (or
bid opening, in contracts entered into in
sealed bidding procedures) has not yet
taken place.
(2) To request a project wage
determination, the agency must submit
Standard Form (SF) 308, Request for
Wage Determination and Response to
Request, to the Department of Labor,
either by mailing the form to U.S.
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour
Division, Branch of Construction Wage
Determinations, Washington, DC 20210,
or by submitting the form through other
means directed by the Administrator.
(3) In completing Form SF–308, the
agency must include the following
information:
(i) A sufficiently detailed description
of the work to indicate the type(s) of
construction involved, as well as any
additional description or separate
attachment, if necessary, for
identification of the type(s) of work to
be performed. If the project involves
multiple types of construction, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
requesting agency must attach
information indicating the expected cost
breakdown by type of construction.
(ii) The location (city, county, state,
zip code) or locations in which the
proposed project is located.
(iii) The classifications needed for the
project. The agency must identify only
those classifications that will be needed
in the performance of the work.
Inserting a note such as ‘‘entire
schedule’’ or ‘‘all applicable
classifications’’ is not sufficient.
Additional classifications needed that
are not on the form may be typed in the
blank spaces or on a separate list and
attached to the form.
(iv) Any other information requested
in Form SF–308.
(4) A request for a project wage
determination must be accompanied by
any pertinent wage information that
may be available. When the requesting
agency is a State highway department
under the Federal-Aid Highway Acts as
codified in 23 U.S.C. 113, such agency
must also include its recommendations
as to the wages which are prevailing for
each classification of laborers and
mechanics on similar construction in
the area.
(5) The time required for processing
requests for project wage determinations
varies according to the facts and
circumstances in each case. An agency
should anticipate that such processing
by the Department of Labor will take at
least 30 days.
(c) Processing time. * * *
■ 7. Revise § 1.6 to read as follows:
§ 1.6 Use and effectiveness of wage
determinations.
(a) Application, Validity, and
Expiration of Wage Determinations—(1)
Application of incorporated wage
determinations. Once a wage
determination is incorporated into a
contract (or once construction has
started when there is no contract
award), the wage determination
generally applies for the duration of the
contract or project, except as specified
in this section.
(2) General wage determinations. (i)
General wage determinations published
on the DOL-approved website contain
no expiration date. Once issued, a
general wage determination remains
valid until revised, superseded, or
canceled.
(ii) If there is a current general wage
determination applicable to a project, an
agency may use it without notifying the
Administrator, Provided that questions
concerning its use are referred to the
Administrator in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15785
(iii) When a wage determination is
revised, superseded, or canceled, it
becomes inactive. Inactive wage
determinations may be accessed on the
DOL-approved website for informational
purposes only. Contracting officers may
not use such an inactive wage
determination in a contract action
unless the inactive wage determination
is the appropriate wage determination
that must be incorporated to give
retroactive effect to the post-award
incorporation of a contract clause under
§ 5.6(a)(1)(ii) of this subtitle or a wage
determination under paragraph (f) of
this section. Under such circumstances,
the agency must provide prior notice to
the Administrator of its intent to
incorporate an inactive wage
determination, and may not incorporate
it if the Administrator instructs
otherwise.
(3) Project wage determinations. (i)
Project wage determinations initially
issued will be effective for 180 calendar
days from the date of such
determinations. If a project wage
determination is not incorporated into a
contract (or, if there is no contract
award, if construction has not started) in
the period of its effectiveness it is void.
(ii) Accordingly, if it appears that a
project wage determination may expire
between bid opening and contract
award (or between initial endorsement
under the National Housing Act or the
execution of an agreement to enter into
a housing assistance payments contract
under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act
of 1937, and the start of construction)
the agency shall request a new project
wage determination sufficiently in
advance of the bid opening to assure
receipt prior thereto.
(iii) However, when due to
unavoidable circumstances a project
wage determination expires before
award but after bid opening (or before
the start of construction, but after initial
endorsement under the National
Housing Act, or before the start of
construction but after the execution of
an agreement to enter into a housing
assistance payments contract under
section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of
1937), the head of the agency or his or
her designee may request the
Administrator to extend the expiration
date of the project wage determination
in the bid specifications instead of
issuing a new project wage
determination. Such request shall be
supported by a written finding, which
shall include a brief statement of factual
support, that the extension of the
expiration date of the project wage
determination is necessary and proper
in the public interest to prevent
injustice or undue hardship or to avoid
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15786
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
serious impairment in the conduct of
Government business. The
Administrator will either grant or deny
the request for an extension after
consideration of all of the
circumstances, including an
examination to determine if the
previously issued rates remain
prevailing. If the request for extension is
denied, the Administrator will proceed
to issue a new wage determination for
the project.
(b) Identifying and incorporating
appropriate wage determinations. (1)
Contracting agencies are responsible for
making the initial determination of the
appropriate wage determination(s) for a
project and for ensuring that the
appropriate wage determination(s) are
incorporated in bid solicitations and
contract specifications and that
inapplicable wage determinations are
not incorporated. When a contract
involves construction in more than one
area, and no multi-county project wage
determination has been obtained, the
solicitation and contract must
incorporate the applicable wage
determination for each area. When a
contract involves more than one type of
construction, the solicitation and
contract must incorporate the applicable
wage determination for each type of
construction involved that is anticipated
to be substantial. The contracting
agency is responsible for designating the
specific work to which each
incorporated wage determination
applies.
(2) The contractor or subcontractor
has an affirmative obligation to ensure
that its pay practices are in compliance
with the Davis-Bacon Act labor
standards.
(3) Any question regarding
application of wage rate schedules or
wage determinations must be referred to
the Administrator for resolution. The
Administrator should consider any
relevant factors when resolving such
questions, including, but not limited to,
relevant area practice information.
(c) Revisions to wage determinations.
(1) General and project wage
determinations may be revised from
time to time to keep them current. A
revised wage determination replaces the
previous wage determination.
‘‘Revisions,’’ as used in this section,
refers both to modifications of some or
all of the rates in a wage determination,
such as periodic updates to reflect
current rates, and to instances where a
wage determination is re-issued
entirely, such as after a new wage
survey is conducted. Revisions also
include adjustments to non-collectively
bargained prevailing wage and fringe
benefit rates on general wage
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
determinations, with the adjustments
based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employment Cost Index (ECI) data or its
successor data. Such rates may be
adjusted based on ECI data no more
frequently than once every 3 years, and
no sooner than 3 years after the date of
the rate’s publication. Such periodic
revisions to wage determinations are
distinguished from the circumstances
described in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)
of this section.
(2)(i) Whether a revised wage
determination is effective with respect
to a particular contract or project
generally depends on the date on which
the revised wage determination is
issued. The date on which a revised
wage determination is ‘‘issued,’’ as used
in this section, means the date that a
revised general wage determination is
published on the DOL-approved website
or the date that the contracting agency
receives actual written notice of a
revised project wage determination.
(ii) If a revised wage determination is
issued before contract award (or the
start of construction when there is no
award), it is effective with respect to the
project, except as follows:
(A) For contracts entered into
pursuant to sealed bidding procedures,
a revised wage determination issued at
least 10 calendar days before the
opening of bids is effective with respect
to the solicitation and contract. If a
revised wage determination is issued
less than 10 calendar days before the
opening of bids, it is effective with
respect to the solicitation and contract
unless the agency finds that there is not
a reasonable time still available before
bid opening to notify bidders of the
revision and a report of the finding is
inserted in the contract file. A copy of
such report must be made available to
the Administrator upon request. No
such report is required if the revision is
issued after bid opening.
(B) In the case of projects assisted
under the National Housing Act, a
revised wage determination is effective
with respect to the project if it is issued
prior to the beginning of construction or
the date the mortgage is initially
endorsed, whichever occurs first.
(C) In the case of projects to receive
housing assistance payments under
section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of
1937, a revised wage determination is
effective with respect to the project if it
is issued prior to the beginning of
construction or the date the agreement
to enter into a housing assistance
payments contract is signed, whichever
occurs first.
(D) If, in the case of a contract entered
into pursuant to sealed bidding
procedures under paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A)
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of this section the contract has not been
awarded within 90 days after bid
opening, or if, in the case of projects
assisted under the National Housing Act
or receiving housing assistance
payments section 8 of the U.S. Housing
Act of 1937 under paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)
or (C) of this section, construction has
not begun within 90 days after initial
endorsement or the signing of the
agreement to enter into a housing
assistance payments contract, any
revised general wage determination
issued prior to award of the contract or
the beginning of construction, as
appropriate, is effective with respect to
that contract unless the head of the
agency or the agency head’s designee
requests and obtains an extension of the
90-day period from the Administrator.
Such request must be supported by a
written finding, which includes a brief
statement of the factual support, that the
extension is necessary and proper in the
public interest to prevent injustice or
undue hardship or to avoid serious
impairment in the conduct of
Government business. The
Administrator will either grant or deny
the request for an extension after
consideration of all the circumstances.
(iii) If a revised wage determination is
issued after contract award (or after the
beginning of construction where there is
no contract award), it is not effective
with respect to that project, except
under the following circumstances:
(A) Where a contract or order is
changed to include additional,
substantial construction, alteration, and/
or repair work not within the scope of
work of the original contract or order, or
to require the contractor to perform
work for an additional time period not
originally obligated, including where an
agency exercises an option provision to
unilaterally extend the term of a
contract, the contracting agency must
include the most recent revision of any
wage determination(s) at the time the
contract is changed or the option is
exercised. This does not apply where
the contractor is simply given additional
time to complete its original
commitment or where the additional
construction, alteration, and/or repair
work in the modification is merely
incidental.
(B) Some contracts call for
construction, alteration, and/or repair
work over a period of time that is not
tied to the completion of any particular
project. Examples of such contracts
include, but are not limited to,
indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity
construction contracts to perform any
necessary repairs to a Federal facility
over a period of time; long-term
operations-and-maintenance contracts
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that may include construction,
alteration, and/or repair work covered
by Davis-Bacon labor standards; or
schedule contracts or blanket purchase
agreements in which a contractor agrees
to provide certain construction work at
agreed-upon prices to Federal agencies.
These types of contracts often involve a
general commitment to perform
necessary construction as the need
arises, but do not necessarily specify the
exact construction to be performed. For
the types of contracts described here,
the contracting agency must incorporate
into the contract the most recent
revision(s) of any applicable wage
determination(s) on each anniversary
date of the contract’s award (or each
anniversary date of the beginning of
construction when there is no award), or
another similar anniversary date where
the agency has sought and received
prior approval from the Department for
the alternative date. Such revised wage
determination(s) will apply to any
construction work that begins or is
obligated under such a contract during
the 12 months following that
anniversary date until such construction
work is completed, even if the
completion of that work extends beyond
the twelve-month period. Where such
contracts have task orders, purchase
orders, or other similar contract
instruments awarded under the master
contract, the contracting and ordering
agency must include the applicable
updated wage determination in such
task orders, purchase orders, or other
similar contract instrument.
(d) Corrections for clerical errors.
Upon the Administrator’s own initiative
or at the request of an agency, the
Administrator may correct any wage
determination, without regard to
paragraph (a) or (c) of this section,
whenever the Administrator finds that it
contains clerical errors. Such
corrections must be included in any
solicitations, bidding documents, or
ongoing contracts containing the wage
determination in question, and such
inclusion, and application of the
correction(s), must be retroactive to the
start of construction if construction has
begun.
(e) Pre-award determinations that a
wage determination may not be used. If,
prior to the award of a contract (or the
start of construction under the National
Housing Act, under section 8 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, or where there is
no contract award), the Administrator
provides written notice that:
(1) The wrong wage determination or
the wrong schedule was included in the
bidding documents or solicitation; or
(2) A wage determination included in
the bidding documents or solicitation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
was withdrawn by the Department of
Labor as a result of a decision by the
Administrative Review Board, the wage
determination may not be used for the
contract, without regard to whether bid
opening (or initial endorsement or the
signing of a housing assistance
payments contract) has occurred.
(f) Post-award determinations and
procedures. (1) If a contract subject to
the labor standards provisions of the
laws referenced by § 5.1 of this subtitle
is entered into without the correct wage
determination(s), the agency must, upon
the request of the Administrator or upon
its own initiative, incorporate the
correct wage determination into the
contract or require its incorporation.
Where the agency is not entering
directly into such a contract but instead
is providing Federal financial
assistance, the agency must ensure that
the recipient or sub-recipient of the
Federal assistance similarly
incorporates the correct wage
determination(s) into its contracts.
(2) The Administrator may require the
agency to incorporate a wage
determination after contract award or
after the beginning of construction if the
agency has failed to incorporate a wage
determination in a contract required to
contain prevailing wage rates
determined in accordance with the
Davis-Bacon Act, or has used a wage
determination which by its terms or the
provisions of this part clearly does not
apply to the contract. Further, the
Administrator may require the
application of the correct wage
determination to a contract after
contract award or after the beginning of
construction when it is found that the
wrong wage determination has been
incorporated in the contract because of
an inaccurate description of the project
or its location in the agency’s request for
the wage determination.
(3) Under any of the circumstances
described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this section, the agency must either
terminate and resolicit the contract with
the correct wage determination, or
incorporate the correct wage
determination into the contract (or
ensure it is so incorporated) through
supplemental agreement, change order,
or any other authority that may be
needed. The method of incorporation of
the correct wage determination, and
adjustment in contract price, where
appropriate, should be in accordance
with applicable law. Additionally, the
following requirements apply:
(i) Unless the Administrator directs
otherwise, the incorporation of the
correct wage determination(s) must be
retroactive to the date of contract award
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15787
or start of construction if there is no
award.
(ii) If incorporation occurs as the
result of a request from the
Administrator, the incorporation must
take place within 30 days of the date of
that request, unless the agency has
obtained an extension from the
Administrator.
(iii) Before the agency requires
incorporation upon its own initiative, it
must provide notice to the
Administrator of the proposed action.
(iv) The contractor must be
compensated for any increases in wages
resulting from incorporation of a
missing wage determination.
(v) If a recipient or sub-recipient of
Federal assistance under any of the
applicable statutes referenced by § 5.1 of
this subtitle refuses to incorporate the
wage determination as required, the
agency must make no further payment,
advance, grant, loan, or guarantee of
funds in connection with the contract
until the recipient incorporates the
required wage determination into its
contract, and must promptly refer the
dispute to the Administrator for further
proceedings under § 5.13 of this subtitle.
(vi) Before terminating a contract
pursuant to this section, the agency
must withhold or cross-withhold
sufficient funds to remedy any backwage liability resulting from the failure
to incorporate the correct wage
determination or otherwise identify and
obligate sufficient funds through a
termination settlement agreement, bond,
or other satisfactory mechanism.
(4) Under any of the above
circumstances, notwithstanding the
requirement to incorporate the correct
wage determination(s) within 30 days,
the correct wage determination(s) will
be effective by operation of law,
retroactive to the date of award or the
beginning of construction (under the
National Housing Act, under section 8
of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, or
where there is no contract award), in
accordance with § 5.5(e) of this subtitle.
(g) Approval of Davis-Bacon Related
Act Federal funding or assistance after
contract award. If Federal funding or
assistance under a statute requiring
payment of wages determined in
accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act is
not approved prior to contract award (or
the beginning of construction where
there is no contract award), the
applicable wage determination must be
incorporated based upon the wages and
fringe benefits found to be prevailing on
the date of award or the beginning of
construction (under the National
Housing Act, under section 8 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, or where there is
no contract award), as appropriate, and
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15788
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
must be incorporated in the contract
specifications retroactively to that date,
Provided that upon the request of the
head of the Federal agency providing
the Federal funding or assistance, in
individual cases the Administrator may
direct incorporation of the wage
determination to be effective on the date
of approval of Federal funds or
assistance whenever the Administrator
finds that it is necessary and proper in
the public interest to prevent injustice
or undue hardship, Provided further
that the Administrator finds no
evidence of intent to apply for Federal
funding or assistance prior to contract
award or the start of construction, as
appropriate.
■ 8. Revise § 1.7 to read as follows:
§ 1.7
Scope of consideration.
(a) In making a wage determination,
the area from which wage data will be
drawn will normally be the county
unless sufficient current wage data (data
on wages paid on current projects or,
where necessary, projects under
construction no more than 1 year prior
to the beginning of the survey or the
request for a wage determination, as
appropriate) is unavailable to make a
wage determination.
(b) If sufficient current wage data is
not available from projects within the
county to make a wage determination,
wages paid on similar construction in
surrounding counties may be
considered.
(c) If sufficient current wage data is
not available in surrounding counties,
the Administrator may consider wage
data from similar construction in
comparable counties or groups of
counties in the State, and, if necessary,
overall statewide data.
(d) If sufficient current statewide
wage data is not available, wages paid
on projects completed more than 1 year
prior to the beginning of the survey or
the request for a wage determination, as
appropriate, may be considered.
(e) The use of helpers and apprentices
is permitted in accordance with part 5
of this subtitle.
■ 9. Revise § 1.8 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 1.8 Reconsideration by the
Administrator.
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
§ 1.10
Severability.
The provisions of this part are
separate and severable and operate
independently from one another. If any
provision of this part is held to be
invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or
as applied to any person or
circumstance, or stayed pending further
agency action, the provision is to be
construed so as to continue to give the
maximum effect to the provision
permitted by law, unless such holding
is one of utter invalidity or
unenforceability, in which event the
provision is severable from this part and
will not affect the remaining provisions.
Appendix A to Part 1—[Removed]
■ 11. Remove appendix A to part 1.
Appendix B to Part 1—[Removed]
12. Remove appendix B to part 1.
■
PART 3— CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC
BUILDING OR PUBLIC WORK
FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY
LOANS OR GRANTS FROM THE
UNITED STATES
13. The authority citation for part 3
continues to read as follows:
■
(a) Any interested party may seek
reconsideration of a wage determination
issued under this part or of a decision
of the Administrator regarding
application of a wage determination.
(b) Such a request for reconsideration
must be in writing, accompanied by a
full statement of the interested party’s
views and any supporting wage data or
other pertinent information. Requests
must be submitted via email to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
dba.reconsideration@dol.gov; by mail to
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20210; or through other means directed
by the Administrator. The
Administrator will respond within 30
days of receipt thereof, or will notify the
requestor within the 30-day period that
additional time is necessary.
(c) If the decision for which
reconsideration is sought was made by
an authorized representative of the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division, the interested party seeking
reconsideration may request further
reconsideration by the Administrator of
the Wage and Hour Division. Such a
request must be submitted within 30
days from the date the decision is
issued; this time may be extended for
good cause at the discretion of the
Administrator upon a request by the
interested party. The procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section apply to
any such reconsideration requests.
■ 10. Add § 1.10 to read as follows:
Jkt 256001
Authority: R.S. 161, 48 Stat. 848, Reorg.
Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C.
301; 40 U.S.C. 3145; Secretary’s Order 01–
2014 (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24,
2014).
■
14. Revise § 3.1 to read as follows:
§ 3.1
Purpose and scope.
This part prescribes ‘‘anti-kickback’’
regulations under section 2 of the Act of
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C.
3145), popularly known as the Copeland
Act. This part applies to any contract
which is subject to Federal wage
standards and which is for the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of public buildings, public
works or buildings or works financed in
whole or in part by loans or grants from
the United States. The part is intended
to aid in the enforcement of the
minimum wage provisions of the DavisBacon Act and the various statutes
dealing with federally assisted
construction that contain similar
minimum wage provisions, including
those provisions which are not subject
to Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950
(e.g., the College Housing Act of 1950,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
and the Housing Act of 1959), and in the
enforcement of the overtime provisions
of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act whenever they are
applicable to construction work. The
part details the obligation of contractors
and subcontractors relative to the
weekly submission of statements
regarding the wages paid on work
covered thereby; sets forth the
circumstances and procedures
governing the making of payroll
deductions from the wages of those
employed on such work; and delineates
the methods of payment permissible on
such work.
■ 15. Revise § 3.2 to read as follows:
§ 3.2
Definitions.
As used in the regulations in this part:
Affiliated person. The term ‘‘affiliated
person’’ includes a spouse, child,
parent, or other close relative of the
contractor or subcontractor; a partner or
officer of the contractor or
subcontractor; a corporation closely
connected with the contractor or
subcontractor as parent, subsidiary, or
otherwise, and an officer or agent of
such corporation.
Agency. The term ‘‘agency’’ means
any Federal, State, or local government
agency or instrumentality, or other
similar entity, that enters into a contract
or provides assistance through loan,
grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, for a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards, as defined
in § 5.2 of this subtitle.
(1) Federal agency. The term ‘‘Federal
agency’’ means an agency or
instrumentality of the United States or
the District of Columbia, as defined in
this section, that enters into a contract
or provides assistance through loan,
grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards.
(2) [Reserved]
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Building or work. The term ‘‘building
or work’’ generally includes
construction activity of all types, as
distinguished from manufacturing,
furnishing of materials, or servicing and
maintenance work. The term includes,
without limitation, buildings,
structures, and improvements of all
types, such as bridges, dams, solar
panels, wind turbines, broadband
installation, installation of electric car
chargers, plants, highways, parkways,
streets, subways, tunnels, sewers,
mains, powerlines, pumping stations,
heavy generators, railways, airports,
terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways,
lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters,
levees, and canals; dredging, shoring,
scaffolding, drilling, blasting,
excavating, clearing, and landscaping.
The term ‘‘building or work’’ also
includes a portion of a building or work,
or the installation (where appropriate)
of equipment or components into a
building or work.
(1) Building or work financed in
whole or in part by loans or grants from
the United States. The term ‘‘building or
work financed in whole or in part by
loans or grants from the United States’’
includes any building or work for which
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair, as defined in this section,
payment or part payment is made
directly or indirectly from funds
provided by loans or grants by a Federal
agency. The term includes any building
or work for which the Federal assistance
granted is in the form of loan guarantees
or insurance.
(2) [Reserved]
Construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair. The term
‘‘construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair’’ mean all types of work done
on a particular building or work at the
site thereof as specified in § 5.2 of this
subtitle, including, without limitation,
altering, remodeling, painting and
decorating, installation on the site of the
work of items fabricated off-site,
transportation as reflected in § 5.2,
demolition as reflected in § 5.2, and the
manufacturing or furnishing of
materials, articles, supplies, or
equipment on the site of the building or
work, performed by laborers and
mechanics at the site.
Employed (and wages). Every person
paid by a contractor or subcontractor in
any manner for their labor in the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of a public building or public
work or building or work financed in
whole or in part by assistance from the
United States through loan, grant, loan
guarantee or insurance, or otherwise, is
employed and receiving wages,
regardless of any contractual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
relationship alleged to exist between
him and the real employer.
Public building (or public work). The
term ‘‘public building (or public work)’’
includes a building or work the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of which, as defined in this
section, is carried on directly by
authority of or with funds of a Federal
agency to serve the general public
regardless of whether title thereof is in
a Federal agency. The construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of a
portion of a building or work may still
be considered a public building or work,
even where the entire building or work
is not owned, leased by, or to be used
by the Federal agency, as long as the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of that portion of the building
or work is carried on by authority of or
with funds of a Federal agency to serve
the interest of the general public.
United States or the District of
Columbia. The term ‘‘United States or
the District of Columbia’’ means the
United States, the District of Columbia,
and all executive departments,
independent establishments,
administrative agencies, and
instrumentalities of the United States
and of the District of Columbia, and any
corporation for which all or
substantially all of the stock of which is
beneficially owned by the United States,
by the District of Columbia, or any of
the foregoing departments,
establishments, agencies, and
instrumentalities.
■ 16. Revise § 3.3 to read as follows:
§ 3.3
Certified payrolls.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Each contractor or subcontractor
engaged in the construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of
any public building or public work, or
building or work financed in whole or
in part by loans or grants from the
United States, each week must provide
a copy of its weekly payroll for all
laborers and mechanics engaged on
work covered by this part and part 5 of
this chapter during the preceding
weekly payroll period, accompanied by
a statement of compliance certifying the
accuracy of the weekly payroll
information. This statement must be
executed by the contractor or
subcontractor or by an authorized
officer or employee of the contractor or
subcontractor who supervises the
payment of wages, and must be on the
back of Form WH–347, ‘‘Payroll (For
Contractors Optional Use)’’ or on any
form with identical wording. Copies of
WH–347 may be obtained from the
contracting or sponsoring agency or
from the Wage and Hour Division
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15789
website at https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/whd/government-contracts/
construction/forms or its successor site.
The signature by the contractor,
subcontractor, or the authorized officer
or employee must be an original
handwritten signature or a legally valid
electronic signature.
(c) The requirements of this section
shall not apply to any contract of $2,000
or less.
(d) Upon a written finding by the
head of a Federal agency, the Secretary
of Labor may provide reasonable
limitations, variations, tolerances, and
exemptions from the requirements of
this section subject to such conditions
as the Secretary of Labor may specify.
■ 17. Revise § 3.4 to read as follows:
§ 3.4 Submission of certified payroll and
the preservation and inspection of weekly
payroll records.
(a) Certified payroll. Each certified
payroll required under § 3.3 must be
delivered by the contractor or
subcontractor, within 7 days after the
regular payment date of the payroll
period, to a representative at the site of
the building or work of the agency
contracting for or financing the work, or,
if there is no representative of the
agency at the site of the building or
work, the statement must be delivered
by mail or by any other means normally
assuring delivery by the contractor or
subcontractor, within that 7 day time
period, to the agency contracting for or
financing the building or work. After the
certified payrolls have been reviewed in
accordance with the contracting or
sponsoring agency’s procedures, such
certified payrolls must be preserved by
the Federal agency for a period of 3
years after all the work on the prime
contract is completed and must be
produced for inspection, copying, and
transcription by the Department of
Labor upon request. The certified
payrolls must also be transmitted
together with a report of any violation,
in accordance with applicable
procedures prescribed by the United
States Department of Labor.
(b) Recordkeeping. Each contractor or
subcontractor must preserve the regular
payroll records for a period of 3 years
after all the work has been completed on
the prime contract. The regular payroll
records must set out accurately and
completely the name; Social Security
number; last known address, telephone
number, and email address of each
laborer and mechanic; each worker’s
correct classification(s) of work actually
performed; hourly rates of wages paid
(including rates of contributions or costs
anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits
or cash equivalents thereof); daily and
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15790
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
weekly number of hours actually
worked in total and on each covered
contract; deductions made; and actual
wages paid. The contractor or
subcontractor must make such regular
payroll records, as well as copies of the
certified payrolls provided to the
contracting or sponsoring agency,
available at all times for inspection,
copying, and transcription by the
contracting officer or his authorized
representative, and by authorized
representatives of the Department of
Labor.
■ 18. Revise § 3.5 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 3.5 Payroll deductions permissible
without application to or approval of the
Secretary of Labor.
Deductions made under the
circumstances or in the situations
described in the paragraphs of this
section may be made without
application to and approval of the
Secretary of Labor:
(a) Any deduction made in
compliance with the requirements of
Federal, State, or local law, such as
Federal or State withholding income
taxes and Federal social security taxes.
(b) Any deduction of sums previously
paid to the laborer or mechanic as a
bona fide prepayment of wages when
such prepayment is made without
discount or interest. A bona fide
prepayment of wages is considered to
have been made only when cash or its
equivalent has been advanced to the
person employed in such manner as to
give him complete freedom of
disposition of the advanced funds.
(c) Any deduction of amounts
required by court process to be paid to
another, unless the deduction is in favor
of the contractor, subcontractor, or any
affiliated person, or when collusion or
collaboration exists.
(d) Any deduction constituting a
contribution on behalf of the laborer or
mechanic employed to funds
established by the contractor or
representatives of the laborers or
mechanics, or both, for the purpose of
providing either from principal or
income, or both, medical or hospital
care, pensions or annuities on
retirement, death benefits,
compensation for injuries, illness,
accidents, sickness, or disability, or for
insurance to provide any of the
foregoing, or unemployment benefits,
vacation pay, savings accounts, or
similar payments for the benefit of the
laborers or mechanics, their families
and dependents: Provided, however,
That the following standards are met:
(1) The deduction is not otherwise
prohibited by law;
(2) It is either:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
(i) Voluntarily consented to by the
laborer or mechanic in writing and in
advance of the period in which the work
is to be done and such consent is not a
condition either for the obtaining of or
for the continuation of employment; or
(ii) Provided for in a bona fide
collective bargaining agreement between
the contractor or subcontractor and
representatives of its laborers or
mechanics;
(3) No profit or other benefit is
otherwise obtained, directly or
indirectly, by the contractor or
subcontractor or any affiliated person in
the form of commission, dividend, or
otherwise; and
(4) The deductions shall serve the
convenience and interest of the laborer
or mechanic.
(e) Any deduction requested by the
laborer or mechanic to enable him or
her to repay loans to or to purchase
shares in credit unions organized and
operated in accordance with Federal
and State credit union statutes.
(f) Any deduction voluntarily
authorized by the laborer or mechanic
for the making of contributions to
governmental or quasi-governmental
agencies, such as the American Red
Cross.
(g) Any deduction voluntarily
authorized by the laborer or mechanic
for the making of contributions to
charitable organizations as defined by
26 U.S.C 501(c)(3).
(h) Any deductions to pay regular
union initiation fees and membership
dues, not including fines or special
assessments: Provided, however, That a
collective bargaining agreement between
the contractor or subcontractor and
representatives of its laborers or
mechanics provides for such deductions
and the deductions are not otherwise
prohibited by law.
(i) Any deduction not more than for
the ‘‘reasonable cost’’ of board, lodging,
or other facilities meeting the
requirements of section 3(m) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended, and 29 CFR part 531. When
such a deduction is made the additional
records required under 29 CFR 516.25(a)
shall be kept.
(j) Any deduction for the cost of safety
equipment of nominal value purchased
by the laborer or mechanic as his or her
own property for his or her personal
protection in his or her work, such as
safety shoes, safety glasses, safety
gloves, and hard hats, if such equipment
is not required by law to be furnished
by the contractor, if such deduction
does not violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act or any other law, if the
cost on which the deduction is based
does not exceed the actual cost to the
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contractor where the equipment is
purchased from him or her and does not
include any direct or indirect monetary
return to the contractor where the
equipment is purchased from a third
person, and if the deduction is either:
(1) Voluntarily consented to by the
laborer or mechanic in writing and in
advance of the period in which the work
is to be done and such consent is not a
condition either for the obtaining of
employment or its continuance; or
(2) Provided for in a bona fide
collective bargaining agreement between
the contractor or subcontractor and
representatives of its laborers and
mechanics.
■ 19. Revise § 3.7 to read as follows:
§ 3.7 Applications for the approval of the
Secretary of Labor.
Any application for the making of
payroll deductions under § 3.6 shall
comply with the requirements
prescribed in the following paragraphs
of this section:
(a) The application must be in writing
and addressed to the Secretary of Labor.
The application must be submitted by
email to dbadeductions@dol.gov, by
mail to the United States Department of
Labor, Wage and Hour Division,
Director, Division of Government
Contracts Enforcement, 200 Constitution
Ave. NW, Room S–3502, Washington,
DC 20210, or by any other means
normally assuring delivery.
(b) The application need not identify
the contract or contracts under which
the work in question is to be performed.
Permission will be given for deductions
on all current and future contracts of the
applicant for a period of 1 year. A
renewal of permission to make such
payroll deduction will be granted upon
the submission of an application which
makes reference to the original
application, recites the date of the
Secretary of Labor’s approval of such
deductions, states affirmatively that
there is continued compliance with the
standards set forth in the provisions of
§ 3.6, and specifies any conditions
which have changed in regard to the
payroll deductions.
(c) The application must state
affirmatively that there is compliance
with the standards set forth in the
provisions of § 3.6. The affirmation must
be accompanied by a full statement of
the facts indicating such compliance.
(d) The application must include a
description of the proposed deduction,
the purpose of the deduction, and the
classes of laborers or mechanics from
whose wages the proposed deduction
would be made.
(e) The application must state the
name and business of any third person
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
to whom any funds obtained from the
proposed deductions are to be
transmitted and the affiliation of such
person, if any, with the applicant.
■ 20. Revise § 3.8 to read as follows:
§ 3.8 Action by the Secretary of Labor
upon applications.
The Secretary of Labor will decide
whether or not the requested deduction
is permissible under provisions of § 3.6;
and will notify the applicant in writing
of the decision.
■ 21. Revise § 3.11 to read as follows:
§ 3.11
Regulations part of contract.
All contracts made with respect to the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of any public building or
public work or building or work
financed in whole or in part by loans or
grants from the United States covered by
the regulations in this part must
expressly bind the contractor or
subcontractor to comply with such of
the regulations in this part as may be
applicable. In this regard, see § 5.5(a) of
this subtitle. However, these
requirements will be considered to be
effective by operation of law, whether or
not they are incorporated into such
contracts, as set forth in § 5.5(e) of this
subtitle.
PART 5—LABOR STANDARDS
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO
CONTRACTS COVERING FEDERALLY
FINANCED AND ASSISTED
CONSTRUCTION (ALSO LABOR
STANDARDS PROVISIONS
APPLICABLE TO NONCONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE
CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND
SAFETY STANDARDS ACT)
22. The authority citation for part 5 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; R.S. 161, 64 Stat.
1267; Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5
U.S.C. appendix; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.; 40
U.S.C. 3145; 40 U.S.C. 3148; 40 U.S.C. 3701
et seq.; and the laws listed in 5.1(a) of this
part; Secretary’s Order No. 01–2014 (Dec. 19,
2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); 28 U.S.C.
2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114–74 at
section 701, 129 Stat 584.
■
23. Revise § 5.1 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 5.1
Purpose and scope.
(a) The regulations contained in this
part are promulgated under the
authority conferred upon the Secretary
of Labor by Reorganization Plan No. 14
of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267, as amended, 5
U.S.C. Appendix) and the Copeland Act
(48 Stat. 948; 18 U.S.C. 874; 40 U.S.C.
3145) in order to coordinate the
administration and enforcement of labor
standards provisions contained in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Davis-Bacon Act (946 Stat. 1494, as
amended; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) and its
related statutes (‘‘Related Acts’’).
(1) A listing of laws requiring DavisBacon labor standards provisions is
currently found at www.dol.gov/
agencies/whd/government-contracts.
(b) Part 1 of this subtitle contains the
Department’s procedural rules
governing requests for wage
determinations and the issuance and
use of such wage determinations under
the Davis-Bacon Act and its Related
Acts.
■ 24. Revise § 5.2 to read as follows:
§ 5.2
Definitions.
Administrator. The term
‘‘Administrator’’ means the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, or
authorized representative.
Agency. The term ‘‘agency’’ means
any Federal, State, or local government
agency or instrumentality, or other
similar entity, that enters into a contract
or provides assistance through loan,
grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards, as defined
in this section.
(1) Federal agency. The term ‘‘Federal
agency’’ means an agency or
instrumentality of the United States or
the District of Columbia, as defined in
this section, that enters into a contract
or provides assistance through loan,
grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards.
(2) [Reserved]
Agency Head. The term ‘‘Agency
Head’’ means the principal official of an
agency and includes those persons duly
authorized to act on behalf of the
Agency Head.
Apprentice and helper. The terms
‘‘apprentice’’ and ‘‘helper’’ are defined
as follows:
(1) ‘‘Apprentice’’ means:
(i) A person employed and
individually registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship program registered with
the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training
Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship, or with a State
Apprenticeship Agency recognized by
the Office of Apprenticeship; or
(ii) A person in the first 90 days of
probationary employment as an
apprentice in such an apprenticeship
program, who is not individually
registered in the program, but who has
been certified by the Office of
Apprenticeship or a State
Apprenticeship Agency (where
appropriate) to be eligible for
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15791
probationary employment as an
apprentice;
(2) These provisions do not apply to
apprentices and trainees employed on
projects subject to 23 U.S.C. 113 who
are enrolled in programs which have
been certified by the Secretary of
Transportation in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 113(c).
(3) A distinct classification of helper
will be issued in wage determinations
applicable to work performed on
construction projects covered by the
labor standards provisions of the DavisBacon and Related Acts only where:
(i) The duties of the helper are clearly
defined and distinct from those of any
other classification on the wage
determination;
(ii) The use of such helpers is an
established prevailing practice in the
area; and
(iii) The helper is not employed as a
trainee in an informal training program.
A helper classification will be added to
wage determinations pursuant to
§ 5.5(a)(1)(iii)(A) only where, in
addition, the work to be performed by
the helper is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination.
Building or work. The term ‘‘building
or work’’ generally includes
construction activities of all types, as
distinguished from manufacturing,
furnishing of materials, or servicing and
maintenance work. The term includes,
without limitation, buildings,
structures, and improvements of all
types, such as bridges, dams, solar
panels, wind turbines, broadband
installation, installation of electric car
chargers, plants, highways, parkways,
streets, subways, tunnels, sewers,
mains, power lines, pumping stations,
heavy generators, railways, airports,
terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways,
lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters,
levees, canals, dredging, shoring,
rehabilitation and reactivation of plants,
scaffolding, drilling, blasting,
excavating, clearing, and landscaping.
The term building or work also includes
a portion of a building or work, or the
installation (where appropriate) of
equipment or components into a
building or work.
Construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair. The term
‘‘construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair’’ means the following:
(1) These terms include all types of
work done—
(i) On a particular building or work at
the site of the work, as defined in this
section, by laborers and mechanics
employed by a contractor or
subcontractor, or
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15792
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(ii) In the construction or
development of a project under a
development statute.
(2) These terms include, without
limitation (except as specified in this
definition):
(i) Altering, remodeling, installation
(where appropriate) on the site of the
work of items fabricated off-site;
(ii) Painting and decorating;
(iii) Manufacturing or furnishing of
materials, articles, supplies or
equipment, but only if such work is
done
(A) On the site of the work, as defined
in this section, or
(B) In the construction or
development of a project under a
development statute;
(iv) ‘‘Covered transportation’’ is
defined as transportation under any of
the following circumstances:
(A) Transportation that takes place
entirely within a location meeting the
definition of ‘‘site of the work’’ in this
section;
(B) Transportation of portion(s) of the
building or work between a ‘‘secondary
construction site’’ as defined in this
section and a ‘‘primary construction
site’’ as defined in this section;
(C) Transportation between a ‘‘nearby
dedicated support site’’ as defined in
this section and a ‘‘primary construction
site’’ or ‘‘secondary construction site’’ as
defined in this section;
(D) ‘‘Onsite activities essential or
incidental to offsite transportation’’—
defined as activities conducted by a
truck driver or truck driver’s assistant
on the site of the work that are essential
or incidental to the transportation of
materials or supplies to or from the site
of the work, such as loading, unloading,
or waiting for materials to be loaded or
unloaded—where the driver or driver’s
assistant’s time spent on the site of the
work is not so insubstantial or
insignificant that it cannot as a practical
administrative matter be precisely
recorded; and
(E) Any transportation and related
activities, whether on or off the site of
the work, by laborers and mechanics
employed in the construction or
development of the project under a
development statute.
(v) Demolition and/or removal, under
any of the following circumstances:
(A) Where the demolition and/or
removal activities themselves constitute
construction, alteration, and/or repair of
an existing building or work. Examples
of such activities include the removal of
asbestos, paint, components, systems, or
parts from a facility that will not be
demolished; as well as contracts for
hazardous waste removal, land
recycling, or reclamation that involve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
substantial earth moving, removal of
contaminated soil, re-contouring
surfaces, and/or habitat restoration.
(B) Where subsequent construction
covered in whole or in part by the labor
standards in this part is contemplated at
the site of the demolition or removal,
either as part of the same contract or as
part of a future contract. In determining
whether covered construction is
contemplated within the meaning of
this provision, relevant factors include,
but are not limited to, the existence of
engineering or architectural plans or
surveys of the site; the allocation of, or
an application for, Federal funds;
contract negotiations or bid
solicitations; the stated intent of the
relevant government officials; and the
disposition of the site after demolition.
(C) Where otherwise required by
statute.
(3) Except for transportation that
constitutes ‘‘covered transportation’’ as
defined in this section, construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair does
not include the transportation of
materials or supplies to or from the site
of the work.
Contract. The term ‘‘contract’’ means
any prime contract which is subject
wholly or in part to the labor standards
provisions of any of the laws referenced
by § 5.1 and any subcontract of any tier
thereunder, let under the prime
contract.
Contracting Officer. The term
‘‘Contracting Officer’’ means the
individual, a duly appointed successor,
or authorized representative who is
designated and authorized to enter into
contracts on behalf of an agency,
sponsor, owner, applicant, or other
similar entity.
Contractor. The term ‘‘contractor’’
means any individual or other legal
entity that enters into or is awarded a
contract that is subject wholly or in part
to the labor standards provisions of any
of the laws referenced by § 5.1,
including any prime contract or
subcontract of any tier under a covered
prime contract. In addition, the term
contractor includes any surety that is
completing performance for a defaulted
contractor pursuant to a performance
bond. The U.S. Government, its
agencies, and instrumentalities are not
contractors, subcontractors, employers
or joint employers for purposes of the
labor standards provisions of any of the
laws referenced by § 5.1. A State or local
government is not regarded as a
contractor or subcontractor under
statutes providing loans, grants, or other
Federal assistance in situations where
construction is performed by its own
employees. However, under
development statutes or other statutes
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requiring payment of prevailing wages
to all laborers and mechanics employed
on the assisted project, such as the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, State and local
recipients of Federal-aid must pay these
employees according to Davis-Bacon
labor standards. The term ‘‘contractor’’
does not include an entity that is a
material supplier, except if the entity is
performing work under a development
statute.
Davis-Bacon labor standards. The
term ‘‘Davis-Bacon labor standards’’ as
used in this part means the
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act,
the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (other than those relating
to safety and health), the Copeland Act,
and the prevailing wage provisions of
the other statutes referenced in § 5.1,
and the regulations in parts 1 and 3 of
this subtitle and this part.
Development statute. The term
‘‘development statute’’ means a statute
that requires payment of prevailing
wages under the Davis-Bacon labor
standards to all laborers and mechanics
employed in the development of a
project.
Employed. Every person performing
the duties of a laborer or mechanic in
the construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair of a public
building or public work, or building or
work financed in whole or in part by
assistance from the United States
through loan, grant, loan guarantee or
insurance, or otherwise, is ‘‘employed’’
regardless of any contractual
relationship alleged to exist between the
contractor and such person.
Laborer or mechanic. The term
‘‘laborer or mechanic’’ includes at least
those workers whose duties are manual
or physical in nature (including those
workers who use tools or who are
performing the work of a trade), as
distinguished from mental or
managerial. The term ‘‘laborer’’ or
‘‘mechanic’’ includes apprentices,
helpers, and, in the case of contracts
subject to the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act, watchmen or
guards. The term does not apply to
workers whose duties are primarily
administrative, executive, or clerical,
rather than manual. Persons employed
in a bona fide executive, administrative,
or professional capacity as defined in 29
CFR part 541 are not deemed to be
laborers or mechanics. Working
supervisors who devote more than 20
percent of their time during a workweek
to mechanic or laborer duties, and who
do not meet the criteria of part 541, are
laborers and mechanics for the time so
spent.
Material supplier. The term ‘‘material
supplier’’ is defined as follows:
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(1) A material supplier is an entity
meeting all of the following criteria:
(i) Its only obligations for work on the
contract or project are the delivery of
materials, articles, supplies, or
equipment, which may include pickup
of the same in addition to, but not
exclusive of, delivery;
(ii) It also supplies materials, articles,
supplies, or equipment to the general
public; and
(iii) Its facility manufacturing the
materials, articles, supplies, or
equipment, if any, is neither established
specifically for the contract or project
nor located at the site of the work.
(2) If an entity, in addition to being
engaged in the activities specified in
paragraph (1)(i) of this definition, also
engages in other construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair work
at the site of the work, it is not a
material supplier.
Prime contractor. The term ‘‘prime
contractor’’ means any person or entity
that enters into a contract with an
agency. For the purposes of the labor
standards provisions of any of the laws
referenced by § 5.1, the term prime
contractor also includes the controlling
shareholders or members of any entity
holding a prime contract, the joint
venturers or partners in any joint
venture or partnership holding a prime
contract, any contractor (e.g., a general
contractor) that has been delegated all or
substantially all of the responsibilities
for overseeing any construction
anticipated by the prime contract, and
any other person or entity that has been
delegated all or substantially all of the
responsibility for overseeing DavisBacon labor standards compliance on a
prime contract. For the purposes of the
cross-withholding provisions in § 5.5,
any such related entities holding
different prime contracts are considered
to be the same prime contractor.
Public building or public work. The
term ‘‘public building’’ or ‘‘public
work’’ includes a building or work, the
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of which, as defined in this
section, is carried on directly by
authority of or with funds of a Federal
agency to serve the interest of the
general public regardless of whether
title thereof is in a Federal agency. The
construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of a portion of a building or
work may still be considered a public
building or work, even where the entire
building or work is not owned, leased
by, or to be used by a Federal agency,
as long as the construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair of that portion of
the building or work is carried on by
authority of or with funds of a Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
agency to serve the interest of the
general public.
Secretary. The term ‘‘Secretary’’
includes the Secretary of Labor, or
authorized representative.
Site of the work. The term ‘‘site of the
work’’ is defined as follows:
(1) ‘‘Site of the work’’ includes all of
the following:
(i) The primary construction site(s),
defined as the physical place or places
where the building or work called for in
the contract will remain.
(ii) Any secondary construction
site(s), defined as any other site(s)
where a significant portion of the
building or work is constructed,
provided that such construction is for
specific use in that building or work and
does not simply reflect the manufacture
or construction of a product made
available to the general public. A
‘‘significant portion’’ of a building or
work means one or more entire
portion(s) or module(s) of the building
or work, as opposed to smaller
prefabricated components, with
minimal construction work remaining
other than the installation and/or
assembly of the portions or modules at
the place where the building or work
will remain.
(iii) Any nearby dedicated support
sites, defined as:
(A) Job headquarters, tool yards, batch
plants, borrow pits, and similar facilities
that are dedicated exclusively, or nearly
so, to performance of the contract or
project, and adjacent or virtually
adjacent to either a primary
construction site or a secondary
construction site, and
(B) Locations adjacent or virtually
adjacent to a primary construction site
at which workers perform activities
associated with directing vehicular or
pedestrian traffic around or away from
the primary construction site.
(2) With the exception of locations
that are secondary construction sites as
defined in paragraph (1)(ii) of this
definition, site of the work does not
include:
(i) Permanent home offices, branch
plant establishments, fabrication plants,
tool yards, etc., of a contractor or
subcontractor whose location and
continuance in operation are
determined wholly without regard to a
particular Federal or federally assisted
contract or project; or
(ii) Fabrication plants, batch plants,
borrow pits, job headquarters, tool
yards, etc., of a material supplier, which
are established by a material supplier
for the project before opening of bids
and not on the physical place or places
where the building or work called for in
the contract will remain, even where the
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15793
operations for a period of time may be
dedicated exclusively, or nearly so, to
the performance of a contract.
Subcontractor. The term
‘‘subcontractor’’ means any contractor
that agrees to perform or be responsible
for the performance of any part of a
contract that is subject wholly or in part
to the labor standards provisions of any
of the laws referenced in § 5.1. The term
subcontractor includes subcontractors of
any tier, but does not include the
ordinary laborers or mechanics to whom
a prevailing wage must be paid
regardless of any contractual
relationship which may be alleged to
exist between the contractor or
subcontractor and the laborers and
mechanics.
United States or the District of
Columbia. The term ‘‘United States or
the District of Columbia’’ means the
United States, the District of Columbia,
and all executive departments,
independent establishments,
administrative agencies, and
instrumentalities of the United States
and of the District of Columbia,
including non-appropriated fund
instrumentalities and any corporation
for which all or substantially all of its
stock is beneficially owned by the
United States or by the foregoing
departments, establishments, agencies,
or instrumentalities.
Wages. The term ‘‘wages’’ means the
basic hourly rate of pay; any
contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee
or to a third person pursuant to a bona
fide fringe benefit fund, plan, or
program; and the rate of costs to the
contractor or subcontractor which may
be reasonably anticipated in providing
bona fide fringe benefits to laborers and
mechanics pursuant to an enforceable
commitment to carry out a financially
responsible plan or program, which was
communicated in writing to the laborers
and mechanics affected. The fringe
benefits enumerated in the Davis-Bacon
Act include medical or hospital care,
pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness
resulting from occupational activity, or
insurance to provide any of the
foregoing; unemployment benefits; life
insurance, disability insurance, sickness
insurance, or accident insurance;
vacation or holiday pay; defraying costs
of apprenticeship or other similar
programs; or other bona fide fringe
benefits. Fringe benefits do not include
benefits required by other Federal, State,
or local law.
Wage determination. The term ‘‘wage
determination’’ includes the original
decision and any subsequent decisions
revising, modifying, superseding,
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15794
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
correcting, or otherwise changing the
provisions of the original decision. The
application of the wage determination
shall be in accordance with the
provisions of § 1.6 of this subtitle.
■ 25. Amend § 5.5 by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (a)(1) through (4),
(6), and (10);
■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(11);
■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) through
(4);
■ d. Adding paragraph (b)(5);
■ e. Revising paragraph (c); and
■ f. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 5.5 Contract provisions and related
matters.
(a) Required contract clauses. The
Agency head will cause or require the
contracting officer to insert in full in
any contract in excess of $2,000 which
is entered into for the actual
construction, alteration and/or repair,
including painting and decorating, of a
public building or public work, or
building or work financed in whole or
in part from Federal funds or in
accordance with guarantees of a Federal
agency or financed from funds obtained
by pledge of any contract of a Federal
agency to make a loan, grant or annual
contribution (except where a different
meaning is expressly indicated), and
which is subject to the labor standards
provisions of any of the laws referenced
by § 5.1, the following clauses (or any
modifications thereof to meet the
particular needs of the agency,
Provided, That such modifications are
first approved by the Department of
Labor):
(1) Minimum wages—(i) Wage rates
and fringe benefits. All laborers and
mechanics employed or working upon
the site of the work (or otherwise
working in construction or development
of the project under a development
statute), will be paid unconditionally
and not less often than once a week, and
without subsequent deduction or rebate
on any account (except such payroll
deductions as are permitted by
regulations issued by the Secretary of
Labor under the Copeland Act (part 3 of
this subtitle)), the full amount of basic
hourly wages and bona fide fringe
benefits (or cash equivalents thereof)
due at time of payment computed at
rates not less than those contained in
the wage determination of the Secretary
of Labor which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof, regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be
alleged to exist between the contractor
and such laborers and mechanics. As
provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
this section, the appropriate wage
determinations are effective by
operation of law even if they have not
been attached to the contract.
Contributions made or costs reasonably
anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits
under the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.
3141(2)(B)) on behalf of laborers or
mechanics are considered wages paid to
such laborers or mechanics, subject to
the provisions of paragraph (a)(1)(v) of
this section; also, regular contributions
made or costs incurred for more than a
weekly period (but not less often than
quarterly) under plans, funds, or
programs which cover the particular
weekly period, are deemed to be
constructively made or incurred during
such weekly period. Such laborers and
mechanics must be paid the appropriate
wage rate and fringe benefits on the
wage determination for the
classification(s) of work actually
performed, without regard to skill,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of
this section. Laborers or mechanics
performing work in more than one
classification may be compensated at
the rate specified for each classification
for the time actually worked therein:
Provided, That the employer’s payroll
records accurately set forth the time
spent in each classification in which
work is performed. The wage
determination (including any additional
classifications and wage rates
conformed under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section) and the Davis-Bacon poster
(WH–1321) must be posted at all times
by the contractor and its subcontractors
at the site of the work in a prominent
and accessible place where it can be
easily seen by the workers.
(ii) Frequently recurring
classifications. (A) In addition to wage
and fringe benefit rates that have been
determined to be prevailing under the
procedures set forth in part 1 of this
subtitle, a wage determination may
contain, pursuant to § 1.3(f), wage and
fringe benefit rates for classifications of
laborers and mechanics for which
conformance requests are regularly
submitted pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section, provided that:
(1) The work performed by the
classification is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination
for which a prevailing wage rate has
been determined;
(2) The classification is used in the
area by the construction industry; and
(3) The wage rate for the classification
bears a reasonable relationship to the
prevailing wage rates contained in the
wage determination.
(B) The Administrator will establish
wage rates for such classifications in
accordance with paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a)(1)(iii)(A)(3) of this section. Work
performed in such a classification must
be paid at no less than the wage and
fringe benefit rate listed on the wage
determination for such classification.
(iii) Conformance. (A) The contracting
officer must require that any class of
laborers or mechanics, including
helpers, which is not listed in the wage
determination and which is to be
employed under the contract be
classified in conformance with the wage
determination. Conformance of an
additional classification and wage rate
and fringe benefits is appropriate only
when the following criteria have been
met:
(1) The work to be performed by the
classification requested is not performed
by a classification in the wage
determination; and
(2) The classification is used in the
area by the construction industry; and
(3) The proposed wage rate, including
any bona fide fringe benefits, bears a
reasonable relationship to the wage rates
contained in the wage determination.
(B) The conformance process may not
be used to split, subdivide, or otherwise
avoid application of classifications
listed in the wage determination.
(C) If the contractor and the laborers
and mechanics to be employed in the
classification (if known), or their
representatives, and the contracting
officer agree on the classification and
wage rate (including the amount
designated for fringe benefits where
appropriate), a report of the action taken
will be sent by the contracting officer by
email to DBAconformance@dol.gov. The
Administrator, or an authorized
representative, will approve, modify, or
disapprove every additional
classification action within 30 days of
receipt and so advise the contracting
officer or will notify the contracting
officer within the 30–day period that
additional time is necessary.
(D) In the event the contractor, the
laborers or mechanics to be employed in
the classification or their
representatives, and the contracting
officer do not agree on the proposed
classification and wage rate (including
the amount designated for fringe
benefits, where appropriate), the
contracting officer will, by email to
DBAconformance@dol.gov, refer the
questions, including the views of all
interested parties and the
recommendation of the contracting
officer, to the Administrator for
determination. The Administrator, or an
authorized representative, will issue a
determination within 30 days of receipt
and so advise the contracting officer or
will notify the contracting officer within
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the 30–day period that additional time
is necessary.
(E) The contracting officer must
promptly notify the contractor of the
action taken by the Wage and Hour
Division under paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(C)
and (D) of this section. The contractor
must furnish a written copy of such
determination to each affected worker or
it must be posted as a part of the wage
determination. The wage rate (including
fringe benefits where appropriate)
determined pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(C) or (D) must be paid to all
workers performing work in the
classification under this contract from
the first day on which work is
performed in the classification.
(iv) Fringe benefits not expressed as
an hourly rate. Whenever the minimum
wage rate prescribed in the contract for
a class of laborers or mechanics
includes a fringe benefit which is not
expressed as an hourly rate, the
contractor may either pay the benefit as
stated in the wage determination or may
pay another bona fide fringe benefit or
an hourly cash equivalent thereof.
(v) Unfunded plans. If the contractor
does not make payments to a trustee or
other third person, the contractor may
consider as part of the wages of any
laborer or mechanic the amount of any
costs reasonably anticipated in
providing bona fide fringe benefits
under a plan or program, Provided, That
the Secretary of Labor has found, upon
the written request of the contractor, in
accordance with the criteria set forth in
§ 5.28, that the applicable standards of
the Davis-Bacon Act have been met. The
Secretary of Labor may require the
contractor to set aside in a separate
account assets for the meeting of
obligations under the plan or program.
(vi) Interest. In the event of a failure
to pay all or part of the wages required
by the contract, the contractor will be
required to pay interest on any
underpayment of wages.
(2) Withholding—(i) Withholding
requirements. The (write in name of
Federal agency or the loan or grant
recipient) must, upon its own action or
upon written request of an authorized
representative of the Department of
Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld
from the contractor under this contract
so much of the accrued payments or
advances as may be considered
necessary to satisfy the liabilities of the
prime contractor or any subcontractor
for the full amount of wages required by
the clause set forth in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section and monetary relief for
violations of paragraph (a)(11) of this
section of this contract, including
interest, or to satisfy any such liabilities
required by any other Federal contract,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
or federally assisted contract subject to
Davis-Bacon labor standards, that is
held by the same prime contractor (as
defined in § 5.2). The necessary funds
may be withheld from the contractor
under this contract or any other Federal
contract with the same prime contractor,
or any other federally assisted contract
that is subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage requirements and is held by the
same prime contractor, regardless of
whether the other contract was awarded
or assisted by the same agency. In the
event of a contractor’s failure to pay any
laborer or mechanic, including any
apprentice or helper working on the site
of the work (or otherwise working in
construction or development of the
project under a development statute) all
or part of the wages required by the
contract, or upon the contractor’s failure
to submit the required records as
discussed in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this
section, the (Agency) may on its own
initiative and after written notice to the
contractor, sponsor, applicant, owner, or
other entity, as the case may be, take
such action as may be necessary to
cause the suspension of any further
payment, advance, or guarantee of funds
until such violations have ceased.
(ii) Priority to withheld funds. The
Department has priority to funds
withheld or to be withheld in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) or
(b)(3)(i) of this section, or both, over
claims to those funds by:
(A) A contractor’s surety(ies),
including without limitation
performance bond sureties and payment
bond sureties;
(B) A contracting agency for its
reprocurement costs;
(C) A trustee(s) (either a courtappointed trustee or a U.S. trustee, or
both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or
a contractor’s bankruptcy estate;
(D) A contractor’s assignee(s);
(E) A contractor’s successor(s); or
(F) A claim asserted under the Prompt
Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901–3907.
(3) Records and certified payrolls—(i)
Basic record requirements—(A) Length
of record retention. All regular payrolls
and other basic records must be
maintained by the contractor and any
subcontractor during the course of the
work and preserved for all laborers and
mechanics working at the site of the
work (or otherwise working in
construction or development of the
project under a development statute) for
a period of at least 3 years after all the
work on the prime contract is
completed.
(B) Information required. Such
records must contain the name; Social
Security number; last known address,
telephone number, and email address of
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15795
each such worker; each worker’s correct
classification(s) of work actually
performed; hourly rates of wages paid
(including rates of contributions or costs
anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits
or cash equivalents thereof of the types
described in 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B) of the
Davis-Bacon Act); daily and weekly
number of hours actually worked in
total and on each covered contract;
deductions made; and actual wages
paid.
(C) Additional records relating to
fringe benefits. Whenever the Secretary
of Labor has found under paragraph
(a)(1)(v) of this section that the wages of
any laborer or mechanic include the
amount of any costs reasonably
anticipated in providing benefits under
a plan or program described in 40 U.S.C.
3141(2)(B) of the Davis-Bacon Act, the
contractor must maintain records which
show that the commitment to provide
such benefits is enforceable, that the
plan or program is financially
responsible, and that the plan or
program has been communicated in
writing to the laborers or mechanics
affected, and records which show the
costs anticipated or the actual cost
incurred in providing such benefits.
(D) Additional records relating to
apprenticeship. Contractors with
apprentices working under approved
programs must maintain written
evidence of the registration of
apprenticeship programs, the
registration of the apprentices, and the
ratios and wage rates prescribed in the
applicable programs.
(ii) Certified payroll requirements—
(A) Frequency and method of
submission. The contractor or
subcontractor must submit weekly for
each week in which any DBA- or
Related Acts-covered work is performed
certified payrolls to the (write in name
of appropriate Federal agency) if the
agency is a party to the contract, but if
the agency is not such a party, the
contractor will submit the certified
payrolls to the applicant, sponsor,
owner, or other entity, as the case may
be, that maintains such records, for
transmission to the (write in name of
agency). The prime contractor is
responsible for the submission of copies
of certified payrolls by all
subcontractors. A contracting agency or
prime contractor may permit or require
contractors to submit certified payrolls
through an electronic system, as long as
the electronic system requires a legally
valid electronic signature and the
contracting agency or prime contractor
permits other methods of submission in
situations where the contractor is
unable or limited in its ability to use or
access the electronic system.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15796
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(B) Information required. The certified
payrolls submitted must set out
accurately and completely all of the
information required to be maintained
under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section,
except that full Social Security numbers
and last known addresses, telephone
numbers, and email addresses must not
be included on weekly transmittals.
Instead the payrolls need only include
an individually identifying number for
each worker (e.g., the last four digits of
the worker’s Social Security number).
The required weekly certified payroll
information may be submitted using
Optional Form WH–347, or in any other
format desired. Optional Form WH–347
is available for this purpose from the
Wage and Hour Division website at
https://www.dol.gov/files/WHD/legacy/
files/wh347.pdf or its successor site. It is
not a violation of this section for a
prime contractor to require a
subcontractor to provide full Social
Security numbers and last known
addresses, telephone numbers, and
email addresses to the prime contractor
for its own records, without weekly
submission by the subcontractor to the
sponsoring government agency (or the
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other
entity, as the case may be, that
maintains such records).
(C) Statement of Compliance. Each
certified payroll submitted must be
accompanied by a ‘‘Statement of
Compliance,’’ signed by the contractor
or subcontractor, or the contractor’s or
subcontractor’s agent who pays or
supervises the payment of the persons
working on the contract, and must
certify the following:
(1) That the certified payroll for the
payroll period contains the information
required to be provided under
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, the
appropriate information and basic
records are being maintained under
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, and
such information and records are correct
and complete;
(2) That each laborer or mechanic
(including each helper and apprentice)
working on the contract during the
payroll period has been paid the full
weekly wages earned, without rebate,
either directly or indirectly, and that no
deductions have been made either
directly or indirectly from the full wages
earned, other than permissible
deductions as set forth in part 3 of this
subtitle; and
(3) That each laborer or mechanic has
been paid not less than the applicable
wage rates and fringe benefits or cash
equivalents for the classification(s) of
work actually performed, as specified in
the applicable wage determination
incorporated into the contract.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
(D) Use of Optional Form WH–347.
The weekly submission of a properly
executed certification set forth on the
reverse side of Optional Form WH–347
will satisfy the requirement for
submission of the ‘‘Statement of
Compliance’’ required by paragraph
(a)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.
(E) Signature. The signature by the
contractor, subcontractor, or the
contractor’s or subcontractor’s agent,
must be an original handwritten
signature or a legally valid electronic
signature.
(F) Falsification. The falsification of
any of the above certifications may
subject the contractor or subcontractor
to civil or criminal prosecution under
18 U.S.C. 1001 and 31 U.S.C. 3729.
(iii) Contracts, subcontracts, and
related documents. The contractor or
subcontractor must maintain this
contract or subcontract, and related
documents including, without
limitation, bids, proposals,
amendments, modifications, and
extensions. The contractor or
subcontractor must preserve these
contracts, subcontracts, and related
documents during the course of the
work and for a period of 3 years after all
the work on the prime contract is
completed.
(iv) Required disclosures and access—
(A) Required record disclosures and
access to workers. The contractor or
subcontractor must make the records
required under paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section and any
other documents that the (write the
name of the agency) or the Department
of Labor deems necessary to determine
compliance with the labor standards
provisions of any of the applicable
statutes referenced by § 5.1, available for
inspection, copying, or transcription by
authorized representatives of the (write
the name of the agency) or the
Department of Labor, and must permit
such representatives to interview
workers during working hours on the
job.
(B) Sanctions for non-compliance
with records and worker access
requirements. If the contractor or
subcontractor fails to submit the
required records or to make them
available, or to permit worker
interviews during working hours on the
job, the Federal agency may, after
written notice to the contractor,
sponsor, applicant, owner, or other
entity, as the case may be, that
maintains such records or that employs
such workers, take such action as may
be necessary to cause the suspension of
any further payment, advance, or
guarantee of funds. Furthermore, failure
to submit the required records upon
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
request or to make such records
available, or to permit worker
interviews during worker hours on the
job, may be grounds for debarment
action pursuant to § 5.12. In addition,
any contractor or other person that fails
to submit the required records or make
those records available to WHD within
the time WHD requests that the records
be produced, will be precluded from
introducing as evidence in an
administrative proceeding under part 6
of this subtitle any of the required
records that were not provided or made
available to WHD. WHD will take into
consideration a reasonable request from
the contractor or person for an extension
of the time for submission of records.
WHD will determine the reasonableness
of the request and may consider, among
other things, the location of the records
and the volume of production.
(C) Required information disclosures.
Contractors and subcontractors must
maintain the full Social Security
number and last known address,
telephone number, and email address of
each covered worker, and must provide
them upon request to the (write in name
of appropriate Federal agency) if the
agency is a party to the contract, or to
the Wage and Hour Division of the
Department of Labor. If the Federal
agency is not such a party to the
contract, the contractor or
subcontractor, or both, must upon
request provide the full Social Security
number and last known address,
telephone number, and email address of
each covered worker to the applicant,
sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the
case may be, that maintains such
records, for transmission to the (write in
name of agency), the contractor, or the
Wage and Hour Division of the
Department of Labor for purposes of an
investigation or other compliance
action.
(4) Apprentices and equal
employment opportunity —(i)
Apprentices—(A) Rate of pay.
Apprentices will be permitted to work
at less than the predetermined rate for
the work they perform when they are
employed pursuant to and individually
registered in a bona fide apprenticeship
program registered with the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship (OA), or with a State
Apprenticeship Agency recognized by
the OA. A person who is not
individually registered in the program,
but who has been certified by the OA or
a State Apprenticeship Agency (where
appropriate) to be eligible for
probationary employment as an
apprentice, will be permitted to work at
less than the predetermined rate for the
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
work they perform in the first 90 days
of probationary employment as an
apprentice in such a program. In the
event the OA or a State Apprenticeship
Agency recognized by the OA
withdraws approval of an
apprenticeship program, the contractor
will no longer be permitted to use
apprentices at less than the applicable
predetermined rate for the work
performed until an acceptable program
is approved.
(B) Fringe benefits. Apprentices must
be paid fringe benefits in accordance
with the provisions of the
apprenticeship program. If the
apprenticeship program does not
specify fringe benefits, apprentices must
be paid the full amount of fringe
benefits listed on the wage
determination for the applicable
classification. If the Administrator
determines that a different practice
prevails for the applicable apprentice
classification, fringe benefits must be
paid in accordance with that
determination.
(C) Apprenticeship ratio. The
allowable ratio of apprentices to
journeyworkers on the job site in any
craft classification must not be greater
than the ratio permitted to the
contractor as to the entire work force
under the registered program. Any
worker listed on a payroll at an
apprentice wage rate, who is not
registered or otherwise employed as
stated above, must be paid not less than
the applicable wage rate on the wage
determination for the classification of
work actually performed. In addition,
any apprentice performing work on the
job site in excess of the ratio permitted
under the registered program must be
paid not less than the applicable wage
rate on the wage determination for the
work actually performed.
(D) Reciprocity of ratios and wage
rates. Where a contractor is performing
construction on a project in a locality
other than the locality in which its
program is registered, the ratios and
wage rates (expressed in percentages of
the journeyworker’s hourly rate)
applicable within the locality in which
the construction is being performed
must be observed. Every apprentice
must be paid at not less than the rate
specified in the registered program for
the apprentice’s level of progress,
expressed as a percentage of the
journeyworker hourly rate specified in
the applicable wage determination.
(ii) Equal employment opportunity.
The use of apprentices and
journeyworkers under this part shall be
in conformity with the equal
employment opportunity requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
of Executive Order 11246, as amended,
and 29 CFR part 30.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Subcontracts. The contractor or
subcontractor must insert in any
subcontracts the clauses contained in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (11) of this
section, along with the applicable wage
determination(s) and such other clauses
as the (write in the name of the Federal
agency) may by appropriate instructions
require, and also a clause requiring the
subcontractors to include these clauses
and wage determination(s) in any lower
tier subcontracts. The prime contractor
is responsible for the compliance by any
subcontractor or lower tier
subcontractor with all the contract
clauses in this section. In the event of
any violations of these clauses, the
prime contractor and any
subcontractor(s) responsible will be
liable for any unpaid wages and
monetary relief, including interest from
the date of the underpayment or loss,
due to any workers of lower-tier
subcontractors, and may be subject to
debarment, as appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Certification of eligibility. (i) By
entering into this contract, the
contractor certifies that neither it nor
any person or firm who has an interest
in the contractor’s firm is a person or
firm ineligible to be awarded
Government contracts by virtue of 40
U.S.C. 3144(b) or § 5.12(a) or (b).
(ii) No part of this contract shall be
subcontracted to any person or firm
ineligible for award of a Government
contract by virtue of 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)
or § 5.12(a) or (b).
(iii) The penalty for making false
statements is prescribed in the U.S.
Code, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal
Procedure, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(11) Anti-retaliation. It is unlawful for
any person to discharge, demote,
intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce,
blacklist, harass, or in any other manner
discriminate against, or to cause any
person to discharge, demote, intimidate,
threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
harass, or in any other manner
discriminate against, any worker or job
applicant for:
(i) Notifying any contractor of any
conduct which the worker reasonably
believes constitutes a violation of the
DBA, Related Acts, this part, or part 1
or 3 this subtitle;
(ii) Filing any complaint, initiating or
causing to be initiated any proceeding,
or otherwise asserting on behalf of
themselves or others any right or
protection under the DBA, Related Acts,
this part, or part 1 or 3 of this subtitle;
(iii) Cooperating in any investigation
or other compliance action, or testifying
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15797
in any proceeding under the DBA,
Related Acts, this part, or part 1 or 3 of
this subtitle; or
(iv) Informing any other person about
their rights under the DBA, Related
Acts, this part, or part 1 or 3 of this
subtitle.
(b) * * *
(2) Violation; liability for unpaid
wages; liquidated damages. In the event
of any violation of the clause set forth
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section the
contractor and any subcontractor
responsible therefor shall be liable for
the unpaid wages and interest from the
date of the underpayment. In addition,
such contractor and subcontractor shall
be liable to the United States (in the
case of work done under contract for the
District of Columbia or a territory, to
such District or to such territory), for
liquidated damages. Such liquidated
damages shall be computed with respect
to each individual laborer or mechanic,
including watchmen and guards,
employed in violation of the clause set
forth in paragraph (b)(1), in the sum of
$29 for each calendar day on which
such individual was required or
permitted to work in excess of the
standard workweek of forty hours
without payment of the overtime wages
required by the clause set forth in
paragraph (b)(1).
(3) Withholding for unpaid wages and
liquidated damages—(i) Withholding
process. The (write in the name of the
Federal agency or the loan or grant
recipient) must, upon its own action or
upon written request of an authorized
representative of the Department of
Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld
from the contractor under this contract
so much of the accrued payments or
advances as may be considered
necessary to satisfy the liabilities of the
prime contractor or any subcontractor
for unpaid wages and monetary relief,
including interest, required by the
clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(2) and
(5) of this section and liquidated
damages for violations of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section or to satisfy any
such liabilities required by any other
Federal contract, or federally assisted
contract subject to Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements, that is
held by the same prime contractor (as
defined in § 5.2). The necessary funds
may be withheld from the contractor
under this contract or any other Federal
contract with the same prime contractor,
or any other federally assisted contract
that is subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage requirements and is held by the
same prime contractor, regardless of
whether the other contract was awarded
or assisted by the same agency.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15798
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Priority to withheld funds. The
Department has priority to funds
withheld or to be withheld in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) or
(b)(3)(i) of this section, or both, over
claims to those funds by:
(A) A contractor’s surety(ies),
including without limitation
performance bond sureties and payment
bond sureties;
(B) A contracting agency for its
reprocurement costs;
(C) A trustee(s) (either a courtappointed trustee or a U.S. trustee, or
both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or
a contractor’s bankruptcy estate;
(D) A contractor’s assignee(s);
(E) A contractor’s successor(s); or
(F) A claim asserted under the Prompt
Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901–3907.
(4) Subcontracts. The contractor or
subcontractor must insert in any
subcontracts the clauses set forth in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section and also a clause requiring the
subcontractors to include these clauses
in any lower tier subcontracts. The
prime contractor is responsible for
compliance by any subcontractor or
lower tier subcontractor with the
clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5). In the event of any
violations of these clauses, the prime
contractor and any subcontractor(s)
responsible will be liable for any unpaid
wages and monetary relief, including
interest from the date of the
underpayment or loss, due to any
workers of lower-tier subcontractors,
and associated liquidated damages, and
may be subject to debarment, as
appropriate.
(5) Anti-retaliation. It is unlawful for
any person to discharge, demote,
intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce,
blacklist, harass, or in any other manner
discriminate against, or to cause any
person to discharge, demote, intimidate,
threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
harass, or in any other manner
discriminate against, any worker or job
applicant for:
(i) Notifying any contractor of any
conduct which the worker reasonably
believes constitutes a violation of the
Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (CWHSSA) or its
implementing regulations in this part;
(ii) Filing any complaint, initiating or
causing to be initiated any proceeding,
or otherwise asserting on behalf of
themselves or others any right or
protection under CWHSSA or part 5 of
this title;
(iii) Cooperating in any investigation
or other compliance action, or testifying
in any proceeding under CWHSSA or
this part; or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
(iv) Informing any other person about
their rights under CWHSSA or this part.
(c) CWHSSA payroll records clause.
In addition to the clauses contained in
paragraph (b) of this section, in any
contract subject only to the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and not to any of the other laws
referenced by § 5.1, the Agency Head
must cause or require the contracting
officer to insert a clause requiring that
the contractor or subcontractor must
maintain payrolls and basic payroll
records during the course of the work
and must preserve them for a period of
3 years after all the work on the prime
contract is completed for all laborers
and mechanics, including guards and
watchmen, working on the contract.
Such records must contain the name;
last known address, telephone number,
and email address; and social security
number of each such worker; each
worker’s correct classification(s) of work
actually performed; hourly rates of
wages paid; daily and weekly number of
hours actually worked; deductions
made; and actual wages paid. Further,
the Agency Head must cause or require
the contracting officer to insert in any
such contract a clause providing that the
records to be maintained under this
paragraph must be made available by
the contractor or subcontractor for
inspection, copying, or transcription by
authorized representatives of the (write
the name of agency) and the Department
of Labor, and the contractor or
subcontractor will permit such
representatives to interview workers
during working hours on the job.
(d) Incorporation of contract clauses
and wage determinations by reference.
Although agencies are required to insert
the contract clauses set forth in this
section, along with appropriate wage
determinations, in full into covered
contracts, and contractors and
subcontractors are required to insert
them in any lower-tier subcontracts, the
incorporation by reference of the
required contract clauses and
appropriate wage determinations will be
given the same force and effect as if they
were inserted in full text.
(e) Incorporation by operation of law.
The contract clauses set forth in this
section, along with the correct wage
determinations, will be considered to be
a part of every prime contract required
by the applicable statutes referenced by
§ 5.1 to include such clauses, and will
be effective by operation of law,
whether or not they are included or
incorporated by reference into such
contract, unless the Administrator
grants a variance, tolerance, or
exemption from the application of this
paragraph. Where the clauses and
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
applicable wage determinations are
effective by operation of law under this
paragraph, the prime contractor must be
compensated for any resulting increase
in wages in accordance with applicable
law.
■ 26. Revise § 5.6 to read as follows:
§ 5.6
Enforcement.
(a) Agency responsibilities. (1)(i) The
Federal agency has the initial
responsibility to ascertain whether the
clauses required by § 5.5 and the
appropriate wage determination(s) have
been incorporated into the contracts
subject to the labor standards provisions
of the laws referenced by § 5.1.
Additionally, a Federal agency that
provides Federal financial assistance
that is subject to the labor standards
provisions of the Act must promulgate
the necessary regulations or procedures
to require the recipient or sub-recipient
of the Federal assistance to insert in its
contracts the provisions of § 5.5. No
payment, advance, grant, loan, or
guarantee of funds will be approved by
the Federal agency unless it ensures that
the clauses required by § 5.5 and the
appropriate wage determination(s) are
incorporated into such contracts.
Furthermore, no payment, advance,
grant, loan, or guarantee of funds will be
approved by the Federal agency after the
beginning of construction unless there is
on file with the Federal agency a
certification by the contractor that the
contractor and its subcontractors have
complied with the provisions of § 5.5 or
unless there is on file with the Federal
agency a certification by the contractor
that there is a substantial dispute with
respect to the required provisions.
(ii) If a contract subject to the labor
standards provisions of the applicable
statutes referenced by § 5.1 is entered
into without the incorporation of the
clauses required by § 5.5, the agency
must, upon the request of the
Administrator or upon its own
initiative, either terminate and resolicit
the contract with the required contract
clauses, or incorporate the required
clauses into the contract (or ensure they
are so incorporated) through
supplemental agreement, change order,
or any and all authority that may be
needed. Where an agency has not
entered directly into such a contract but
instead has provided Federal financial
assistance, the agency must ensure that
the recipient or sub-recipient of the
Federal assistance similarly
incorporates the clauses required into
its contracts. The method of
incorporation of the correct wage
determination, and adjustment in
contract price, where appropriate,
should be in accordance with applicable
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
law. Additionally, the following
requirements apply:
(A) Unless the Administrator directs
otherwise, the incorporation of the
clauses required by § 5.5 must be
retroactive to the date of contract award
or start of construction if there is no
award.
(B) If this incorporation occurs as the
result of a request from the
Administrator, the incorporation must
take place within 30 days of the date of
that request, unless the agency has
obtained an extension from the
Administrator.
(C) The contractor must be
compensated for any increases in wages
resulting from incorporation of a
missing contract clauses.
(D) If the recipient refuses to
incorporate the clauses as required, the
agency must make no further payment,
advance, grant, loan, or guarantee of
funds in connection with the contract
until the recipient incorporates the
required clauses into its contract, and
must promptly refer the dispute to the
Administrator for further proceedings
under § 5.13.
(E) Before terminating a contract
pursuant to this section, the agency
must withhold or cross-withhold
sufficient funds to remedy any back
wage liability resulting from the failure
to incorporate the correct wage
determination or otherwise identify and
obligate sufficient funds through a
termination settlement agreement, bond,
or other satisfactory mechanism.
(F) Notwithstanding the requirement
to incorporate the contract clauses and
correct wage determination within 30
days, the contract clauses and correct
wage determination will be effective by
operation of law, retroactive to the
beginning of construction, in
accordance with § 5.5(e).
(2)(i) Certified payrolls submitted
pursuant to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii) must be
preserved by the Federal agency for a
period of 3 years after all the work on
the prime contract is completed, and
must be produced at the request of the
Department of Labor at any time during
the 3-year period, regardless of whether
the Department of Labor has initiated an
investigation or other compliance
action.
(ii) In situations where the Federal
agency does not itself maintain certified
payrolls required to be submitted
pursuant to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii), upon the
request of the Department of Labor the
Federal agency must ensure that such
certified payrolls are provided to the
Department of Labor. Such certified
payrolls may be provided by the
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other
entity, as the case may be, directly to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
Department of Labor, or to the Federal
agency which, in turn, must provide
those records to the Department of
Labor.
(3) The Federal agency will cause
such investigations to be made as may
be necessary to assure compliance with
the labor standards clauses required by
§ 5.5 and the applicable statutes
referenced in § 5.1. Investigations will
be made of all contracts with such
frequency as may be necessary to assure
compliance. Such investigations will
include interviews with workers, which
must be taken in confidence, and
examinations of certified payrolls,
regular payrolls, and other basic records
required to be maintained under
§ 5.5(a)(3). In making such
examinations, particular care must be
taken to determine the correctness of
classification(s) of work actually
performed, and to determine whether
there is a disproportionate amount of
work by laborers and of apprentices
registered in approved programs. Such
investigations must also include
evidence of fringe benefit plans and
payments thereunder. Federal agencies
must give priority to complaints of
alleged violations.
(4) In accordance with normal
operating procedures, the contracting
agency may be furnished various
investigatory material from the
investigation files of the Department of
Labor. None of the material, other than
computations of back wages, liquidated
damages, and monetary relief for
violations of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), and
the summary of back wages due, may be
disclosed in any manner to anyone
other than Federal officials charged with
administering the contract or program
providing Federal assistance to the
contract, without requesting the
permission and views of the Department
of Labor.
(b) Department of Labor investigations
and other compliance actions. (1) The
Administrator will investigate and
conduct other compliance actions as
deemed necessary in order to obtain
compliance with the labor standards
provisions of the applicable statutes
referenced by § 5.1, or to affirm or reject
the recommendations by the Agency
Head with respect to labor standards
matters arising under the statutes
referenced by § 5.1.
(2) Federal agencies, contractors,
subcontractors, sponsors, applicants,
owners, or other entities, as the case
may be, must cooperate with any
authorized representative of the
Department of Labor in the inspection of
records, in interviews with workers, and
in all other aspects of the investigations
or other compliance actions.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15799
(3) The findings of such an
investigation or other compliance
action, including amounts found due,
may not be altered or reduced without
the approval of the Department of Labor.
(4) Where the underpayments
disclosed by such an investigation or
other compliance action total $1,000 or
more, where there is reason to believe
that the contractor or subcontractor has
disregarded its obligations to workers or
subcontractors, or where liquidated
damages may be assessed under
CWHSSA, the Department of Labor will
furnish the Federal agency an
enforcement report detailing the labor
standards violations disclosed by the
investigation or other compliance action
and any action taken by the contractor
or subcontractor to correct the
violations, including any payment of
back wages or any other relief provided
workers or remedial actions taken for
violations of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5). In
other circumstances, the Federal agency
will be furnished a notification
summarizing the findings of the
investigation or other compliance
action.
(c) Confidentiality requirements. It is
the policy of the Department of Labor to
protect the identity of its confidential
sources and to prevent an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Accordingly, the identity of a worker or
other informant who makes a written or
oral statement as a complaint or in the
course of an investigation or other
compliance action, as well as portions
of the statement which would tend to
reveal the identity of the informant, will
not be disclosed in any manner to
anyone other than Federal officials
without the prior consent of the
informant. Disclosure of such
statements will be governed by the
provisions of the ‘‘Freedom of
Information Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552, see part
70 of this subtitle) and the ‘‘Privacy Act
of 1974’’ (5 U.S.C. 552a, see part 71 of
this subtitle).
■ 27. Amend § 5.7 by revising paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
§ 5.7
Reports to the Secretary of Labor.
(a) Enforcement reports. (1) Where
underpayments by a contractor or
subcontractor total less than $1,000,
where there is no reason to believe that
the contractor or subcontractor has
disregarded its obligations to workers or
subcontractors, and where restitution
has been effected and future compliance
assured, the Federal agency need not
submit its investigative findings and
recommendations to the Administrator,
unless the investigation or other
compliance action was made at the
request of the Department of Labor. In
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15800
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the latter case, the Federal agency will
submit a factual summary report
detailing any violations including any
data on the amount of restitution paid,
the number of workers who received
restitution, liquidated damages assessed
under the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act, corrective
measures taken (such as ‘‘letters of
notice’’ or remedial action taken for
violations of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5)), and
any information that may be necessary
to review any recommendations for an
appropriate adjustment in liquidated
damages under § 5.8.
(2) Where underpayments by a
contractor or subcontractor total $1,000
or more, or where there is reason to
believe that the contractor or
subcontractor has disregarded its
obligations to workers or subcontractors,
the Federal agency will furnish within
60 days after completion of its
investigation, a detailed enforcement
report to the Administrator.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 28. Revise § 5.9 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 5.9
Suspension of funds.
(a) Suspension and withholding. In
the event of failure or refusal of the
contractor or any subcontractor to
comply with the applicable statutes
referenced by § 5.1 and the labor
standards clauses contained in § 5.5,
whether incorporated into the contract
physically, by reference, or by operation
of law, the Federal agency, upon its own
action or upon written request of an
authorized representative of the
Department of Labor, must take such
action as may be necessary to cause the
suspension of the payment, advance, or
guarantee of funds until such time as
the violations are discontinued or until
sufficient funds are withheld to
compensate workers for the wages to
which they are entitled, any monetary
relief due for violations of § 5.5(a)(11) or
(b)(5), and to cover any liquidated
damages and pre-judgment or postjudgment interest which may be due.
(b) Cross-withholding. In addition to
the suspension and withholding of
funds from the contract under which the
violation(s) occurred, the necessary
funds also may be withheld under any
other Federal contract with the same
prime contractor, or any other federally
assisted contract that is subject to DavisBacon prevailing wage requirements
and is held by the same prime
contractor, regardless of whether the
other contract was awarded or assisted
by the same agency.
(c) Cross-withholding from different
legal entities. Cross-withholding of
funds may be requested from contracts
held by other entities that may be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
considered to be the same prime
contractor as that term is defined in
§ 5.2. Such cross-withholding is
appropriate where the separate legal
entities have independently consented
to it by entering into contracts
containing the withholding provisions
at § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3). Crosswithholding from a contract held by a
different legal entity is not appropriate
unless the withholding provisions were
incorporated in full or by reference in
that entity’s contract. Absent
exceptional circumstances, crosswithholding is not permitted from a
contract held by a different legal entity
where the labor standards were
incorporated only by operation of law
into that contract.
■ 29. Revise § 5.10 to read as follows:
§ 5.10
Restitution, criminal action.
(a) In cases other than those
forwarded to the Attorney General of the
United States under paragraph (b) of
this section where violations of the
labor standards clauses contained in
§ 5.5 and the applicable statutes
referenced by § 5.1 result in
underpayment of wages to workers or
monetary damages caused by violations
of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the Federal
agency or an authorized representative
of the Department of Labor will request
that restitution be made to such workers
or on their behalf to plans, funds, or
programs for any type of bona fide
fringe benefits within the meaning of 40
U.S.C. 3141(2)(B), including interest
from the date of the underpayment or
loss. Interest on any back wages or
monetary relief provided for in this part
will be calculated using the percentage
established for the underpayment of
taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be
compounded daily.
(b) In cases where the Agency Head or
the Administrator finds substantial
evidence that such violations are willful
and in violation of a criminal statute,
the matter will be forwarded to the
Attorney General of the United States
for prosecution if the facts warrant. In
all such cases the Administrator will be
informed simultaneously of the action
taken.
■ 30. Revise § 5.11 to read as follows:
§ 5.11 Disputes concerning payment of
wages.
(a) This section sets forth the
procedure for resolution of disputes of
fact or law concerning payment of
prevailing wage rates, overtime pay,
proper classification, or monetary relief
for violations of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5).
The procedures in this section may be
initiated upon the Administrator’s own
motion, upon referral of the dispute by
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a Federal agency pursuant to § 5.5(a)(9),
or upon request of the contractor or
subcontractor.
(b)(1) In the event of a dispute
described in paragraph (a) of this
section in which it appears that relevant
facts are at issue, the Administrator will
notify the affected contractor and
subcontractor, if any, by registered or
certified mail to the last known address
or by any other means normally
assuring delivery, of the investigation
findings. If the Administrator
determines that there is reasonable
cause to believe that either the
contractor, the subcontractor, or both,
should also be subject to debarment
under the Davis-Bacon Act or any of the
other applicable statutes referenced by
§ 5.1, the notification will so indicate.
(2) A contractor or subcontractor
desiring a hearing concerning the
Administrator’s investigation findings
must request such a hearing by letter or
by any other means normally assuring
delivery, sent within 30 days of the date
of the Administrator’s notification. The
request must set forth those findings
which are in dispute and the reasons
therefor, including any affirmative
defenses.
(3) Upon receipt of a timely request
for a hearing, the Administrator will
refer the case to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge by Order of
Reference, with an attached copy of the
notification from the Administrator and
the response of the contractor or
subcontractor, for designation of an
Administrative Law Judge to conduct
such hearings as may be necessary to
resolve the disputed matters. The
hearings will be conducted in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in part 6 of this subtitle.
(c)(1) In the event of a dispute
described in paragraph (a) of this
section in which it appears that there
are no relevant facts at issue, and where
there is not at that time reasonable cause
to institute debarment proceedings
under § 5.12, the Administrator will
notify the contractor and subcontractor,
if any, by registered or certified mail to
the last known address or by any other
means normally assuring delivery, of
the investigation findings, and will
issue a ruling on any issues of law
known to be in dispute.
(2)(i) If the contractor or subcontractor
disagrees with the factual findings of the
Administrator or believes that there are
relevant facts in dispute, the contractor
or subcontractor must advise the
Administrator by letter or by any other
means normally assuring delivery, sent
within 30 days of the date of the
Administrator’s notification. In the
response, the contractor or
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
subcontractor must explain in detail the
facts alleged to be in dispute and attach
any supporting documentation.
(ii) Upon receipt of a response under
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section
alleging the existence of a factual
dispute, the Administrator will examine
the information submitted. If the
Administrator determines that there is a
relevant issue of fact, the Administrator
will refer the case to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge in accordance
with paragraph (b)(3) of this section. If
the Administrator determines that there
is no relevant issue of fact, the
Administrator will so rule and advise
the contractor and subcontractor, if any,
accordingly.
(3) If the contractor or subcontractor
desires review of the ruling issued by
the Administrator under paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section, the
contractor or subcontractor must file a
petition for review thereof with the
Administrative Review Board within 30
days of the date of the ruling, with a
copy thereof the Administrator. The
petition for review must be filed in
accordance with part 7 of this subtitle.
(d) If a timely response to the
Administrator’s findings or ruling is not
made or a timely petition for review is
not filed, the Administrator’s findings or
ruling will be final, except that with
respect to debarment under the DavisBacon Act, the Administrator will
advise the Comptroller General of the
Administrator’s recommendation in
accordance with § 5.12(a)(2). If a timely
response or petition for review is filed,
the findings or ruling of the
Administrator will be inoperative unless
and until the decision is upheld by the
Administrative Law Judge or the
Administrative Review Board.
■ 31. Revise § 5.12 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 5.12
Debarment proceedings.
(a) Debarment standard and ineligible
list. (1) Whenever any contractor or
subcontractor is found by the Secretary
of Labor to have disregarded their
obligations to workers or subcontractors
under the Davis-Bacon Act, any of the
other applicable statutes referenced by
§ 5.1, this part, or part 3 of this subtitle,
such contractor or subcontractor and
their responsible officers, if any, and
any firm, corporation, partnership, or
association in which such contractor,
subcontractor, or responsible officer has
an interest will be ineligible for a period
of 3 years to be awarded any contract or
subcontract of the United States or the
District of Columbia and any contract or
subcontract subject to the labor
standards provisions of any of the
statutes referenced by § 5.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
(2) In cases arising under contracts
covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, the
Administrator will transmit to the
Comptroller General the name(s) of the
contractors or subcontractors and their
responsible officers, if any, and any
firms, corporations, partnerships, or
associations in which the contractors,
subcontractors, or responsible officers
are known to have an interest, who have
been found to have disregarded their
obligations to workers or subcontractors,
and the recommendation of the
Secretary of Labor or authorized
representative regarding debarment. In
cases arising under contracts covered by
any of the applicable statutes referenced
by § 5.1 other than the Davis-Bacon Act,
the Administrator determines the
name(s) of the contractors or
subcontractors and their responsible
officers, if any, and any firms,
corporations, partnerships, or
associations in which the contractors,
subcontractors, or responsible officers
are known to have an interest, to be
debarred. The Comptroller General will
distribute a list to all Federal agencies
giving the names of such ineligible
person or firms, who will be ineligible
for a period of 3 years (from the date of
publication by the Comptroller General
of the name(s) of any such person or
firm on the ineligible list) to be awarded
any contract or subcontract of the
United States or the District of Columbia
and any contract or subcontract subject
to the labor standards provisions of any
of the statutes referenced by § 5.1.
(b) Procedure. (1) In addition to cases
under which debarment action is
initiated pursuant to § 5.11, whenever as
a result of an investigation conducted by
the Federal agency or the Department of
Labor, and where the Administrator
finds reasonable cause to believe that a
contractor or subcontractor has
committed violations which constitute a
disregard of its obligations to workers or
subcontractors under the Davis-Bacon
Act, the labor standards provisions of
any of the other applicable statutes
referenced by § 5.1, this part, or part 3
of this subtitle, the Administrator will
notify by registered or certified mail to
the last known address or by any other
means normally assuring delivery, the
contractor or subcontractor and
responsible officers, if any, and any
firms, corporations, partnerships, or
associations in which the contractors,
subcontractors, or responsible officers
are known to have an interest of the
finding.
(i) The Administrator will afford such
contractor, subcontractor, responsible
officer, and any other parties notified an
opportunity for a hearing as to whether
debarment action should be taken under
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15801
paragraph (a) of this section. The
Administrator will furnish to those
notified a summary of the investigative
findings.
(ii) If the contractor, subcontractor,
responsible officer, or any other parties
notified wish to request a hearing as to
whether debarment action should be
taken, such a request must be made by
letter or by any other means normally
assuring delivery, sent within 30 days of
the date of the notification from the
Administrator, and must set forth any
findings which are in dispute and the
basis for such disputed findings,
including any affirmative defenses to be
raised.
(iii) Upon timely receipt of such
request for a hearing, the Administrator
will refer the case to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge by Order of
Reference, with an attached copy of the
notification from the Administrator and
the responses of the contractor,
subcontractor, responsible officers, or
any other parties notified, for
designation of an Administrative Law
Judge to conduct such hearings as may
be necessary to determine the matters in
dispute.
(iv) In considering debarment under
any of the statutes referenced by § 5.1
other than the Davis-Bacon Act, the
Administrative Law Judge will issue an
order concerning whether the
contractor, subcontractor, responsible
officer, or any other party notified is to
be debarred in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section. In
considering debarment under the DavisBacon Act, the Administrative Law
Judge will issue a recommendation as to
whether the contractor, subcontractor,
responsible officers, or any other party
notified should be debarred under 40
U.S.C. 3144(b).
(2) Hearings under this section will be
conducted in accordance with part 6 of
this subtitle. If no hearing is requested
within 30 days of the date of the
notification from the Administrator, the
Administrator’s findings will be final,
except with respect to recommendations
regarding debarment under the DavisBacon Act, as set forth in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(c) Interests of debarred parties. (1) A
finding as to whether persons or firms
whose names appear on the ineligible
list have an interest under 40 U.S.C.
3144(b) or paragraph (a) of this section
in any other firm, corporation,
partnership, or association, may be
made through investigation, hearing, or
otherwise.
(2)(i) The Administrator, on their own
motion or after receipt of a request for
a determination pursuant to paragraph
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
15802
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(c)(3) of this section may make a finding
on the issue of interest.
(ii) If the Administrator determines
that there may be an interest, but finds
that there is insufficient evidence to
render a final ruling thereon, the
Administrator may refer the issue to the
Chief Administrative Law Judge in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
(iii) If the Administrator finds that no
interest exists, or that there is not
sufficient information to warrant the
initiation of an investigation, the
requesting party, if any, will be so
notified and no further action taken.
(iv)(A) If the Administrator finds that
an interest exists, the person or firm
affected will be notified of the
Administrator’s finding (by certified
mail to the last known address or by any
other means normally assuring
delivery), which will include the
reasons therefore, and such person or
firm will be afforded an opportunity to
request that a hearing be held to decide
the issue.
(B) Such person or firm will have 20
days from the date of the
Administrator’s ruling to request a
hearing. A person or firm desiring a
hearing must request it by letter or by
any other means normally assuring
delivery, sent within 20 days of the date
of the Administrator’s notification. A
detailed statement of the reasons why
the Administrator’s ruling is in error,
including facts alleged to be in dispute,
if any, must be submitted with the
request for a hearing.
(C) If no hearing is requested within
the time mentioned in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, the
Administrator’s finding will be final and
the Administrator will notify the
Comptroller General in cases arising
under the DBA. If a hearing is requested,
the ruling of the Administrator will be
inoperative unless and until the
administrative law judge or the
Administrative Review Board issues an
order that there is an interest.
(3)(i) A request for a determination of
interest may be made by any interested
party, including contractors or
prospective contractors and associations
of contractors, representatives of
workers, and interested agencies. Such
a request must be submitted in writing
to the Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210.
(ii) The request must include a
statement setting forth in detail why the
petitioner believes that a person or firm
whose name appears on the ineligible
list has an interest in any firm,
corporation, partnership, or association
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
which is seeking or has been awarded
a contract or subcontract of the United
States or the District of Columbia, or a
contract or subcontract that is subject to
the labor standards provisions of any of
the statutes referenced by § 5.1. No
particular form is prescribed for the
submission of a request under this
section.
(4) The Administrator, on their own
motion under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this
section or upon a request for hearing
where the Administrator determines
that relevant facts are in dispute, will by
order refer the issue to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, for
designation of an Administrative Law
Judge who will conduct such hearings
as may be necessary to render a decision
solely on the issue of interest. Such
proceedings must be conducted in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in part 6 of this subtitle.
(5) If the person or firm affected
requests a hearing and the
Administrator determines that relevant
facts are not in dispute, the
Administrator will refer the issue and
the record compiled thereon to the
Administrative Review Board to render
a decision solely on the issue of interest.
Such proceeding must be conducted in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in part 7 of this subtitle.
■ 32. Revise § 5.13 to read as follows:
§ 5.13
Rulings and interpretations.
(a) All questions relating to the
application and interpretation of wage
determinations (including the
classifications therein) issued pursuant
to part 1 of this subtitle, of the rules
contained in this part and in parts 1 and
3 of this subtitle, and of the labor
standards provisions of any of the
statutes listed in § 5.1 must be referred
to the Administrator for appropriate
ruling or interpretation. These rulings
and interpretations are authoritative and
those under the Davis-Bacon Act may be
relied upon as provided for in section
10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29
U.S.C. 259). Requests for such rulings
and interpretations should be submitted
via email to dba.rulingrequest@dol.gov;
by mail to Administrator, Wage and
Hour Division, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20210; or through other
means directed by the Administrator.
(b) If any such ruling or interpretation
is made by an authorized representative
of the Administrator of the Wage and
Hour Division, any interested party may
seek reconsideration of the ruling or
interpretation by the Administrator of
the Wage and Hour Division. The
procedures and time limits set out in
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1.8 of this subtitle apply to any such
request for reconsideration.
■ 33. Amend § 5.15 by revising
paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 5.15 Limitations, variations, tolerances,
and exemptions under the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4)(i) Time spent in an organized
program of related, supplemental
instruction by laborers or mechanics
employed under bona fide
apprenticeship programs may be
excluded from working time if the
criteria prescribed in paragraphs
(c)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section are met.
(ii) The apprentice comes within the
definition contained in § 5.2.
(iii) The time in question does not
involve productive work or performance
of the apprentice’s regular duties.
(d) * * *
(1) In the event of failure or refusal of
the contractor or any subcontractor to
comply with overtime pay requirements
of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act, if the funds withheld by
Federal agencies for the violations are
not sufficient to pay fully the unpaid
wages and any back pay or other
monetary relief due laborers and
mechanics, with interest, and the
liquidated damages due the United
States, the available funds will be used
first to compensate the laborers and
mechanics for the wages to which they
are entitled (or an equitable portion
thereof when the funds are not adequate
for this purpose); and the balance, if
any, will be used for the payment of
liquidated damages.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 5.16
■
[Removed and Reserved]
34. Remove and reserve § 5.16.
§ 5.17
[Removed and Reserved]
35. Remove and reserve § 5.17.
36. Add § 5.18 to subpart A to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 5.18
Remedies for retaliation.
(a) Administrator request to remedy
violation. When the Administrator finds
that any person has discriminated in
any way against any worker or job
applicant in violation of § 5.5(a)(11) or
(b)(5), or caused any person to
discriminate in any way against any
worker or job applicant in violation of
§ 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the Administrator
will notify the person, any contractors
for whom the person worked or on
whose behalf the person acted, and any
upper tier contractors, as well as the
relevant contracting agency(ies) of the
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
discrimination and request that the
person and any contractors for whom
the person worked or on whose behalf
the person acted remedy the violation.
(b) Administrator directive to remedy
violation and provide make whole relief.
If the person and any contractors for
whom the person worked or on whose
behalf the person acted do not remedy
the violation, the Administrator in the
notification of violation findings issued
under § 5.11 or § 5.12 will direct the
person and any contractors for whom
the person worked or on whose behalf
the person acted to provide appropriate
make whole relief to affected worker(s)
and job applicant(s) or take appropriate
remedial action, or both, to correct the
violation, and will specify the particular
relief and remedial actions to be taken.
(c) Examples of available make whole
relief and remedial actions. Such relief
and remedial actions may include, but
are not limited to, employment,
reinstatement, and promotion, together
with back pay and interest; restoration
of the terms, conditions, and privileges
of the worker’s employment or former
employment; the expungement of
warnings, reprimands, or derogatory
references; the provision of a neutral
employment reference; and the posting
of a notice to workers that the contractor
or subcontractor agrees to comply with
the Davis-Bacon Act and Related Acts
anti-retaliation requirements.
■ 37. Revise § 5.20 to read as follows:
particular problem in this subpart or in
interpretations supplementing it should
not be taken to indicate the adoption of
any position by the Secretary of Labor
with respect to such problem or to
constitute an administrative
interpretation, practice, or enforcement
policy. Questions on matters not fully
covered by this subpart may be referred
to the Secretary for interpretation as
provided in § 5.13.
■ 38. Revise § 5.22 to read as follows:
§ 5.20 Scope and significance of this
subpart.
§ 5.23
The 1964 amendments (Pub. L. 88–
349) to the Davis-Bacon Act require,
among other things, that the prevailing
wage determined for Federal and
federally assisted construction include
the basic hourly rate of pay and the
amount contributed by the contractor or
subcontractor for certain fringe benefits
(or the cost to them of such benefits).
The purpose of this subpart is to explain
the provisions of these amendments.
This subpart makes available in one
place official interpretations of the
fringe benefits provisions of the DavisBacon Act. These interpretations will
guide the Department of Labor in
carrying out its responsibilities under
these provisions. These interpretations
are intended also for the guidance of
contractors, their associations, laborers
and mechanics and their organizations,
and local, State and Federal agencies,
who may be concerned with these
provisions of the law. The
interpretations contained in this subpart
are authoritative and may be relied
upon as provided for in section 10 of the
Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.
259). The omission to discuss a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
§ 5.22 Effect of the Davis-Bacon fringe
benefits provisions.
The Davis-Bacon Act and the
prevailing wage provisions of the
statutes referenced in § 1.1 of this
subtitle confer upon the Secretary of
Labor the authority to predetermine, as
minimum wages, those wage rates found
to be prevailing for corresponding
classes of laborers and mechanics
employed on projects of a character
similar to the contract work in the area
in which the work is to be performed.
See the definitions of the terms
‘‘prevailing wage’’ and ‘‘area’’ in § 1.2 of
this subtitle. The fringe benefits
amendments enlarge the scope of this
authority by including certain bona fide
fringe benefits within the meaning of
the terms ‘‘wages’’, ‘‘scale of wages’’,
‘‘wage rates’’, ‘‘minimum wages’’, and
‘‘prevailing wages’’, as used in the
Davis-Bacon Act.
■ 39. Revise § 5.23 to read as follows:
The statutory provisions.
Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, as
amended and codified at 40 U.S.C.
3141(2), the term ‘‘prevailing wages’’
and similar terms include the basic
hourly rate of pay and, for the listed
fringe benefits and other bona fide
fringe benefits not required by other
law, the contributions irrevocably made
by a contractor or subcontractor to a
trustee or third party pursuant to a bona
fide fringe benefit fund, plan, or
program, and the costs to the contractor
or subcontractor that may be reasonably
anticipated in providing bona fide fringe
benefits pursuant to an enforceable
commitment to carry out a financially
responsible plan or program, which was
communicated in writing to the affected
laborers and mechanics. Section 5.29
discusses specific fringe benefits that
may be considered to be bona fide.
■ 40. Amend § 5.25 by adding paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
§ 5.25 Rate of contribution or cost for
fringe benefits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Contractors must annualize all
fringe benefit contributions to determine
the hourly equivalent for which they
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15803
may take credit against their fringe
benefit obligation.
(1) Method of computation. To
annualize the cost of providing a fringe
benefit, a contractor must divide the
cost of the fringe benefit by the total
number of hours worked on DavisBacon and non-Davis-Bacon work
during the time period to which the cost
is attributable to determine the rate of
contribution per hour. If the amount of
contribution varies per worker, credit
must be determined separately for the
amount contributed on behalf of each
worker.
(2) Exceptions requests. Contractors
and other interested parties may request
an exception from the annualization
requirement by submitting a request to
the WHD Administrator. Requests must
be submitted in writing to the Division
of Government Contracts Enforcement
via email at DBAannualization@dol.gov
or by mail to Director, Division of
Government Contracts Enforcement,
Wage and Hour Division, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave., NW, Room S–3502, Washington,
DC 20210. A request for exception must
demonstrate the fringe benefit plan in
question meets the following three
factors:
(i) The benefit provided is not
continuous in nature; and
(ii) The benefit does not compensate
both private and public work; and
(iii) The plan provides for immediate
participation and essentially immediate
vesting.
(3) Previous exceptions. In the event
that a fringe benefit plan (including a
defined contribution pension plan with
immediate participation and immediate
vesting) was excepted from the
annualization requirement prior to the
effective date of these regulations, the
plan’s exception will expire 18 months
from the effective date of these
regulations, unless an exception for the
plan has been requested and received by
that date under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
■ 41. Revise § 5.26 to read as follows:
§ 5.26 ‘‘* * * contribution irrevocably made
* * * to a trustee or to a third person’’.
(a) Requirements. The following
requirements apply to any fringe benefit
contributions made to a trustee or to a
third person pursuant to a fund, plan, or
program:
(1) Such contributions must be made
irrevocably;
(2) The trustee or third person may
not be affiliated with the contractor or
subcontractor;
(3) The trustee or third person must
adhere to any fiduciary responsibilities
applicable under law; and
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
15804
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(4) The trust or fund must not permit
the contractor or subcontractor to
recapture any of the contributions paid
in or any way divert the funds to its
own use or benefit.
(b) Excess payments. Notwithstanding
the above, a contractor or subcontractor
may recover sums which it had paid to
a trustee or third person in excess of the
contributions actually called for by the
plan, such as excess payments made in
error or in order to cover the estimated
cost of contributions at a time when the
exact amount of the necessary
contributions is not yet known. For
example, a benefit plan may provide for
definite insurance benefits for
employees in the event of contingencies
such as death, sickness, or accident,
with the cost of such definite benefits
borne by the contractor or
subcontractor. In such a case, if the
insurance company returns the amount
that the contractor or subcontractor paid
in excess of the amount required to
provide the benefits, this will not be
deemed a recapture or diversion by the
employer of contributions made
pursuant to the plan. (See Report of the
Senate Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, S. Rep. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2d
Sess., p. 5.)
■ 42. Revise § 5.28 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 5.28
Unfunded plans.
(a) The costs to a contractor or
subcontractor which may be reasonably
anticipated in providing benefits of the
types described in the Act, pursuant to
an enforceable commitment to carry out
a financially responsible plan or
program, are considered fringe benefits
within the meaning of the Act (see 40
U.S.C. 3141(2)(B)(ii)). The legislative
history suggests that these provisions
were intended to permit the
consideration of fringe benefits meeting
these requirements, among others, and
which are provided from the general
assets of a contractor or subcontractor.
(Report of the House Committee on
Education and Labor, H. Rep. No. 308,
88th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4.; see also S.
Rep. No. 963, p. 6.)
(b) Such a benefit plan or program,
commonly referred to as an unfunded
plan, may not constitute a fringe benefit
within the meaning of the Act unless:
(1) It could be reasonably anticipated
to provide the benefits described in the
Act;
(2) It represents a commitment that
can be legally enforced;
(3) It is carried out under a financially
responsible plan or program;
(4) The plan or program providing the
benefits has been communicated in
writing to the laborers and mechanics
affected; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
(5) The contractor or subcontractor
requests and receives approval of the
plan or program from the Secretary, as
described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c) To receive approval of an
unfunded plan or program, a contractor
or subcontractor must demonstrate in its
request to the Secretary that the
unfunded plan or program, and the
benefits provided under such plan or
program, are ‘‘bona fide,’’ meet the
requirements set forth in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section, and are
otherwise consistent with the Act. The
request must include sufficient
documentation to enable the Secretary
to evaluate these criteria. Contractors
and subcontractors may request
approval of an unfunded plan or
program by submitting a written request
in one of the following manners:
(1) By mail to the United States
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour
Division, Director, Division of
Government Contracts Enforcement, 200
Constitution Ave., NW, Room S–3502,
Washington, DC 20210;
(2) By email to unfunded@dol.gov (or
its successor email address); or
(3) By any other means directed by
the Administrator.
(d) Unfunded plans or programs may
not be used as a means of avoiding the
Act’s requirements. The words
‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ require that
any unfunded plan or program be able
to withstand a test of actuarial
soundness. Moreover, as in the case of
other fringe benefits payable under the
Act, an unfunded plan or program must
be ‘‘bona fide’’ and not a mere
simulation or sham for avoiding
compliance with the Act. To prevent
these provisions from being used to
avoid compliance with the Act, the
Secretary may direct a contractor or
subcontractor to set aside in an account
assets which, under sound actuarial
principles, will be sufficient to meet
future obligations under the plan. Such
an account must be preserved for the
purpose intended. (S. Rep. No. 963, p.
6.)
■ 43. Amend § 5.29 by revising
paragraph (e) and adding paragraph (g)
to read as follows:
§ 5.29
Specific fringe benefits.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Where the plan is not of the
conventional type described in the
preceding paragraph (d) of this section,
the Secretary must examine the facts
and circumstances to determine
whether fringe benefits under the plan
are ‘‘bona fide’’ in accordance with
requirements of the Act. This is
particularly true with respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unfunded plans discussed in § 5.28.
Contractors or subcontractors seeking
credit under the Act for costs incurred
for such plans must request specific
approval from the Secretary under
§ 5.5(a)(1)(iv).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) For a contractor or subcontractor to
take credit for the costs of an
apprenticeship program, it must meet
the following requirements:
(1) The program, in addition to
meeting all other relevant requirements
for fringe benefits in this subpart, must
be registered with the Department of
Labor’s Employment and Training
Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship (‘‘OA’’), or with a State
Apprenticeship Agency recognized by
the OA.
(2) The contractor or subcontractor
may only take credit for the actual costs
incurred for the apprenticeship
program, such as instruction, books, and
tools or materials; it may not take credit
for voluntary contributions beyond the
costs actually incurred for the
apprenticeship program.
(3) Costs incurred for the
apprenticeship for one classification of
laborer or mechanic may not be used to
offset costs incurred for another
classification.
(4) In applying the annualization
principle to compute the allowable
fringe benefit credit pursuant to § 5.25,
the total number of working hours of
employees to which the cost of an
apprenticeship program is attributable is
limited to the total number of hours
worked by laborers and mechanics in
the apprentice’s classification. For
example, if a contractor enrolls an
employee in an apprenticeship program
for carpenters, the permissible hourly
Davis-Bacon credit is determined by
dividing the cost of the program by the
total number of hours worked by the
contractor’s carpenters and carpenters’
apprentices on covered and non-covered
projects during the time period to which
the cost is attributable, and such credit
may only be applied against the
contractor’s prevailing wage obligations
for all carpenters and carpenters’
apprentices for each hour worked on the
covered project.
■ 44. Revise § 5.30 to read as follows:
§ 5.30
Types of wage determinations.
(a) When fringe benefits are prevailing
for various classes of laborers and
mechanics in the area of proposed
construction, such benefits are
includable in any Davis-Bacon wage
determination. The illustrations
contained in paragraph (c) of this
section demonstrate how fringe benefits
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
may be listed on wage determinations in
such cases.
(b) Wage determinations do not
include fringe benefits for various
classes of laborers and mechanics
Classification
whenever such benefits do not prevail
in the area of proposed construction.
When this occurs, the wage
determination will contain only the
basic hourly rates of pay which are
Rate
Bricklayer ..................................................
Electrician .................................................
Elevator mechanic ....................................
$21.96
47.65
48.60
Ironworker, structural ................................
Laborer: Common or general ...................
Operator: Bulldozer ...................................
Plumber (excludes HVAC duct, pipe and
unit installation).
32.00
15.21
15.40
38.38
15805
prevailing for the various classes of
laborers and mechanics. An illustration
of this situation is contained in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Illustrations:
Fringes
$0.00.
3%+$14.88.
$35.825+a+b.
a. Paid Holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and the Friday after Thanksgiving.
b. Vacations: Employer contributes 8% of basic hourly rate for 5 years or more of
service; 6% of basic hourly rate for 6 months to 5 years of service as vacation
pay credit.
12.01.
4.54.
1.90.
16.67.
Note 1 to paragraph (c): (This format is not necessarily in the exact form in which determinations will issue; it is for illustration only.)
■
45. Revise § 5.31 to read as follows:
§ 5.31 Meeting wage determination
obligations.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(a) A contractor or subcontractor
performing work subject to a DavisBacon wage determination may
discharge their minimum wage
obligations for the payment of both
straight time wages and fringe benefits
by paying in cash, making payments or
incurring costs for ‘‘bona fide’’ fringe
benefits of the types listed in the
applicable wage determination or
otherwise found prevailing by the
Secretary of Labor, or by a combination
thereof.
(b) A contractor or subcontractor may
discharge their obligations for the
payment of the basic hourly rates and
the fringe benefits where both are
contained in a wage determination
applicable to their laborers or
mechanics in the following ways:
(1) By paying not less than the basic
hourly rate to the laborers or mechanics
and by making contributions for ‘‘bona
fide’’ fringe benefits in a total amount
not less than the total of the fringe
benefits required by the wage
determination. For example, the
obligations for ‘‘Laborer: common or
general’’ in the illustration in § 5.30(c)
will be met by the payment of a straight
time hourly rate of not less than $15.21
and by contributions of not less than a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:42 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
total of $4.54 an hour for ‘‘bona fide’’
fringe benefits; or
(2) By paying in cash directly to
laborers or mechanics for the basic
hourly rate and by making an additional
cash payment in lieu of the required
benefits. For example, where an
employer does not make payments or
incur costs for fringe benefits, they
would meet their obligations for
‘‘Laborer: common or general’’ in the
illustration in § 5.30(c), by paying
directly to the laborers a straight time
hourly rate of not less than $19.75
($15.21 basic hourly rate plus $4.54 for
fringe benefits); or
(3) As stated in paragraph (a) of this
section, the contractor or subcontractor
may discharge their minimum wage
obligations for the payment of straight
time wages and fringe benefits by a
combination of the methods illustrated
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) of this
section. Thus, for example, their
obligations for ‘‘Laborer: common or
general’’ may be met by an hourly rate,
partly in cash and partly in payments or
costs for fringe benefits which total not
less than $19.75 ($15.21 basic hourly
rate plus $4.54 for fringe benefits).
■ 46. Add § 5.33 to read as follows:
§ 5.33 Administrative expenses of a
contractor or subcontractor.
Administrative expenses incurred by
a contractor or subcontractor in
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
connection with the administration of a
fringe benefit plan are not creditable as
fringe benefits. For example, a
contractor or subcontractor may not take
credit for the cost of an office employee
who fills out medical insurance claim
forms for submission to an insurance
carrier.
■ 47. Add subpart C, consisting of
§ 5.40, to read as follows:
Subpart C—Severability
§ 5.40
Severability.
The provisions of this part are
separate and severable and operate
independently from one another. If any
provision of this part is held to be
invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or
as applied to any person or
circumstance, or stayed pending further
agency action, the provision is to be
construed so as to continue to give the
maximum effect to the provision
permitted by law, unless such holding
is one of utter invalidity or
unenforceability, in which event the
provision is severable from this part and
will not affect the remaining provisions.
Signed this 9th day of March, 2022.
Jessica Looman,
Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division.
[FR Doc. 2022–05346 Filed 3–17–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–27–P
E:\FR\FM\18MRP3.SGM
18MRP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15698-15805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05346]
[[Page 15697]]
Vol. 87
Friday,
No. 53
March 18, 2022
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1, 3, and 5
Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15698]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Parts 1, 3, and 5
RIN 1235-AA40
Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations
AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) proposes to amend
regulations issued under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts that set
forth rules for the administration and enforcement of the Davis-Bacon
labor standards that apply to Federal and federally assisted
construction projects. As the first comprehensive regulatory review in
nearly 40 years, the Department believes that revisions to these
regulations are needed to provide greater clarity and enhance their
usefulness in the modern economy.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on or before May 17, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA40, by either of the following methods:
Electronic Comments: Submit comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Address written submissions to: Division of
Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210.
Instructions: Response to this NPRM is voluntary. The Department
requests that no business proprietary information, copyrighted
information, or personally identifiable information be submitted in
response to this NPRM. Commenters submitting file attachments on
https://www.regulations.gov are advised that uploading text-recognized
documents--i.e., documents in a native file format or documents which
have undergone optical character recognition (OCR)--enable staff at the
Department to more easily search and retrieve specific content included
in your comment for consideration.
Anyone who submits a comment (including duplicate comments) should
understand and expect that the comment will become a matter of public
record and will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. The
Wage and Hour Division (WHD) posts comments gathered and submitted by a
third-party organization as a group under a single document ID number
on https://www.regulations.gov. All comments must be received by 11:59
p.m. on May 17, 2022, for consideration in this rulemaking; comments
received after the comment period closes will not be considered.
The Department strongly recommends that commenters submit their
comments electronically via https://www.regulations.gov to ensure
timely receipt prior to the close of the comment period, as the
Department continues to experience delays in the receipt of mail.
Please submit only one copy of your comments by only one method.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy DeBisschop, Director, Division of
Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-
free number). Copies of this proposal may be obtained in alternative
formats (Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an
MP3 file, large print, braille, audiotape, compact disc, or other
accessible format), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is
not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-877-889-
5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation or enforcement of the agency's existing
regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate
the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866)
4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time
zone, or log onto WHD's website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/contact/local-offices for a nationwide listing of WHD district and area
offices.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
In order to provide greater clarity and enhance their usefulness in
the modern economy, the Department proposes to update and modernize the
regulations at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5, which implement the Davis-
Bacon Act and the Davis-Bacon Related Acts (collectively, the DBRA).
The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA or Act), enacted in 1931, requires the payment
of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits on Federal contracts
for construction. See 40 U.S.C. 3142. The DBA applies to workers on
contracts entered into by Federal agencies and the District of Columbia
that are in excess of $2,000 and for the construction, alteration, or
repair of public buildings or public works. Congress subsequently
incorporated DBA prevailing wage requirements into numerous statutes
(referred to as ``Related Acts'') under which Federal agencies assist
construction projects through grants, loans, loan guarantees,
insurance, and other methods.
The Supreme Court has described the DBA as ``a minimum wage law
designed for the benefit of construction workers.'' United States v.
Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U.S. 171, 178 (1954). The Act's purpose is
``to protect local wage standards by preventing contractors from basing
their bids on wages lower than those prevailing in the area.''
Universities Research Ass'n, Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754, 773 (1981)
(quoting H. Comm. on Educ. and Lab., Legislative History of the Davis-
Bacon Act, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (Comm. Print 1962)). By requiring
the payment of minimum prevailing wages, Congress sought to ``ensure
that Government construction and federally assisted construction would
not be conducted at the expense of depressing local wage standards.''
Determination of Wage Rates Under the Davis-Bacon & Serv. Cont. Acts, 5
Op. O.L.C. 174, 176 (1981) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1981/06/31/op-olc-v005-p0174_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has delegated authority to the Department to issue
prevailing wage determinations and prescribe rules and regulations for
contractors and subcontractors on DBA-covered construction projects.\2\
See 40 U.S.C. 3142, 3145. It has also directed the Department, through
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, to ``prescribe appropriate
standards, regulations and procedures'' to be observed by Federal
agencies responsible for the administration of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts. 5 U.S.C. app. 1, effective May 24, 1950, 15 FR 3176, 64
Stat. 1267. These regulations, which have been updated and revised
periodically over time, are primarily located in parts 1, 3,
[[Page 15699]]
and 5 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The DBA and the Related Acts apply to both prime contracts
and subcontracts of any tier thereunder. In this NPRM, as in the
regulations themselves, where the terms ``contracts'' or
``contractors'' are used, they are intended to include reference to
subcontracts and subcontractors of any tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department last engaged in a comprehensive revision of the
regulations governing the DBA and the Related Acts in a 1981-1982
rulemaking.\3\ Since that time, Congress has expanded the reach of the
Davis-Bacon labor standards significantly, adding numerous new Related
Act statutes to which these regulations apply. The Davis-Bacon Act and
now 71 active Related Acts \4\ collectively apply to an estimated $217
billion in Federal and federally assisted construction spending per
year and provide minimum wage rates for an estimated 1.2 million U.S.
construction workers.\5\ The Department expects these numbers to
continue to grow as Federal and State governments seek to address the
significant infrastructure needs of the country, including, in
particular, the energy and transportation infrastructure necessary to
mitigate climate change.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 46 FR 41444 (NPRM); 47 FR 23644 (final rule); 48 FR
19532 (revised final rule).
\4\ The Department maintains a list of the Related Acts at [cite
website address].
\5\ These estimates are discussed below in section V (Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review et al.).
\6\ See Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad, Sec. 206 (Jan. 27, 2021), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the expansion of the prevailing wage rate
requirements of the DBA and the Related Acts, the Federal contracting
system itself has undergone significant changes since the 1981-1982
rulemaking. Federal agencies have dramatically increased spending
through interagency Federal schedules such as the Multiple Award
Schedule (MAS). Contractors have increased their use of single-purpose
entities, such as joint ventures and teaming agreements, in
construction contracts with Federal, State and local governments.
Federal procurement regulations have been overhauled and consolidated
in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which contains a
subsection on the Davis-Bacon Act and related contract clauses. See 48
CFR 22.400 et seq. Court and agency administrative decisions have
developed and clarified myriad aspects of the laws governing Federal
procurement.
During the past 40 years, the Department's DBRA program also has
continued to evolve. Where the program initially was focused on
individual project-specific wage determinations, contracting agencies
now incorporate the Department's general wage determinations for the
construction type in the locality in which the construction project is
to occur. The program also now uniformly uses wage surveys to develop
general wage determinations, eliminating an earlier practice of
developing wage determinations based solely on other evidence about the
general level of unionization in the targeted area. In a 2006 decision,
the Department's Administrative Review Board (ARB) identified several
survey-related wage determination procedures then in effect as
inconsistent with the regulatory language that had resulted from the
1981-1982 rulemaking. See Mistick Construction, ARB No. 04-051, 2006 WL
861357, at *5-7 (Mar. 31, 2006).\7\ As a consequence of these
developments, the use of averages of wage rates from survey responses
has increasingly become the methodology used to issue new wage
determinations--notwithstanding the Department's long-held
interpretation that the DBA allows the use of such averages only as a
methodology of last resort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Decisions of the ARB from 1996 to the present are available
on the Department's website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/arb/decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has also received significant feedback from
stakeholders and others since the last comprehensive rulemaking. In a
2011 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the
Department's wage survey and wage determination process and found that
the Department was often behind schedule in completing wage surveys,
leading to a backlog of wage determinations and the use of out-of-date
wage determinations in some areas.\8\ The report also identified
dissatisfaction among regulated parties regarding the rigidity of the
Department's county-based system for identifying prevailing rates,\9\
and missing wage rates requiring an overuse of ``conformances'' for
wage rates for specific job classifications.\10\ A 2019 report from the
Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) made similar
findings regarding out-of-date wage determinations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-11-152, Davis-Bacon
Act: Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey (2011)
(2011 GAO Report), at 12-19, available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-152.
\9\ Id. at 23-24.
\10\ Id. at 32-33.
\11\ See Department of Labor, Office of the Inspector General,
Better Strategies Are Needed to Improve the Timeliness and Accuracy
of Davis-Bacon Act Prevailing Wage Rates (2019) (OIG Report), at 10,
available at: https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/04-19-001-Davis%20Bacon.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that construction workers are paid the wages required
under the DBRA also requires effective enforcement in addition to an
efficient wage determination process. In the last decade, enforcement
efforts at the Department have resulted in the recovery of more than
$213 million in back wages for over 84,000 workers.\12\ But the
Department has also encountered significant enforcement challenges.
Among the most critical of these is the omission of DBRA contract
clauses from contracts that are clearly covered by the DBRA. In one
recent case, a contracting agency agreed with the Department that a
blanket purchase agreement (BPA) it had entered into with a contractor
had mistakenly omitted the Davis-Bacon clauses and wage determination--
but the contracting agency's struggle to rectify the situation led to a
delay of 8 years before the workers were paid the wages they were owed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-21-13, Fair Labor
Standards Act: Tracking Additional Complaint Data Could Improve
DOL's Enforcement (2020) (2020 GAO Report), at 39, available at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department now seeks to address a number of these outstanding
challenges in the program while also providing greater clarity in the
DBRA regulations and enhancing their usefulness in the modern economy.
In this rulemaking, the Department proposes to update and modernize the
regulations implementing the DBRA at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5. In some
of these revisions, the Department has determined that changes it made
in the 1981-1982 rulemaking were mistaken or ultimately resulted in
outcomes that are increasingly in tension with the DBA statute itself.
In others, the Department seeks to expand further on procedures that
were introduced in that last major revision, or to propose new
procedures that will increase efficiency of administration of the DBRA
and enhance protections for covered construction workers. On all the
proposed changes, the Department seeks comment and participation from
the many stakeholders in the program.
The proposed rule includes several elements targeted at increasing
the amount of information available for wage determinations and
speeding up the determination process. In a proposal to amend Sec. 1.3
of the regulations, the Department outlines a new methodology to
expressly give the WHD Administrator authority and discretion to adopt
State or local wage determinations as the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
where certain specified criteria are satisfied. Such a change would
help improve the currentness and accuracy of wage determinations, as
many states and localities conduct
[[Page 15700]]
surveys more frequently than the Department and have relationships with
stakeholders that may facilitate the process and foster more widespread
participation. This proposal would also increase efficiency and reduce
confusion for the regulated community where projects are covered by
both DBRA and local or State prevailing wage laws and contractors are
already familiar with complying with the local or State prevailing wage
requirement.
The Department also proposes changes, in Sec. 1.2, to the
definition of ``prevailing wage,'' and, in Sec. 1.7, to the scope of
data considered to identify the prevailing wage in a given area. To
address the overuse of weighted average rates, the Department proposes
to return to the definition of ``prevailing wage'' in Sec. 1.2 that it
used from 1935 to 1983.\13\ Currently, a single wage rate may be
identified as prevailing in the area only if it is paid to a majority
of workers in a classification on the wage survey; otherwise a weighted
average is used. The Department proposes to return instead to the
``three-step'' method that was in effect before 1983. Under that method
(also known as the 30-percent rule), in the absence of a wage rate paid
to a majority of workers in a particular classification, a wage rate
will be considered prevailing if it is paid to at least 30 percent of
such workers. The Department also proposes to return to a prior policy
on another change made during the 1981-1982 rulemaking related to the
delineation of wage survey data submitted for ``metropolitan'' or
``rural'' counties in Sec. 1.7(b). Through this change, the Department
seeks to more accurately reflect modern labor force realities, to allow
more wage rates to be determined at smaller levels of geographical
aggregation, and to increase the sufficiency of data at the statewide
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The 1981-1982 rulemaking went into effect on April 29,
1983. 48 FR 19532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 1.3 and 5.5 are aimed at reducing
the need for the use of ``conformances'' where the Department has
received insufficient data to publish a prevailing wage for a
classification of worker--a process that currently is burdensome on
contracting agencies, contractors, and the Department. The proposed
revisions would create a new procedure through which the Department may
identify (and list on the wage determination) wage and fringe benefit
rates for certain classifications for which WHD received insufficient
data through its wage survey program. The procedure should reduce the
need for conformances for classifications for which conformances are
often required.
The Department also proposes to revise Sec. 1.6(c)(1) to provide a
mechanism to regularly update certain non-collectively bargained
prevailing wage rates based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employment Cost Index.\14\ The mechanism is intended to keep such rates
more current between surveys so that they do not become out-of-date and
fall behind prevailing rates in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.toc.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also seeks to strengthen enforcement in several
critical ways. The proposed rule seeks to address the challenges caused
by the omission of contract clauses. In a manner similar to its rule
under Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity), the
Department proposes to designate the DBRA contract clauses in Sec.
5.5(a) and (b), and applicable wage determinations, as effective by
``operation of law'' notwithstanding their mistaken omission from a
contract. This proposal is an extension of the retroactive modification
procedures that were put into effect in Sec. 1.6 by the 1981-1982
rulemaking, and it promises to expedite enforcement efforts to ensure
the timely payment of prevailing wages to all workers who are owed such
wages under the relevant statutes.
In addition, the Department proposes to include new anti-
retaliation provisions in the Davis-Bacon contract clauses in new
paragraphs at Sec. Sec. 5.5(a)(11) (DBRA) and 5.5(b)(5) (Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act), and in a new section of part 5 at
Sec. 5.18. The new language is intended to ensure that workers who
raise concerns about payment practices or assist agencies or the
Department in investigations are protected from termination or other
adverse employment actions.
Finally, to reinforce the remedies available when violations are
discovered, the Department proposes to clarify and strengthen the
cross-withholding procedure for recovering back wages. The proposal
does so by including new language in the withholding contract clauses
at Sec. Sec. 5.5(a)(2) (DBRA) and 5.5(b)(3) (Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act) to clarify that cross-withholding may be
accomplished on contracts held by agencies other than the agency that
awarded the contract. The proposal also seeks to create a mechanism
through which contractors will be required to consent to cross-
withholding for back wages owed on contracts held by different but
related legal entities in appropriate circumstances--if, for example,
those entities are controlled by the same controlling shareholder or
are joint venturers or partners on a Federal contract. The proposed
revisions include, as well, a harmonization of the DBA and Related Act
debarment standards.
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory History
The Davis-Bacon Act, as enacted in 1931 and subsequently amended,
requires the payment of minimum prevailing wages determined by the
Department of Labor to laborers and mechanics working on Federal
contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or
repair, including painting and decorating, of public buildings and
public works. See 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. Congress has also included the
Davis-Bacon requirements in numerous other laws, known as the Davis-
Bacon Related Acts (the Related Acts and, collectively with the Davis-
Bacon Act, the DBRA), which provide Federal assistance for construction
projects through grants, loans, loan guarantees, insurance, and other
methods. Congress intended the Davis-Bacon Act to ``protect local wage
standards by preventing contractors from basing their bids on wages
lower than those prevailing in the area.'' Coutu, 450 U.S. at 773
(quoting H. Comm. on Educ. and Lab., Legis. History of the Davis-Bacon
Act, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (Comm. Print 1962)).
The Copeland Act, enacted in 1934, added the requirement that
contractors working on Davis-Bacon projects must submit weekly
certified payrolls for work performed on the contract. See 40 U.S.C.
3145. The Copeland Act also prohibited contractors from inducing any
worker to give up any portion of the wages due to them on such
projects. See 18 U.S.C. 874. In 1962, Congress passed the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act, which, as amended, requires an overtime
payment of additional half-time for hours worked over forty in the
workweek by laborers and mechanics, including watchmen and guards, on
Federal contracts or federally assisted contracts containing Federal
prevailing wage standards. See U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
As initially enacted, the DBA did not take into consideration the
provision of fringe benefits to workers. In 1964, Congress expanded the
Act to require the Department to include an analysis of fringe benefits
as part of the wage determination process. The amendment
[[Page 15701]]
requires contractors and subcontractors to provide fringe benefits
(such as vacation pay, sick leave, health insurance, and retirement
benefits), or the cash equivalent thereof, to their workers at the
level prevailing for the labor classification on projects of a similar
character in the locality. See Act of July 2, 1964, Public Law 88-349,
78 Stat 238.
Congress has delegated broad rulemaking authority under the DBRA to
the Department of Labor. The DBA, as amended, contemplates regulatory
and administrative action by the Department to determine the prevailing
wages that must be paid and to ``prescribe reasonable regulations'' for
contractors and subcontractors. 40 U.S.C. 3142(b); 40 U.S.C. 3145.
Congress also, through Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, directed the
Department to ``prescribe appropriate standards, regulations and
procedures'' to be observed by Federal agencies responsible for the
administration of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. 5 U.S.C. app. 1.
The Department promulgated its initial regulations implementing the
Act in 1935 and has since periodically revised them. See U.S.
Department of Labor, Regulations No. 503 (Sept. 30, 1935). In 1938,
these initial regulations, which set forth the procedures for the
Department to follow in determining prevailing wages, were included in
part 1 of Title 29 of the new Code of Federal Regulations. See 29 CFR
1.1 et seq. (1938). The Department later added regulations to implement
the payroll submission and anti-kickback provisions of the Copeland
Act--first in part 2 and then relocated to part 3 of Title 29. See 6 FR
1210 (Mar. 1, 1941); 7 FR 687 (Feb. 4, 1942); 29 CFR part 2 (1942); 29
CFR part 3 (1943). After Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, the
Department issued regulations setting forth procedures for the
administration and enforcement of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts in a
new part 5. 16 FR 4430 (May 12, 1951); 29 CFR part 5. The Department
made significant revisions to the regulations in 1964, and again in the
1981-1982 rulemaking.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 29 FR 13462 (Sept. 30, 1964); 46 FR 41444-70 (NPRM
parts 1 and 5) (Aug. 14, 1981); 47 FR 23644-79 (final rule parts 1,
3, and 5) (May 28, 1982). The Department also proposed a significant
revision of parts 1 and 5 of the regulations in 1979 and issued a
final rule in 1981. See 44 FR 77026 (NPRM Part 1); 44 FR 77080 (NPRM
part 5); 46 FR 4306 (final rule part 1); 46 FR 4380 (final rule part
5). That 1981 final rule, however, was delayed and subsequently
replaced by the 1981-1982 rulemaking. The 1982 final rule was
delayed by litigation and re-published with amendments in 1983. 48
FR 19532 (Apr. 29, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Department has made periodic revisions to the regulations
in recent years, such as to better protect the personal privacy of
workers, 73 FR 77511 (Dec. 19, 2008); to remove references to the
``Employment Standards Administration,'' 82 FR 2225 (Jan. 9, 2017); and
to adjust Federal civil money penalties, 81 FR 43450 (July 1, 2016), 83
FR 12 (Jan. 2, 2018), 84 FR 218 (Jan. 23, 2019), the Department has not
engaged in a comprehensive review and revision since the 1981-1982
rulemaking.
B. Overview of the Davis-Bacon Program
The Wage and Hour Division (WHD), an agency within the U.S.
Department of Labor, administers the Davis-Bacon program for the
Department. WHD carries out its responsibilities in partnership with
the Federal agencies that enter into direct DBA-covered contracts for
construction and/or administer Federal assistance that is covered by
the Related Acts to State and local governments and other funding
recipients. The State and local governmental agencies and authorities
also have important responsibilities in administering Related Act
program rules, as they manage programs through which covered funding
flows or the agencies themselves directly enter into covered contracts
for construction.
The DBRA program includes three basic components in which these
government entities have responsibilities: (1) Wage surveys and wage
determinations; (2) contract formation and administration; and (3)
enforcement and remedies.
1. Wage Surveys and Determinations
The DBA delegates to the Secretary of Labor the responsibility to
determine the wage rates that are ``prevailing'' for each
classification of covered laborers and mechanics on similar projects
``in the civil subdivision of the State in which the work is to be
performed.'' 40 U.S.C. 3142(b). WHD carries out this responsibility for
the Department through its wage survey program, and derives the
prevailing wage rates from survey information that responding
contractors and other interested parties voluntarily provide. The
program is carried out in accordance with the program regulations in
part 1 of Title 29, see 29 CFR 1.1 through 1.7, and its procedures are
described in guidance documents such as the ``Davis-Bacon Construction
Wage Determinations Manual of Operations'' (1986) (Manual of
Operations) and ``Prevailing Wage Resource Book'' (2015) (PWRB).\16\
Although part 1 of the regulations provides the authority for WHD to
create project-specific wage determinations, such project wage
determinations, once more common, now are rarely employed. Instead,
nearly all wage determinations are general wage determinations issued
for general types of construction (building, residential, highway, and
heavy) and applicable to a specific geographic area. General wage
determinations can be incorporated into the vast majority of contracts
and create uniform application of the DBRA for that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Manual of Operations is a 1986 guidance document that
is still used internally for reference within WHD. The Prevailing
Wage Resource Book is a 2015 document that is intended to provide
practical information to contracting agencies and other interested
parties, and is available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/prevailing-wage-resource-book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Contract Formation and Administration
The Federal agencies that enter into DBA-covered contracts or
administer Related Act programs have the initial responsibility to
determine whether a contract is covered by the DBA or one of the
Related Acts and identify the contract clauses and the applicable wage
determinations that must be included in the contract. See 29 CFR
1.6(b). In addition to the Department's regulations, this process is
also guided by parallel regulations in part 22 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for those contracts that are subject to
the FAR. See 48 CFR part 22. Federal agencies also maintain their own
regulations and guidance governing agency-specific aspects of the
process. See, e.g., 48 CFR subpart 222.4 (Defense); 48 CFR subpart
622.4 (State); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD
Handbook 1344.1, Federal Labor Standards Requirements in Housing and
Urban Development Programs (2013).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Available at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/Work-Schedule-Request.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where contracting agencies or interested parties have questions
about such matters as coverage under the DBRA or the applicability of
the appropriate wage determination to a specific contract, they are
directed to submit those questions to the Administrator of WHD (the
Administrator) for resolution. See 29 CFR 5.13. The Administrator
provides periodic guidance on this process, as well as other aspects of
the DBRA program, to contracting agencies and other interested parties,
particularly through All Agency Memoranda (AAMs) and ruling letters. In
addition,
[[Page 15702]]
the Department maintains a guidance document, the Field Operations
Handbook (FOH), to provide external and internal guidance for the
regulated community and for WHD investigators and staff on contract
administration and enforcement policies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Field Operations Handbook reflects policies established
through changes in legislation, regulations, significant court
decisions, and the decisions and opinions of the WHD Administrator.
It is not used as a device for establishing interpretive policy.
Chapter 15 of the FOH covers the DBRA, including CWHSSA, and is
available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-operations-handbook/Chapter-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the administration of a DBRA-covered contract, contractors
and subcontractors are required to provide certified payrolls to the
contracting agency to demonstrate their compliance with the
incorporated wage determinations on a weekly basis. See generally 29
CFR part 3. Contracting agencies have the duty to ensure compliance by
engaging in periodic audits or investigations of contracts, including
examinations of payroll data and confidential interviews with workers.
See 29 CFR 5.6. Prime contractors have the responsibility for the
compliance of all the subcontractors on a covered prime contract. 29
CFR 5.5(a)(6). WHD conducts investigations of covered contracts, which
include determining if the DBRA contract clauses or appropriate wage
determinations were mistakenly omitted from the contract. See 29 CFR
1.6(f). If WHD determines that there was such an omission, it will
request that the contracting agency either terminate and resolicit the
contract or modify it to incorporate the required clauses or wage
determinations retroactively. Id.
3. Enforcement and Remedies
In addition to WHD, contracting agencies have enforcement authority
under the DBRA. When a contracting agency's investigation reveals
underpayments of wages of the DBA or one of the Related Acts, the
Federal agency generally is required to provide a report of its
investigation to WHD, and to seek to recover the underpayments from the
contractor responsible. See 29 CFR 5.6(a)(1), 5.7. If violations
identified by the contracting agency or by WHD through its own
investigation are not promptly remedied, contracting agencies are
required to suspend payment on the contract until sufficient funds are
withheld to compensate the workers for the underpayments. 29 CFR 5.9.
The DBRA contract clauses also provide for ``cross-withholding'' if
sufficient funds are no longer available on the contract under which
the violations took place. Under this procedure, funds may be withheld
from any other covered Federal contract held by the same prime
contractor in order to remedy the underpayments on the contract at
issue. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(2), (b)(3). Contractors that violate the DBRA
may also be subject to debarment from future Federal contracts. See 29
CFR 5.12.
Where WHD conducts an investigation and finds that violations have
occurred, it will notify the affected prime contractor and
subcontractors of the findings of the investigation--including any
determination that workers are owed wages and whether there is
reasonable cause to believe the contractor may be subject to debarment.
See 29 CFR 5.11(b). Contractors can request a hearing regarding these
findings through the Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges
(OALJ) and may appeal any ruling by the OALJ to the Department's
Administrative Review Board (ARB). Id.; see also 29 CFR parts 6 and 7
(OALJ and ARB rules of practice for Davis-Bacon proceedings). Decisions
of the ARB are final agency actions that may be reviewable under the
Administrative Procedure Act in Federal district court. See 5 U.S.C.
702, 704.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In addition to reviewing liability determinations and
debarment, the ARB and the courts also have jurisdiction to review
general wage determinations. Judicial review, however, is strictly
limited to any procedural irregularities, as there is no
jurisdiction to review the substantive correctness of a wage
determination under the DBA. See Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U.S. at
177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Legal Authority
The Davis-Bacon Act, as enacted in 1931 and subsequently amended,
requires the payment of certain minimum ``prevailing'' wages determined
by the Department of Labor to laborers and mechanics working on Federal
contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or
repair, including painting and decorating, of public buildings and
public works. See 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq. The DBA authorizes the
Secretary of Labor to develop a definition for the term ``prevailing''
wage and a methodology for setting it based on similar projects in the
civil subdivision of the State in which a covered project will occur.
See 40 U.S.C. 3142(b); Bldg. & Constr. Trades' Dep't, AFL-CIO v.
Donovan, 712 F.2d 611, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
The Secretary of Labor has the responsibility to ``prescribe
reasonable regulations'' for contractors and subcontractors on covered
projects. 40 U.S.C. 3145. The Secretary, through Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950, also has the responsibility to ``prescribe appropriate
standards, regulations and procedures'' to be observed by Federal
agencies responsible for the administration of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts ``[i]n order to assure coordination of administration and
consistency of enforcement of the labor standards provisions'' of the
DBRA. 5 U.S.C. app. 1.
The Secretary has delegated authority to promulgate these
regulations to the Administrator of the WHD and to the Deputy
Administrator of the WHD if the Administrator position is vacant. See
Secretary's Order No. 01-2014, 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); Secretary's
Order No. 01-2017, 82 FR 6653 (Jan. 19, 2017).
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
1. 29 CFR Part 1
The procedural rules providing for the payment of minimum wages,
including fringe benefits, to laborers and mechanics engaged in
construction activity covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts are
set forth in 29 CFR part 1. The regulations in this part also set forth
the procedures for making and applying such determinations of
prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits.
i. Section 1.1 Purpose and Scope
The Department proposes technical revisions to Sec. 1.1 to update
the statutory reference to the Davis-Bacon Act, now recodified at 40
U.S.C. 3141 et seq. The Department also proposes to eliminate outdated
references to the Deputy Under Secretary of Labor for Employment
Standards at the Employment Standards Administration. The Employment
Standards Administration was eliminated as part of an agency
reorganization in 2009 and its authorities and responsibilities were
devolved into its constituent components, including the WHD. See
Secretary's Order No. 09-2009 (Nov. 6, 2009), 74 FR 58836 (Nov. 13,
2009), 82 FR 2221 (Jan. 9, 2017). The Department further proposes to
revise Sec. 1.1 to reflect the removal of Appendix A of part 1, as
discussed further below. The Department also proposes to add new
paragraph (a)(1) to reference the WHD website (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts) on which a listing of laws requiring
the payment of wages at rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor
under the Davis-Bacon Act is currently found.
[[Page 15703]]
ii. Section 1.2 Definitions
(A) Prevailing Wage
The Department proposes to redefine the term ``prevailing wage'' in
Sec. 1.2 to return to the original methodology for determining whether
a wage rate is prevailing. This original methodology has been referred
to as the ``three-step process.''
Since 1935, the Secretary has interpreted the word ``prevailing''
in the Davis-Bacon Act to be consistent with the common understanding
of the term as meaning ``predominant'' or ``most frequent.'' From 1935
until the 1981-1982 rulemaking, the Department employed a three-step
process to identify the most frequently used wage rate for each
classification of workers in a locality. See Regulation 503 section 2
(1935); 47 FR 23644.\20\ This three-step process identified as
prevailing: (1) Any wage rate paid to a majority of workers; and, if
there was none, then (2) the wage rate paid to the greatest number of
workers, provided it was paid to at least 30 percent of workers, and,
if there was none, then (3) the weighted average rate. The second step
is referred to as the ``30-percent rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Implemented Apr. 29, 1983. See 48 FR 19532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three-step process relegated the average rate to a final,
fallback method of determining the prevailing wage. In 1962
congressional testimony, Solicitor of Labor Charles Donahue explained
the reasoning for this sequence in the determination: An average rate
``does not reflect a true rate which is actually being paid by any
group of contractors in the community being surveyed.'' Instead, ``it
represents an artificial rate which we create ourselves, and which does
not reflect that which a predominant amount of workers are paid.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Administration of the Davis Bacon Act: Hearings before the
Spec. Subcomm. of Lab. of the H. Comm. on Educ. and Lab., 87th Cong.
811-12 (1962) (testimony of Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1982, the Department published a final rule that amended the
definition of ``prevailing wage'' by eliminating the second step in the
three-step process--the 30-percent rule. See 47 FR 23644. The new
process required only two steps: First identifying if there was a
single wage rate paid to more than 50 percent of workers, and then, if
not, relying on a weighted average of all the wage rates paid. Id. at
23644-45.
In eliminating the 30-percent rule, however, the Department did not
change its underlying interpretation of the word ``prevailing''--that
it means ``the most widely paid rate'' must be the ``definition of
first choice'' for the prevailing wage. 47 FR 23645. While the 1982
rule continued to allow the Department to use an average rate as a
fallback, the Department rejected commenters' suggestions that the
weighted average could be used in all cases. See 47 FR 23644-45. As the
Department explained, this was because the term ``prevailing''
contemplates that wage determinations mirror, to the extent possible,
those rates ``actually paid'' to workers. 47 FR 23645.
This interpretation--that the definition of first choice for the
term ``prevailing wage'' should be an actual wage rate that is most
widely paid--has now been shared across administrations for over 85
years. In the intervening decades, Congress has amended and expanded
the reach of the Act's prevailing wage requirements dozens of times
without altering the term ``prevailing'' or the grant of broad
authority to the Secretary of Labor to define it.\22\ In addition, the
question was also reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the
Department of Justice, which independently reached the same
conclusions: ``prevailing wage'' means the current and predominant
actual rate paid, and an average rate should only be used as a last
resort. See 5 Op. O.L.C. at 176-77.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Act of Mar. 23, 1941, ch. 26, 55 Stat. 53 (1941)
(applying the Act to alternative contract types); Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act of 1962, Public Law 87-581, 76 Stat.
357 (1962) (requiring payment of overtime on contracts covered by
the Act); Act of July 2, 1964, Public Law 88-349, 78 Stat. 238
(1964) (extending the Act to cover fringe benefits); 29 CFR 5.1
(referencing 57 Related Acts into which Congress incorporated Davis-
Bacon Act requirements between 1935 and 1978).
\23\ See note 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1982 final rule, when the Department eliminated the 30-
percent rule, it anticipated that this change would increase the use of
artificial average rates. 47 FR 23648-49. Nonetheless, the Department
believed a change was preferable because the 30-percent threshold could
in some cases not account for up to 70 percent of the remaining
workers. See 46 FR 41444. The Department also stated that it agreed
with the concerns expressed by certain commenters that the 30-percent
rule was ``inflationary'' and gave ``undue weight to collectively
bargained rates.'' 47 FR 23644-45.
Now, however, after reviewing the development of the Davis-Bacon
Act program since the 1981-1982 rulemaking, the Department concludes
that eliminating the 30-percent rule ultimately resulted in an overuse
of average rates. On paper, the weighted average remains the fallback
method to be used only when there is no majority rate. In practice,
though, it has become a central mechanism to set the prevailing wage
rates included in Davis-Bacon wage determinations and covered
contracts.
Prior to the 1982 rule change, the use of averages was relatively
rare. In a Ford Administration study of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage
rates in commercial-type construction in 19 cities, none of the rates
were based on averages because all of the wage rates were
``negotiated'' rates, i.e., based on CBAs that represented a
predominant wage rate in the locality.\24\ The Department estimates
that prior to the 1982 final rule, as low as 15 percent of
classification rates across all wage determinations were based on
averages. After the 1982 rule was implemented, the use of averages may
have initially increased to approximately 26 percent of all wage
determinations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Robert S. Goldfarb & John F. Morrall, ``An Analysis of
Certain Aspects of the Administration of the Davis-Bacon Act,''
Council on Wage and Price Stability (May 1976), reprinted in Bureau
of Nat'l Affs., Construction Labor Report, No. 1079, D-1, D-2
(1976).
\25\ See Oversight Hearing on the Davis-Bacon Act, Before the
Subcomm. on Lab. Standards of the H. Comm. on Educ. and Lab., 96th
Cong. 58 (1979) (statement of Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor)
(discussing study of 1978 determinations showing only 24 percent of
classification rates were based on the 30-percent rule); Jerome
Staller, ``Communications to the Editor,'' Policy Analysis, Vol. 5,
No. 3 (Summer 1979), pp. 397-98 (noting that 60 percent of
determinations in the internal Department 1976 and 1978 studies were
based on the 30-percent rule or the average-rate rule). The authors
of the Council on Wage and Price Stability study, however, pointed
out that the Department's figures were for rates that had been based
on survey data, while 57 percent of rates in the mid-1970's were
based solely on CBAs without the use of surveys (a practice that the
Department no longer uses to determine new rates). See Robert S.
Goldfarb & John F. Morrall II., ``The Davis-Bacon Act: An Appraisal
of Recent Studies,'' 34 Indus. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 191, 199-200 & n.35
(1981). Thus, the actual percentage of annual classification
determinations that were based on average rule before 1982 may have
been as low as 15 percent, and the percent based on the average rule
after 1982 would have been expected to be around 26 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's current use of weighted averages is now
significantly higher than this 26 percent figure. To analyze the
current use of weighted averages and the potential impacts of this
rulemaking, the Department compiled data for select classifications for
17 recent wage surveys--nearly all of the completed surveys that WHD
began in 2015 or later. The data show that the Department's reliance on
average rates has increased significantly, and now accounts for 64
percent of the observed classification determinations in this recent
time period.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See below section V (Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review et al.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that such an overuse of weighted averages
is
[[Page 15704]]
inconsistent with both the text and the purpose of the Act. It is
inconsistent with the Department's longstanding interpretation of
Congress's use of the word ``prevailing'' in the text of the Act--
including the Department's statements in the preamble to the 1982 rule
itself that the definition of first choice for the ``prevailing'' wage
should be the most widely paid rate that is actually paid to workers in
the relevant locality. If nearly two-thirds of rates that are now being
published based on recent surveys are based on a weighted average, it
is no longer fair to say that it is a fallback method of determining
the prevailing wage.
The use of averages as the dominant methodology for issuing wage
determinations is also inconsistent with the recognized purpose of the
Act ``to protect local wage standards by preventing contractors from
basing their bids on wages lower than those prevailing in the area.''
Coutu, 450 U.S. at 773 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Using an average to determine the minimum wage rate on contracts allows
a single low-wage contractor in the area to depress wage rates on
Federal contracts below the higher rate that may be generally more
prevalent in the community--by factoring into (and lowering) the
calculation of the average that is used to set the minimum wage rates
on local Federal contracts.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For example, the 2001 wage determination for electricians
in Eddy County, New Mexico was an average rate based on responses
that included lower-paid workers that had been brought in from Texas
by a Texas electrical contractor to work on a single job. As the ARB
noted in reviewing a challenge to the wage determination, the result
was that ``contract labor from Texas, where wages reportedly are
lower, effectively has determined the prevailing wage for
electricians in this New Mexico county.'' New Mexico Nat. Elec.
Contractors Ass'n, ARB No. 03-020, 2004 WL 1261216, at * 8 (May 28,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the increasing tension between the current methodology
and the purpose and definition of ``prevailing,'' the Department
proposes to return to the original three-step process. The Department
expects that re-introducing the 30-percent rule will reduce the use of
average rates roughly by half--from 63 percent to 31 percent. The data
from the regulatory impact analysis included with this NPRM below in
section V suggests that returning to the three-step process will
continue to result in 36 percent of prevailing wage rates based on the
majority rule, with the balance of 33 percent based on the 30-percent
rule, and 31 percent based on the weighted average.
This estimated distribution illustrates why the Department is no
longer persuaded, as it stated in the 1981 NPRM, that the majority rule
is more appropriate than the three-step process (including the 30-
percent rule) because the 30-percent rule ``ignores the rate paid to up
to 70 percent of the workers.'' See 46 FR 41444.\28\ That
characterization ignores that the first step in the three-step process
is still to adopt the majority rate if there is one. Under both the
three-step process and the current majority rule, any wage rate that is
paid to a majority of workers would be identified as prevailing. Under
either method, the weighted average will be used whenever there is no
wage rate that is paid to more than 30 percent of employees in the
survey response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The 30-percent rule can only be characterized as
``ignoring'' rates because it is a rule that applies a mathematical
``mode,'' in which the only relevant value is the value of the
number that appears most frequently--instead of a mean (average), in
which the values of all the numbers are averaged together. Both the
30-percent rule and the majority rule are modal rules in which the
values of the non-prevailing wage rates do not factor into the final
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between the majority and the three-step
methodologies is solely in how a wage rate is determined when there is
no majority, but there is a significant plurality wage rate paid to
between 30 and 50 percent of workers. In that circumstance, the current
``majority'' rule uses averages instead of the rate that is actually
paid to that significant plurality of the survey population. This is
true, for example, even where the same wage rate is paid to 45 percent
of workers and no other rate is paid to as high a percentage of
workers. In such circumstances, the Department believes that a wage
rate paid to between 30 and 50 percent of workers is clearly more of a
``prevailing'' wage rate than an average.
The Department has also considered the other explanations it
provided in 1982 for eliminating the 30-percent rule, including any
possible upward pressure on wages or prices and a perceived ``undue
weight'' given to collectively bargained rates. These explanations are
no longer persuasive for two fundamental reasons. First, the concerns
appear to be unrelated to the text of the statute, and, if anything,
contrary to its legislative purpose. Second, the Department's estimates
of the effects of a return to the 30-percent rule suggest that the
concerns are misplaced.
The concerns about inflation at the time of the 1982 rule were
based in part on a criticism of the Act itself.\29\ A fundamental
purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act was to limit low-bid contractors from
depressing local wage rates. See 5 U.S. O.L.C. at 176.\30\ This purpose
necessarily contemplates an increase in wage rates over what could
otherwise be paid without the enactment of the statute. Moreover, the
effect of maintaining such a prevailing rate can just as easily be seen
as guarding against deflationary effects of the use of low-wage
contractors--instead of resulting in inflation. Staff of the H.
Subcomm. on Lab., 88th Cong., Administration of the Davis-Bacon Act,
Rep. of the Subcomm. on Lab. of the Comm. on Educ. and Lab. (Comm.
Print 1963) (1963 House Committee Report), at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The GAO issued a report in 1979 urging Congress to repeal
the Act because of ``inflationary'' concerns. See Gov't
Accountability Office, HRD-79-18, The Davis Bacon Act Should be
Repealed, (1979) (1979 GAO Report). Available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/hrd-79-18.pdf. The report argued that even using
only weighted averages for prevailing rates would be inflationary
because they could increase the minimum wage paid on contracts and
therefore result in wages that were higher than they otherwise would
be. The House Subcommittee on Labor Standards reviewed the report
during oversight hearings in 1979, but Congress did not amend or
repeal the Act, and instead continued to expand its reach. See,
e.g., Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law
101-625, Sec. 811(j)(6), 104 Stat. 4329 (1990); Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, Public Law. No, 110-140, Sec. 491(d), 121
Stat. 1651 (2007); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public
Law 111-5, Sec. 1606, 123 Stat. 303 (2009); Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021, Public Law 116-260, Sec. 9006(b), 134
Stat. 1182 (2021).
\30\ See note 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1982 final rule contained an economic analysis that suggested
that the elimination of the 30-percent rule could save $120 million (in
1982 dollars) in construction costs per year through reduced contract
costs. However, the Department does not believe that this 40-year old
analysis is reliable or accurate.\31\ For example, the analysis did not
consider labor market forces that could prevent contractors from
lowering wage rates in the short run. The analysis also did not attempt
to address productivity losses or other costs of setting a lower
minimum wage. For these reasons, the Department does not believe that
the analysis in the 1982 final rule implies that the current proposed
reversion to the 30-percent rule would have a significant impact on
[[Page 15705]]
contract costs. Even if the Department were to rely on this analysis as
an accurate measure of impact, such savings (adjusted to 2019 dollars)
would only amount to approximately two-tenths of a percent of total
estimated covered contract costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The Department has not attempted to assess the relative
accuracy of this estimate over the decades, which would be
challenging given the dynamic nature of the construction industry
and the relatively small impact of even $120 million in savings. The
Department at the time acknowledged that its estimate had been
heavily criticized by commenters and was only a ``best guess''--in
part because it could not foresee how close a correlation there
would be between the wage rates that are actually paid on covered
contracts and the wage determinations that set the Davis-Bacon
minimum wages. 47 FR 23648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also does not believe that the proposed reversion to
the 30-percent rule would have any noticeable impact on overall
national inflation numbers.\32\ An illustrative analysis in section
V.D. shows returning to the 30-percent rule will significantly reduce
the reliance on the weighted average method to produce prevailing wage
rates. Under the 30-percent rule, some prevailing wage determinations
may increase and others decrease, but the magnitude of these changes
will, overall, be negligible. Additionally, recent research shows that
wage increases, particularly at the lower end of the distribution, do
not cause significant economy-wide price increases.\33\ The Department
thus does not believe that any limited net wage increase for the
approximately 1.2 million covered workers (less than 1 percent of the
total national workforce) will significantly increase prices or have
any appreciable effect on the macro economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The 1979 GAO report about the DBA noted that ``minimum wage
rates [such as the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements]
tend to have an inflationary effect on . . . the national economy as
a whole.'' 1979 GAO Report, HRD-79-18 at 76, 83-84.
\33\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan, Why Higher Wages Don't Always Lead
to Inflation (Feb. 7, 2018), available at: https://www.jpmorgan.com/commercial-banking/insights/higher-wages-inflation; Daniel MacDonald
& Eric Nilsson, The Effects of Increasing the Minimum Wage on
Prices: Analyzing the Incidence of Policy Design and Context, Upjohn
Institute working paper; 16-260 (June 2016), available at https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/260/; Nguyen Viet Cuong, Do
Minimum Wage Increases Cause Inflation? Evidence from Vietnam, ASEAN
Economic Bulletin Vol. 28, No. 3 (2011), pp. 337-59, available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41445397; Magnus Jonsson & Stefan
Palmqvist, Do Higher Wages Cause Inflation?, Sveriges Riksbank
Working Paper Series 159 (Apr. 2004), available at: https://archive.riksbank.se/Upload/WorkingPapers/WP_159.pdf; Kenneth M.
Emery & Chih-Ping Chang, Do Wages Help Predict Inflation?, Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, Economic Review First Quarter 1996 (1996),
available at: https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/
er/1996/er9601a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, since the DBA legislates that minimum wages must be paid
to workers on construction projects, the effect of such requirement is
not a permissible basis for departing from the longstanding
interpretation of the plain meaning of the term ``prevailing.'' The
``basic purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act is to protect the wages of
construction workers even if the effect is to increase costs to the
[F]ederal [G]overnment.'' Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v.
Donovan, 543 F. Supp. 1282, 1290 (D.D.C. 1982). Congress has considered
cost concerns, and enacted and expanded the DBA notwithstanding them.
Id. at 1290-91; 1963 House Committee Report at 2-3; Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. app. 1.\34\ Thus, even if concerns about an
inflationary effect on government contract costs or speculative effects
on the national macro economy were used to justify eliminating the 30-
percent rule, the Department does not believe such reasoning now
provides either a factual or legal basis to maintain the current
majority rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In his message accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 14,
President Truman noted that ``[s]ince the principal objective of the
plan is more effective enforcement of labor standards, it is not
probable that it will result in savings. But it will provide more
uniform and more adequate protection for workers through the
expenditures made for the enforcement of the existing legislation.''
5 U.S.C. app. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is also no longer persuaded that the 30-percent rule
gives undue weight to collectively bargained rates. The underlying
concern at the time was that identification of a single prevailing wage
could give more weight to union rates that more often tend to be the
same across companies. If this occurs, however, it is a function of the
plain meaning of the statutory term ``prevailing,'' which, as both the
Department and OLC have concluded, refers to a predominant single wage
rate, or a modal wage rate. The same weight is given to collectively
bargained rates whether the Department chooses a 50-percent or 30-
percent threshold. The Department accordingly now understands the
concerns voiced at the time to be concerns about the potential outcome
(of more wage determinations based on union rates) instead of concerns
about any actual weight given to union rates by the choice of the modal
threshold. To choose a threshold because the outcome would be more
beneficial to non-union contractors--as the Department seems to have
suggested it was doing in 1982--does not have any basis in the statute.
Donovan, 543 F. Supp. at 1291, n.16 (noting that the Secretary's
concern about weight to collectively bargained rates ``bear[s] no
relationship to the purposes of the statute'').
Regardless, the Department's regulatory impact analysis does not
suggest that a return to the 30-percent rule would give undue weight to
collectively bargained rates. Among a sample of rates considered in an
illustrative analysis, one-third of all rates (or about half of rates
currently established based on weighted averages) would shift to a
different method. Among these rates that would be set based on a new
method, the majority would be based on non-collectively bargained
rates. Specifically, in the V.D. illustration, Department estimates
that the use of single wage rates that are not the product of
collective bargaining agreements would increase from 12 percent to 36
percent of all wage rates--an overall increase of 24 percentage points.
The use of single wage rates that are based on collective bargaining
agreements will increase from 25 percent to 34 percent--an overall
increase of 9 percentage points.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See below section V (Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review et al.). As discussed in the regulatory impact
analysis, the Department found that fringe benefits currently do not
prevail in slightly over half of the classification-county
observations it reviewed--resulting in no required fringe benefit
rate for that classification. This would be largely unchanged under
the proposed reversion to the 3-step process, with nearly half of
classification rates still not requiring the payment of fringe
benefits. Only about 13 percent of fringe rates would shift from no
fringes or an average rate to a modal prevailing fringe rate.
Overall under the estimate, the percentage of fringe benefit rates
based on collective bargaining agreements would increase from 25
percent to 34 percent. The percentage of fringe benefit rates not
based on collective bargaining rates would increase from 3 percent
to 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has also considered, but decided against, proposing
to use the median wage rate as the ``prevailing'' rate. The median,
like the average (mean), is a number that can be unrelated to the wage
rate paid with the greatest frequency to employees working in the
locality. Using either the median or the average as the primary method
of determining the prevailing rate is not consistent with the meaning
of the term ``prevailing.'' Accord 47 FR 23645. The Department is
therefore proposing to return to the three-step process and the 30-
percent rule, and is not proposing as alternatives the use of either
the median or mean as the primary or sole methods for making wage
determinations.
(1) Former Subsection Sec. 1.2(a)(2)
In a non-substantive change, the Department proposes to move the
language currently at Sec. 1.2(a)(2) that explains the interaction
between the definition of prevailing wage and the sources of
information in Sec. 1.3. Under the proposed rule, that language
(altered to update the cross-reference to the definition of prevailing
wage) would now appear in Sec. 1.3.
[[Page 15706]]
(2) Variable Rates That Are Functionally Equivalent
The Department also proposes to amend the regulations on compiling
wage rate information at Sec. 1.3 to allow for variable rates that are
functionally equivalent to be counted together for the purpose of
determining whether a single wage rate prevails under the proposed
definition of ``prevailing wage'' in Sec. 1.2. The Department
generally followed this proposed approach until after the 2006 decision
of the ARB in Mistick Construction. 2006 WL 861357.
Historically, the Department has considered wage rates included in
survey data that may not be exactly the same to be functionally
equivalent--and therefore counted as the same--as long as there was an
underlying logic that explained the difference between them. For
example, some workers may perform work under the same labor
classification for the same contractor or under the same collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) on projects in the same geographical area
being surveyed and get paid different wages based on the time of day
that they performed work--e.g., a ``night premium.'' In that
circumstance, the Department would count the normal and night-premium
wage rates to be the ``same wage'' rate for purposes of calculating
whether that wage rate prevailed under the majority rule that is
discussed in the section above. Similarly, where workers in the same
labor classification were paid different ``zone rates'' for work on
projects in different zones covered by the same CBA, the Department
considered those rates as compensating workers for the burden of
traveling or staying away from home and did not reflect fundamentally
different underlying wage rates for the work actually completed.
Variable zone rates would therefore be considered the ``same wage'' for
the purpose of determining the prevailing wage rate.
In another example, the Department took into consideration
``escalator clauses'' in CBAs that may have increased wage rates across
the board at some point during the survey period. Wages for workers
working under the same CBA could be reported differently on a survey
based on the week their employer used in responding to the wage survey
rather than an actual difference in prevailing wages. The Department
has historically treated such variable rates the same for the purposes
of determining the prevailing wages paid to laborers or mechanics in
the survey area. The Department has also considered wage rates to be
the same where workers made the same combination of basic hourly rates
and fringe rates, even if the basic hourly rates (and also the fringe
rates) differed slightly.
In these circumstances, where the Department has treated certain
variable rates as the same, it has generally chosen one of the variable
rates to use as the prevailing rate. In the case of rates that are
variable because of an escalator-clause issue, it uses the most current
rate under the collective bargaining agreement. Similarly, where the
Department identified combinations of hourly and fringe rates as the
``same,'' the Department identified one specific hourly rate and one
specific fringe rate that prevailed, following the guidelines in 29 CFR
5.24, 5.25, and 5.30.
In 2006, the ARB strictly interpreted the regulatory language of
Sec. 1.2(a) in a way that has limited some of these practices. See
Mistick Constr., 2006 WL 861357, at *5-7. The decision affirmed the
Administrator's continued use of the escalator-clause rule, but found
the use of the same combination of basic hourly and fringe rates did
not amount to exactly the ``same'' wage and thus violated the use of
the term ``same wage'' in Sec. 1.2(a). The ARB also viewed the
flexibility shown to collective bargaining agreements as inconsistent
with the ``purpose'' of the 1982 final rule, which the Administrator
had explained was in part to avoid giving ``undue weight'' to
collectively bargained rates. The ARB held that the Administrator could
not consider variable rates under a collective bargaining agreement to
be the ``same wage'' under Sec. 1.2(a) as written--and therefore, if
there was no strictly ``same wage'' that would prevail under the
majority rule, the Administrator would have to use the fallback
weighted average on the wage determination.
The ARB's conclusion in Mistick--particularly its determination
that even wage data reflecting the same aggregate compensation but
slight variations in the basic hourly rate and fringe benefit rates did
not reflect the ``same wage'' as that term was used under the current
regulations--could be construed as a determination that wage rates need
to be identical ``to the penny'' in order to be regarded as the ``same
wage,'' and that nearly any variation in wage rates, no matter how
small and regardless of the reason for the variation, might need to be
regarded as reflecting different, unique wage rates.
The ARB's decision in Mistick limited the Administrator's
methodology for determining a prevailing rate, thus contributing to the
increased use of weighted average rates. As noted above, however, both
the Department and OLC have agreed that averages should generally only
be used as a last resort. As the OLC opinion noted, the use of an
average is difficult to justify ``particularly in cases where it
coincides with none of the actual wage rates being paid.'' 5 Op. O.L.C.
at 177 (emphasis in original).\36\ In discussing those cases, OLC
quoted from the 1963 House Report summarizing extensive congressional
oversight hearings of the Act. The report had concluded that ``[u]se of
an average rate would be artificial in that it would not reflect the
actual wages being paid in a local community,'' and ``such a method
would be disruptive of local wage standards if it were utilized with
any great frequency.'' Id.\37\ To the extent that an inflexible, ``to
the penny'' approach to determining if wage data reflects the ``same
wage'' promotes the use of average rates even when wage rate variations
are exceedingly slight and are based on practices reflecting that the
rates, while not identical, are functionally equivalent, such an
approach would be inconsistent with these authorities and the statutory
purpose they reflect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See note 1, supra.
\37\ See 1963 House Committee Report, supra, at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, and particularly because a mechanical, ``to the
penny'' approach ultimately undermines rather than promotes the
determination of actual prevailing wage rates, the Department believes
that it is consistent with the language and purpose of the statute to
treat slight variations in wages as the same rate in appropriate
circumstances.
As reflected in Mistick, the existing regulation does not clearly
authorize the use of functionally equivalent wages to determine the
local prevailing wage. See 2006 WL 861357, at *5-7. Accordingly, the
Department proposes to amend Sec. 1.3 to include a new paragraph at
Sec. 1.3(e) that would permit the Administrator to count wage rates
together--for the purpose of determining the prevailing wage--if the
rates are functionally equivalent and the variation can be explained by
a CBA or the written policy of a contractor.
Such flexibility would not be unlimited. Some variations within the
same CBA clearly amount to different rates. For example, when a CBA
authorizes the use of ``market recovery rates'' that are lower than the
standard rate in order to win a bid, under certain circumstances those
rates may not be appropriate to combine together with the CBA's
standard rate as ``functionally equivalent'' because frequent use of
such a rate could suggest (though does
[[Page 15707]]
not necessarily compel) a conclusion that the CBA's regular rate may
not be prevailing in the area.
The Department welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposal
regarding proposed changes to the definition of ``prevailing wage'' in
Sec. 1.2 and to the regulation governing the obtaining and compiling
of wage rate information in Sec. 1.3.
(B) Area
The core definition of ``area'' in Sec. 1.2 largely reproduces the
specification in the Davis-Bacon Act statute, prior to its 2002 re-
codification, that the prevailing wage should be based on projects of a
similar character in the ``city, town, village, or other civil
subdivision of the State in which the work is to be performed.'' See 40
U.S.C. 276a(a) (2002).
The rule's geography-based definition of area applies to federally
assisted projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Related Acts as well as
projects covered by the DBA itself. Some of the Related Acts have used
different terminology to identify the appropriate ``area'' for a wage
determination, including the terms ``locality'' and ``immediate
locality.'' \38\ However, the Department has long concluded that these
terms are best interpreted and applied consistent with the methodology
for determining the area under the original DBA. See Virginia Segment
C-7, METRO, WAB 71-4, 1971 WL 17609, at *3-4 (Dec. 7, 1971).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See, e.g., National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715c(a)
(locality); Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C.
1440(g), 5310(a) (locality); Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. 1372 (immediate locality); Federal-Aid Highway Acts, 23
U.S.C. 113(a) (immediate locality).
\39\ The Wage Appeals Board (WAB) was the Department's
administrative appellate entity from 1964 until 1996, when it was
eliminated and the Administrative Review Board was created and
provided jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the
Administrator and the Department's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
under a number of statutes, including the Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts. 61 FR 19978 (May 3, 1996). WAB decisions from 1964 to 1996 are
available on the Department's website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/public/dba_sca/references/caselists/wablist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposes to revise the definition of area to address
projects that span multiple counties and to address highway projects
specifically. Under WHD's current methodology, if a project spans more
than one county, the contracting officer is instructed to attach wage
determinations for each county to the project and contractors may be
required to pay differing wage rates to the same employees when their
work crosses county lines. This policy was reinforced in 1971 when the
Wage Appeals Board (WAB) found that, under the terms of the then-
applicable regulations, there was no basis to provide a single
prevailing wage rate for a project occurring in Virginia, the District
of Columbia, and Maryland. See Virginia Segment C-7, METRO, 1971 WL
17609.
Critics of this policy have pointed out that workers are very often
hired and paid a single wage rate for a project, and--unless there are
different city or county minimum wage laws--workers' pay rates often do
not change as they move between tasks in different counties. The 2011
report by the GAO, for example, quoted a statement from a contractor
association representative that requiring different wage rates for the
same workers on the same multi-county project is ``illogical.'' See
2011 GAO Report at 24.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See note 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While requiring different prevailing wage rates for work by the
same worker on the same project may be consistent with the current
regulations, the DBA and Related Act statutes themselves do not address
multi-jurisdictional projects. Issuing and applying a single project
wage determination for such projects is not inconsistent with the text
of the DBA. Nor is it inconsistent with the purpose of the DBA, which
is to protect against the depression of local wage rates caused by
competition from low-bid contractors from outside of the locality.
Accordingly, the Department proposes adding language in the
definition of ``area'' in Sec. 1.2 that would expressly authorize WHD
to issue project wage determinations with a single rate for each
classification, using data from all of the relevant counties in which a
project will occur. The Department solicits comments on whether this
procedure should be mandatory for multi-jurisdictional projects or
available at the request of the contracting agency or an interested
party, if WHD determines that such a project wage determination would
be appropriate.
The Department's other proposed change to the definition of
``area'' in Sec. 1.2 is to allow the use of State highway districts or
similar transportation subdivisions as the relevant wage determination
area for highway projects. Although there is significant variation
between states, most states maintain civil subdivisions responsible for
certain aspects of transportation planning, financing, and
maintenance.\41\ These districts tend to be organized within State
departments of transportation or otherwise through State and County
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See generally Am. Assoc. of State Highway and Transp.
Offs., Transportation Governance and Financing: A 50-State Review of
State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation (2016),
available at: https://www.financingtransportation.org/pdf/50_state_review_nov16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using State highway districts as a geographic unit for wage
determinations would be consistent with the Davis-Bacon Act's
specification that wage determinations should be tied to a ``civil
subdivision of a State.'' State highway districts were considered to be
``subdivisions of a State'' at the time the term was used in the
original Davis-Bacon Act. See Wight v. Police Jury of Par. of
Avoyelles, La., 264 F. 705, 709 (5th Cir. 1919) (describing the
creation of highway districts as ``governmental subdivisions of the
[S]tate'').
In identifying the appropriate geographic area of a wage
determination, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (FAHA), one of the
Related Acts, uses the term ``immediate locality'' instead of ``civil
subdivision.'' 23 U.S.C. 113. However, the FAHA requires the
application of prevailing wage rates in the immediate locality to be
``in accordance with'' the DBA, id., and, as noted above, WHD has long
applied these alternative definitions of area in the Related Acts in a
manner consistent with the ``civil subdivision'' language in the
original Act.
The Department also notes that Congress, in enacting the FAHA,
envisioned that the Federal aid would be provided in a manner that
sought to complement and cooperate with State departments of
transportation. See Frank Bros. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 409 F.3d
880, 887-89 (7th Cir. 2005). As State highway or transportation
districts often plan, develop, and oversee federally financed highway
projects, the provision of a single wage determination for each
district would simplify the procedure for incorporating Federal
financing into these projects.
As such, the Department proposes to authorize WHD to adopt State
highway districts as the geographic area for determining prevailing
wages on highway projects, where appropriate.
(C) Type of Construction (or Construction Type)
The Department proposes to define ``type of construction'' or
``construction type'' to mean the general category of construction as
established by the Administrator for the publication of general wage
determinations. The proposed language also provides examples of types
of construction,
[[Page 15708]]
including building, residential, heavy, and highway, consistent with
the four construction types the Department currently uses in general
wage determinations, but does not exclude the possibility of other
types. The terms ``type of construction'' or ``construction type'' are
already used elsewhere in part 1 to refer to these general categories
of construction, as well as in wage determinations themselves. As used
in this part, the terms ``type of construction'' and ``construction
type'' are synonymous and interchangeable. The Department believes that
including this definition would provide additional clarity for these
references, particularly for members of the regulated community who
might be less familiar with the term.
(D) Other Definitions
The Department proposes additional conforming edits to 29 CFR 1.2
in light of proposed changes to 29 CFR 5.2. As part of these conforming
edits, the Department proposes to revise the definition of ``agency''
(and add a sub-definition of ``Federal agency'') to mirror the
definition proposed and discussed below in Sec. 5.2. The Department
also proposes to add to Sec. 1.2 new defined terms also proposed in
parts 3 and 5, including ``employed'', ``type of construction (or
construction type),'' and ``United States or the District of
Columbia.'' For further discussion on these proposed terms, see the
corresponding discussion in Sec. 3.2 and 5.2 below.
(E) Paragraph Designations
The Department is also proposing to amend Sec. Sec. 1.2, 3.2, and
5.2 to remove paragraph designations of defined terms and instead to
list defined terms in alphabetical order. The Department proposes to
make conforming edits throughout parts 1, 3, and 5 in any provisions
that currently reference lettered paragraph definitions.
iii. Section 1.3 Obtaining and Compiling Wage Rate Information
(A) 29 CFR 1.3(b)
The Department proposes to switch the order of Sec. 1.3(b)(4) and
(5) for clarity. This nonsubstantive change would simply group together
the subparagraphs in Sec. 1.3(b) that apply to wage determinations
generally, and follow those subparagraphs with one that applies only to
Federal-aid highway projects under 23 U.S.C. 113.
(B) 29 CFR 1.3(d)
As part of its effort to modernize the regulations governing the
determination of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates, the Department is
considering whether to revise Sec. 1.3(d), regarding when survey data
from Federal or federally assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements (hereinafter ``Federal project data'') may
be used in determining prevailing wages for building and residential
construction wage determinations. The Department is not proposing any
specific revisions to Sec. 1.3(d) in this NPRM, but rather is seeking
comment on whether this regulatory provision--particularly its
limitation on the use of Federal project data in determining wage rates
for building and residential construction projects--should be revised.
For approximately 50 years (beginning shortly after the DBA was
enacted in 1931 and continuing until the 1981-1982 rulemaking), the
Department used Federal project data in determining prevailing wage
rates for all categories of construction, including building and
residential construction. The final rule promulgated in May 1982
codified this practice with respect to heavy and highway construction,
providing in new Sec. 1.3(d) that ``[d]ata from Federal or federally
assisted projects will be used in compiling wage rate data for heavy
and highway wage determinations.'' \42\ The Department explained that
``it would not be practical to determine prevailing wages for `heavy'
and `highway' construction projects if Davis-Bacon covered projects are
excluded in making wage surveys because such a large portion of those
types of construction receive Federal financing.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Final Rule, Procedures for Predetermination of Wage
Rates, 47 FR 23644 (May 28, 1982).
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to building and residential construction, however, the
1982 final rule concluded that such construction often occurred without
Federal financial assistance subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements, and that to invariably include Federal project data in
calculating prevailing wage rates applicable to building and
residential construction projects therefore would ``skew[ ] the results
upward,'' contrary to congressional intent.\44\ The final rule
therefore provided in Sec. 1.3(d) that ``in compiling wage rate data
for building and residential wage determinations, the Administrator
will not use data from Federal or federally assisted projects subject
to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements unless it is determined
that there is insufficient wage data to determine the prevailing wages
in the absence of such data.'' 29 CFR 1.3(d). In subsequent litigation,
the D.C. Circuit upheld Sec. 1.3(d)'s limitation on the use of Federal
project data as consistent with the DBA's purpose and legislative
history--if not necessarily its plain text--and therefore a valid
exercise of the Administrator's broad discretion to administer the
Act.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Donovan, 712 F.2d at 620.
\45\ Id. at 621-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of Sec. 1.3(d)'s limitation on the use of Federal
project data in calculating prevailing wage rates applicable to
building and residential construction, WHD first attempts to calculate
a prevailing wage based on non-Federal project survey data at the
county level--i.e., survey data that includes data from private
projects or projects funded by State and local governments without
assistance under the DBRA, but excludes data from Federal or federally
assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
See 29 CFR 1.3(d), 1.7(a); Manual of Operations at 38; Coal. for
Chesapeake Hous. Dev., ARB No. 12-010, 2013 WL 5872049, at *4 (Sept.
25, 2013) (Chesapeake Housing). If there is insufficient non-Federal
project survey data for a particular classification in that county,
then WHD considers survey data from Federal projects in the county if
such data is available.
Under the current regulations, WHD expands the geographic scope of
data that it considers when it is making a county wage determination
when data is insufficient at the county level. This procedure is
described below in the discussion of the ``scope of consideration''
regulation at Sec. 1.7. For wage determinations for federally funded
building and residential construction projects, WHD currently
integrates Federal project data into this procedure at each level of
geographic aggregation in the same manner it is integrated at the
county level: If the combined Federal and non-Federal survey data
received from a particular county is insufficient to establish a
prevailing wage rate for a classification in a county, then WHD
attempts to calculate a prevailing wage rate for that county based on
non-Federal wage data from a group of surrounding counties. See 29 CFR
1.7(a), (b). If non-Federal project survey data from the surrounding-
county group is insufficient, then WHD includes Federal project data
from all the counties in that county group. If both non-Federal project
and Federal project data for a surrounding-county group is still
insufficient to determine a prevailing wage rate, then, for
classifications that have been designated as ``key''
[[Page 15709]]
classifications, WHD may expand to a ``super group'' of counties or
even to the statewide level. See Chesapeake Housing, 2013 WL 5872049,
at *6; PWRB, Davis-Bacon Surveys, at 6.\46\ At each stage of data
expansion for building and residential wage determinations, WHD first
attempts to determine prevailing wages based on non-Federal project
data; however, if there is insufficient non-Federal data, WHD will
consider Federal project data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See note 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reflected in the plain language of Sec. 1.3(d) as well as WHD's
implementation of that regulatory provision, the current formulation of
Sec. 1.3(d) does not prohibit all uses of Federal project data in
establishing prevailing wage rates for building and residential
construction projects subject to Davis-Bacon requirements; rather it
limits the use of such data to circumstances where ``there is
insufficient wage data to determine the prevailing wages in the absence
of such data.'' 29 CFR 1.3(d). WHD often uses Federal project data in
calculating prevailing wage rates applicable to residential
construction due to insufficient non-Federal project survey data
submissions. By contrast, because WHD's surveys of building
construction typically have a higher participation rate than
residential surveys, WHD uses Federal project data less frequently in
calculating prevailing wage rates applicable to building construction
projects covered by the DBRA. For example, the 2011 GAO Report analyzed
4 DBA surveys and found that over two-thirds of the residential rates
for 16 key job classifications (such as carpenter and common laborer)
included Federal project data because there was insufficient non-
Federal project data, while only about one-quarter of the building wage
rates for key classifications included Federal project data. 2011 GAO
Report, at 26.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See note 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the use of Federal project data in calculating
prevailing wage rates for building and residential construction, the
Department recognizes that some interested parties may believe that
Sec. 1.3(d) imposes an absolute barrier to the use of Federal project
data in determining prevailing wage rates. As a result, survey
participants may not submit Federal project data in connection with
WHD's surveys of building and residential construction--thereby
reducing the amount of data that WHD receives in response to its
building and residential surveys. The Department strongly encourages
robust participation in Davis-Bacon prevailing wage surveys, including
building and residential surveys, and it therefore urges interested
parties to submit Federal project data in connection with building and
residential surveys with the understanding that such data will be used
in calculating prevailing wage rates if insufficient non-Federal
project data is received. In the absence of such Federal project data,
for example, a prevailing wage rate may be calculated at the
surrounding-county group or even statewide level when it would have
been calculated based on a smaller geographic area if more Federal
project data had been submitted.
Although increased submission of such Federal project data thus
could be expected to contribute to more robust wage determinations even
without any change to Sec. 1.3(d), the Department recognizes that
revisions to Sec. 1.3(d) may nonetheless be warranted. Specifically,
the Department is interested in comments regarding whether to revise
Sec. 1.3(d) in a way that would permit WHD to use Federal project data
more frequently when it calculates building and residential prevailing
wages. For example, particularly given the challenges that WHD has
faced in achieving high levels of participation in residential wage
surveys--and given the number of residential projects that are subject
to Davis-Bacon labor standards under Related Acts administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--it may be appropriate
to expand the amount of Federal project data that is available to use
in setting prevailing wage rates for residential construction.
There may also be other specific circumstances that particularly
warrant greater use of Federal project data. More generally, if the
current limitation on the use of Federal project data were removed from
Sec. 1.3(d), WHD could in all circumstances establish Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage rates for building and residential construction based
on all usable wage data in the relevant county or other geographic
area, without regard to whether particular wage data was ``Federal''
and whether there was ``insufficient'' non-Federal project data.
Alternatively, Sec. 1.3(d) could be revised in order to provide a
definition of ``insufficient wage data,'' thereby providing increased
clarity regarding when Federal project data may and may not be used in
establishing prevailing wage rates for building or residential
construction. The Department specifically invites comments on these and
any other issues regarding the use of Federal project data in
developing building and residential wage determinations.
(C) 29 CFR 1.3(f)--Frequently Conformed Rates
The Department is also proposing changes relating to the
publication of rates for labor classifications for which conformance
requests are regularly submitted when such classifications are missing
from wage determinations. The Department's proposed changes to this
subsection are discussed below in part III.B.1.xii (``Frequently
conformed rates''), together with proposed changes to Sec. 5.5(a)(1).
(D) 29 CFR 1.3(g)-(j)--Adoption of State/Local Prevailing Wage
Determinations
The Department proposes to add new paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and
(j) to Sec. 1.3 to permit the Administrator, under specified
circumstances, to determine Davis-Bacon wage rates by adopting
prevailing wage rates set by State and local governments.
About half of the States, as well as many localities, have their
own prevailing wage laws (sometimes called ``little'' Davis-Bacon
laws).\48\ Additionally, a few states have processes for determining
prevailing wages in public construction even in the absence of such
State laws.\49\ Accordingly, the Administrator has long taken
prevailing wage rates set by States and localities into account when
making wage determinations. Under the current regulations, one type of
information that the Administrator may ``consider[ ]'' in determining
wage rates is ``[w]age rates determined for public construction by
State and local officials pursuant to State and local prevailing wage
legislation.'' 29 CFR 1.3(b)(3). Additionally, for wage determinations
on federally-funded highway construction projects, the Administrator is
required by statute and regulation to ``consult[ ]'' with ``the highway
department of the State'' in which the work is to be performed, and to
``give due regard to the information thus obtained.'' 23 U.S.C. 113(b);
29 CFR 1.3(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ A list of such states, and the thresholds for coverage, can
be found here: Dollar Threshold Amount for Contract Coverage, U.S.
Dep't of Lab., Wage and Hour Div., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages (last updated Jan. 2021).
\49\ These states include Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reliance on these provisions, WHD has sometimes adopted and
published certain states' highway wage determinations in lieu of
conducting wage surveys in certain areas. According to a 2019 report by
the Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), WHD used
highway wage
[[Page 15710]]
determinations from 15 states between fiscal years 2013 and 2017. See
2019 OIG Report at 10.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OIG report expressed concern about the high number of out-of-
date Davis-Bacon wage rates, particularly non-union rates, noting, for
example, that some published wage rates were as many as 40 years old.
Id. at 5. The OIG report further noted that at the time, 26 states and
the District of Columbia had their own prevailing wage laws, and
recommended that WHD ``should determine whether it would be statutorily
permissible and programmatically appropriate to adopt [S]tate or local
wage rates other than those for highway construction.'' Id. at 10-11.
WHD indicated to OIG that in the absence of a regulatory revision, it
viewed adoption of State rates for non-highway construction as in
tension with the definition of prevailing wage in Sec. 1.2(a) and the
ARB's Mistick decision. Id. at 10.
The Department shares OIG's concern regarding outdated wage rates.
Outdated and/or inaccurate wage determinations are inconsistent with
the intent of the Davis-Bacon labor standards, which aim to ensure that
laborers and mechanics on covered projects are paid locally prevailing
wages and fringe benefits. Wage rates that are significantly out-of-
date do not reflect this intent and could even have the effect of
depressing wages if covered contractors pay no more than an
artificially-low prevailing wage rate that has not been adjusted over
time to continue to reflect the wages paid to workers in a geographic
area. Accordingly, the Department agrees with OIG that, where
appropriate, adoption of more current wage determinations made by
states and localities would be consistent with the DBA's purpose.
States often conduct wage surveys far more frequently than WHD.\51\
Furthermore, if a State or locality is already engaged in efforts to
determine prevailing wages--and if the State's methods are reliable,
rigorous, and transparent--similar activities conducted by WHD on a
less regular basis can be duplicative and an inefficient use of survey
respondents' efforts and WHD's scarce resources. Relatedly, states and
localities that regularly update their own wage determinations may have
ongoing relationships with stakeholders in the relevant geographic
areas that facilitate that process. In contrast, WHD may lack similarly
strong relationships with those stakeholders given the relative
infrequency with which it surveys any given area. Thus, many states and
localities may be in a position to ensure greater participation in wage
surveys, which can improve wage survey accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Some states, such as Minnesota, conduct surveys annually.
See Prevailing Wage: Annual Statewide Survey, Minn. Dep't of Labor &
Indus., https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment-practices/prevailing-wage-annual-statewide-survey (last visited Nov. 17,
2021). Others use a different frequency; for example, Nevada
conducts a survey every 2 years. See Nevada's 2021-2023 Prevailing
Wage Survey Released, Nev. Dep't of Bus. & Indus., https://business.nv.gov/News_Media/Press_Releases/2021/Labor_Commissioner/Nevada%E2%80%99s_2021-2023_Prevailing_Wage_Survey_Released/ (last
visited Nov. 17, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that a regulatory revision would best
ensure that WHD can incorporate State and local wage determinations
where doing so would further the purposes of the Davis-Bacon labor
standards. As noted above, the current regulations permit WHD to
``consider'' State or local prevailing wage rates among a variety of
sources of information used to make wage determinations, and require
WHD to give ``due regard'' to information obtained from State highway
departments for highway wage determinations. See 29 CFR 1.3(b)(3)-(4).
However, they also provide that any information WHD considers when
making wage determinations must ``be evaluated in the light of [the
prevailing wage definition set forth in] Sec. 1.2(a).'' 29 CFR 1.3(c).
While some States and localities' definitions of prevailing wage mirror
the Department's regulatory definition, many others' do not.\52\
Because the current regulations at Sec. Sec. 1.2(a) and 1.3(c), as
well as the ARB's decision in Mistick, suggest that any information
(such as State or local wage rates) that WHD obtains and
``consider[s]'' under Sec. 1.3(b) must be filtered through the
definition of ``prevailing wage'' in Sec. 1.2, the Department is
proposing a regulatory change to clarify that WHD may adopt State or
local prevailing wage determinations under certain circumstances even
where the State or locality's definition of prevailing wage differs
from the Department's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ For example, Washington uses a definition similar to the
Department's current majority rule. See Wash. Rev. Code Sec.
39.12.010(1) (2021). Wyoming, in contrast, uses a method that
mirrors the three-step process in this proposed rule. Wyo. Stat.
Ann. Sec. Sec. 27-4-401-413 (2021). Other states use CBA rates as a
starting point. N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 13-4-10-17 (2021); N.M.
Code R. Sec. 11.1.2.12 (2021); N.Y. Lab. Law Sec. Sec. 220-224
(McKinney 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Department's regulations apply numerous
requirements and constraints to WHD's own wage determinations, such as
those concerning geographic scope, see Sec. 1.7, and the type of
project data that may be used, see Sec. 1.3(d). Like the definition of
prevailing wage, analogous requirements under State and local
prevailing wage laws vary. Although, as noted above, the Department's
regulations permit WHD to ``consider'' State and local determinations
and to give ``due regard'' to State rates for highway construction, the
current regulations do not specifically address whether WHD may adopt
State or local rates derived using methods and requirements that differ
from those used by WHD.
Accordingly, and in light of the advantages of adopting State and
local rates discussed above, the Department is proposing to add a new
paragraph, Sec. 1.3(g), which would explicitly permit WHD to adopt
prevailing wage rates set by State or local officials, even where the
methods used to derive such rates, including the definition of the
prevailing wage, may differ in some respects from the methods the
Administrator uses under the DBA and the regulations in 29 CFR part 1.
The proposal would permit WHD to adopt such wage rates provided that
the Administrator, after reviewing the rate and the processes used to
derive the rate, concludes that they meet certain listed criteria. The
criteria, which are explained further below, are intended to allow WHD
to adopt State and local prevailing wage rates where appropriate while
also ensuring that adoption of such rates is consistent with the
statutory requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act and does not create
arbitrary distinctions between jurisdictions where WHD makes wage
determinations by using its own surveys and jurisdictions where WHD
makes wage determinations by adopting adopt State or local rates.
Importantly, the proposed rule requires the Administrator to make
an affirmative determination that the enumerated criteria have been met
in order to adopt a State or local wage rate, and to do so only after
careful review of both the rate and the process used to derive the
rate. This makes clear that if the proposed rule is finalized, the
Department may not simply accept State or local data with little or no
review. Such actions would be inconsistent with the Secretary's
statutory responsibility to ``determine[ ]'' the wages that are
prevailing. 40 U.S.C. 3142(b). Adoption of State or local rates after
appropriate review, however, is consistent with the authority Congress
granted to the Department in the Davis-Bacon Act. The DBA ``does not
prescribe a method for determining prevailing wages.'' Chesapeake
Housing, 2013 WL 5872049, at *4.
[[Page 15711]]
Rather, the statute ``delegates to the Secretary, in the broadest terms
imaginable, the authority to determine which wages are prevailing.''
Donovan, 712 F.2d at 616. The D.C. Circuit has explained that the DBA's
legislative history reflects that Congress ``envisioned that the
Secretary could establish the method to be used'' to determine DBA
prevailing wage rates. Id. (citing 74 Cong. Rec. 6,516 (1931) (remarks
of Rep. Kopp) (``A method for determining the prevailing wage rate
might have been incorporated in the bill, but the Secretary of Labor
can establish the method and make it known to the bidders.'')).
Reliance on prevailing wage rates calculated by State or local
authorities for similar purposes is a permissible exercise of this
broad statutory discretion. In areas where states or localities are
already gathering reliable information about prevailing wages in
construction, it may be inefficient for the Department to use its
limited resources to perform the same tasks. As a result, the
Department is proposing to use State and local wage determinations
under specified circumstances where, based on a review and analysis of
the processes used in those wage determinations, the Administrator
determines that such use would be appropriate and consistent with the
DBA. Such resource-driven decisions by Federal agencies are
permissible. See, e.g., Hisp. Affs. Project v. Acosta, 901 F.3d 378,
392 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (upholding Department's decision not to collect
its own data but instead to rely on a ``necessarily . . . imprecise''
estimate given that data collection under the circumstances would have
been ``very difficult and resource-intensive''); Dist. Hosp. Partners,
L.P. v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 61-62 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (agency's use of
``imperfect[ ]'' data set was permissible under the Administrative
Procedure Act).
The Department is proposing to permit the adoption of State and
local rates for all types of construction. The FHWA's independent
statutory obligation for the Department to consider and give ``due
regard'' to information obtained from State highway agencies for
highway wage determinations does not prohibit WHD from adopting State
or local determinations, either for highway construction or for other
types of construction, where appropriate. Rather, this language imposes
a minimum requirement for the Secretary to consult with states and
consider their wage determinations for highway construction. See
Virginia, ex rel., Comm'r, Virginia Dep't of Highways and Transp. v.
Marshall, 599 F.2d 588, 594 (4th Cir. 1979) (``Section 113(b) requires
that the Secretary `consult' and give `due regard' to the information
thus obtained.''). In sum, the FHWA's requirement sets a floor for
reliance on State data for highway construction, not a ceiling, and
does not foreclose reliance on State or local data for other types of
construction.
The criteria the Department proposes for the adoption of State or
local rates, which are included in proposed new paragraph Sec. 1.3(h),
are as follows:
First, the State or local government must set prevailing wage
rates, and collect relevant data, using a survey or other process that
generally is open to full participation by all interested parties. This
requirement ensures that WHD will not adopt a prevailing wage rate
where the process to set the rate artificially favors certain entities,
such as union or non-union contractors. Rather, the State or local
process must reflect a good-faith effort to derive a wage that prevails
for similar workers on similar projects within the relevant geographic
area within the meaning of the Davis-Bacon Act statutory provisions.
The use of the language ``survey or other process'' in the proposed
regulatory text is intended to permit the Administrator to incorporate
wage determinations from States or localities that do not necessarily
engage in surveys but instead use a different process for gathering
information and setting prevailing wage rates, provided that this
process meets the required criteria.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ For example, a few states determine prevailing wage rates
through stakeholder negotiations that typically involve labor and
employer groups. The proposed rule does not foreclose acceptance of
rates set using such a process providing that the process is
generally open to full participation by all interested parties and
that the other required criteria are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the State or local wage rate must reflect both a basic
hourly rate of pay as well as any locally prevailing bona fide fringe
benefits, each of which can be calculated separately. Thus, under the
proposed rule, WHD must be able to confirm during its review process
that both figures are prevailing for the relevant classification(s),
and must be able to list each figure separately on its wage
determinations. This reflects the statutory requirement that a
prevailing wage rate under the Davis-Bacon Act must include fringe
benefits, 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B); 29 CFR 5.20, and that ``the Secretary
is obligated to make a separate finding of the rate of contribution or
cost of fringe benefits.'' 29 CFR 5.25(a). This requirement also would
ensure that WHD could determine the basic or regular rate of pay in
order to determine compliance with the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (CWHSSA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Third, the State or local government must classify laborers and
mechanics in a manner that is recognized within the field of
construction. The Department recognizes that differences in industry
practices mean that the precise types of work done and tools used by
workers in particular classifications may not be uniform across states
and localities. For example, in some areas, a significant portion of
work involving the installation of heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) duct work may be done by an HVAC Technician,
whereas in other areas such work may be more typically performed by a
Sheet Metal Worker. Indeed, unlike in the case of the Service Contract
Act (SCA), WHD does not maintain a directory of occupations for the
Davis-Bacon Act. However, under this proposed rule, in order for WHD to
adopt a State or locality's wage rate, the State or locality's
classification system must be in a manner recognized within the field
of construction. This standard is intended to ensure that the
classification system does not result in lower wages than are
appropriate by, for example, assigning duties associated with skilled
classifications to a classification for a general laborer.
Finally, the State or local government's criteria for setting
prevailing wage rates must be substantially similar to those the
Administrator uses in making wage determinations under 29 CFR part 1.
The proposed regulation provides a non-exclusive list of factors to
guide this determination, including, but not limited to, the State or
local government's definition of prevailing wage; the types of fringe
benefits it accepts; the information it solicits from interested
parties; its classification of construction projects, laborers, and
mechanics; and its method for determining the appropriate geographic
area(s). Thus, the more similar a State or local government's methods
are to those used by WHD, the greater likelihood that their
corresponding wage rate(s) will be accepted. While the proposed
regulation lists the above factors as guidelines, it ultimately directs
that the Administrator's determination in this regard will be based on
the totality of the circumstances. The reservation of such discretion
in the Administrator intends to preserve the Administrator's ability to
make an overall determination regarding whether adoption of a State or
local wage rate is consistent with both
[[Page 15712]]
the language and purpose of the DBA, and thereby is consistent with the
statutory directive for the Secretary (in this case, via delegation to
the Administrator), to determine the prevailing wage. See 40 U.S.C.
3142(b).
Proposed Sec. 1.3(g) permits the Administrator to adopt State or
local wage rates with or without modification. This is intended to
encompass situations where the Administrator reviews a State or local
wage determination and determines that although the State or local wage
determination might not satisfy the above criteria as initially
submitted, it would satisfy those criteria with certain modifications.
For example, the Administrator may obtain from the State or local
government the State or locality's wage determinations and the wage
data underlying those determinations, and, provided the data was
collected in accordance with the criteria set forth earlier (such as
that the survey was fully open to all participants) may determine,
after review and analysis, that it would be appropriate to use the
underlying data to adjust or modify certain classifications or
construction types, or to adjust the wage rate for certain
classifications. Consistent with the Secretary's authority to make wage
determinations, the regulation permits the Administrator to modify a
State or local wage rate as appropriate while still generally relying
on it as the primary source for a wage determination. For instance,
before using State or local government wage data to calculate
prevailing wage rates under the DBA, the Administrator could regroup
counties, apply the definition of ``prevailing wage'' set forth in
Sec. 1.2, disregard data for workers who do not qualify as laborers or
mechanics under the DBA, and/or segregate data based on the type of
construction involved. It is anticipated that the Administrator would
cooperate with the State or locality to make the appropriate
modifications to any wage rates.
The Department also proposes to add a new paragraph Sec. 1.3(i),
which would explain that in order for WHD to adopt a State or local
government prevailing wage rate, the Administrator must obtain the wage
rates and any relevant supporting documentation and data from the State
or local entity, and provides instructions for submission.
Finally, the Department proposes to add a new paragraph Sec.
1.3(j), which would explain that nothing in the additional proposed
sections described above precludes the Administrator from considering
State or local prevailing wage rates in a more holistic fashion,
consistent with Sec. 1.3(b)(3), or from giving due regard to
information obtained from State highway departments, consistent with
Sec. 1.3(b)(4), as part of the Administrator's process of making
prevailing wage determinations under 29 CFR part 1. For example, under
this proposed rule, as under the current regulations, if a State or
locality were to provide the Department with the underlying data that
it uses to determine wage rates, even if the Administrator determines
not to adopt the wage rates themselves, the Administrator may consider
or use the data as part of the process to determine the prevailing wage
within the meaning of 29 CFR 1.2, provided that the data is timely
received and otherwise appropriate. The purpose of the proposed
additional language is to clarify that the Administrator may, under
certain circumstances, adopt State or local wage rates, and use them in
wage determinations, even if the process and rules for State or local
wage determinations differs from the Administrator's. These proposed
revisions therefore address the concerns WHD voiced to OIG that the
current regulations, and in particular the definition of prevailing
wage as interpreted by the ARB in Mistick, could preclude, or at least
be in tension with, such an approach.
iv. Section 1.4 Report of Agency Construction Programs
Section 1.4 currently provides that, to the extent practicable,
agencies that use wage determinations under the DBRA shall submit an
annual report to the Department outlining proposed construction
programs for the coming year. The reports described in Sec. 1.4 assist
WHD in its multi-year planning efforts by providing information that
may guide WHD's decisions regarding when to survey wages for particular
types of construction in a particular locality. These reports are an
effective way for the Department to know where Federal and federally
assisted construction will be taking place, and therefore where updated
wage determinations will be of most use.
Notwithstanding the importance of these reports to the program,
contracting agencies have not regularly provided them to the
Department. As a result, after careful consideration, the Department
proposes to remove the language in the regulation that currently allows
agencies to submit reports only ``to the extent practicable.'' Instead,
as proposed, Sec. 1.4 would require Federal agencies to submit the
construction reports.
The Department also now proposes to adopt certain elements of two
prior AAMs addressing these reports. In 1985, WHD updated its guidance
regarding the agency construction reports, including by directing that
Federal agencies submit the annual report by April 10 each year and
providing a recommended format for such agencies to submit the report.
See AAM 144 (Dec. 27, 1985). In 2017, WHD requested that Federal
agencies include in the reports proposed construction programs for an
additional 2 fiscal years beyond the upcoming year. See AAM 224 (Jan.
17, 2017). The proposed changes to Sec. 1.4 would codify these
guidelines as part of the regulations.
The Department also proposes new language requiring Federal
agencies to include notification of any expected options to extend the
terms of current construction contracts. The Department is proposing
this change because--like a new contract--the exercise of an option
requires the incorporation of the most current wage determination. See
AAM 157 (Dec. 9, 1992); see also 48 CFR 22.404-12(a). Receiving
information concerning expected options to extend the terms of current
construction contracts therefore will help the Department assess where
updated wage determinations are needed for Federal and federally
assisted construction, which will in turn contribute to the
effectiveness of the overall Davis-Bacon wage survey program. The
Department also proposes that Federal agencies include the estimated
cost of construction in their reports, as this information also will
help the Department prioritize areas where updated wage determinations
will have the broadest effects.
In addition, the Department proposes to require that Federal
agencies include in the annual report a notification of any significant
changes to previously reported construction programs. In turn, the
Department proposes eliminating the current directive that agencies
notify the Administrator mid-year of any significant changes in their
proposed construction programs. Such notification would instead be
provided in Federal agencies' annual reports.
Finally, the Department proposes deleting the reference to the
Interagency Reports Management Program as the requirements of that
program were terminated by the General Services Administration (GSA) in
2005. See 70 FR 3132 (Jan. 19, 2005).
The Department does not believe that these proposed changes will
result in significant burdens on contracting agencies, as the proposed
provisions request only information already on
[[Page 15713]]
hand. Furthermore, any burden resulting from the new proposal should be
offset by the proposed elimination of the current directive that
agencies notify the Administrator of any significant changes in a
separate mid-year report. However, the Department also seeks comment on
any alternative methods through which the Department may obtain the
information and eliminate the need to require the agency reports.
v. Section 1.5 Publication of General Wage Determinations and Procedure
for Requesting Project Wage Determinations
The Department proposes a number of revisions to Sec. 1.5 to
clarify the applicability of general wage determinations and project
wage determinations. Except as noted below, these revisions are
consistent with longstanding Department practice and subregulatory
guidance.
First, the Department proposes to re-title Sec. 1.5, currently
titled ``Procedure for requesting wage determinations,'' as
``Publication of general wage determinations and procedure for
requesting project wage determinations.'' The proposed revision better
reflects the content of the section as well as the distinction between
general wage determinations, which the Department publishes for broad
use, and project wage determinations, which are requested by
contracting agencies on a project-specific basis.
Additionally, the Department proposes to add language to Sec.
1.5(a) to explain that a general wage determination contains, among
other information, a list of wage rates determined to be prevailing for
various classifications of laborers and mechanics for specified type(s)
of construction in a given area. Likewise, the Department proposes to
add language to Sec. 1.5(b) to explain circumstances under which an
agency may request a project wage determination, namely, where (1) the
project involves work in more than one county and will employ workers
who may work in more than one county; (2) there is no general wage
determination in effect for the relevant area and type of construction
for an upcoming project; or (3) all or virtually all of the work on a
contract will be performed by one or more classifications that are not
listed in the general wage determination that would otherwise apply,
and contract award or bid opening has not yet taken place. The first of
these three circumstances conforms to the proposed revision to the
definition of ``area'' in Sec. 1.2 discussed above that would permit
the issuance of project wage determinations for multi-county projects
where appropriate. The latter two circumstances reflect the
Department's existing practice. See PWRB, Davis-Bacon Wage
Determinations, at 4-5.
The Department also proposes to add language to Sec. 1.5(b)
clarifying that requests for project wage determinations may be sent by
means other than the mail, such as email or online submission, as
directed by the Administrator. Additionally, consistent with the
Department's current practice, the Department proposes to add language
to Sec. 1.5(b) requiring that when requesting a project wage
determination for a project that involves multiple types of
construction, the requesting agency must attach information indicating
the expected cost breakdown by type of construction. See PWRB, Davis-
Bacon Wage Determinations, at 5. The Department also proposes to
clarify that in addition to submitting the information specified in the
regulation, a party requesting a project wage determination must submit
all other information requested in the Standard Form (SF) 308.
Finally, the Department proposes to clarify the term ``agency'' in
Sec. 1.5. In proposed Sec. 1.5(b)(2) (renumbered, currently Sec.
1.5(b)(1)), which describes the process for requesting a project wage
determination, the Department proposes to delete the word ``Federal''
that precedes ``agency.'' This proposed deletion, and the resulting
incorporation of the definition of ``agency'' from Sec. 1.2, clarifies
that, as already implied elsewhere in Sec. 1.5, non-Federal agencies
may request project wage determinations. See, e.g., Sec. 1.5(b)(3)
(proposed Sec. 1.5(b)(4)) (explaining that a State highway department
under the Federal-Aid Highway Acts may be a requesting agency).
vi. Section 1.6 Use and Effectiveness of Wage Determinations
(A) Organizational, Technical and Clarifying Revisions
The Department proposes to reorganize, rephrase, and/or re-number
several regulatory provisions and text in Sec. 1.6. These proposed
revisions include adding headings to paragraphs and subparagraphs for
clarity; changing the order of some of the paragraphs and subparagraphs
so that discussions of general wage determinations precede discussions
of project wage determinations, reflecting the fact that general wage
determinations are (and have been for many years) the norm, whereas
project wage determinations are the exception; adding the word
``project'' before ``wage determinations'' in locations where the text
refers to project wage determinations but could otherwise be read as
referring to both general and project wage determinations; using the
term ``revised'' wage determination to refer both to cases where a wage
determination is modified, such as due to updated CBA rates, and cases
where a wage determination is re-issued entirely (referred to in the
current regulatory text as a ``supersedeas'' wage determination), such
as after a new wage survey; consolidating certain subsections that
discuss revisions to wage determinations to eliminate redundancy and
improve clarity; revising the regulation so that it references the
publication of a general wage determination (consistent with the
Department's current practice of publishing wage determinations
online), rather than publication of notice of the wage determination
(which the Department previously did in the Federal Register); and
using the term ``issued'' to refer, collectively, to the publication of
a general wage determination or WHD's provision of a project wage
determination.
The Department also proposes minor revisions to clarify that there
is only one appropriate use for wage determinations that are no longer
current--which are referred to in current regulatory text as
``archived'' wage determinations, and the Department now proposes to
describe as ``inactive'' to conform to the terminology currently used
on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov). That permissible
circumstance is when the contracting agency initially failed to
incorporate the correct wage determination into the contract and
subsequently must incorporate the correct wage determination after
contract award or the start of construction (a procedure that is
discussed in Sec. 1.6(f)). In that circumstance, even if the wage
determination that should have been incorporated at the time of the
contract award has since become inactive, it is still the correct wage
determination to incorporate into the contract.
The Department also proposes that agencies should notify the
Administrator prior to engaging in incorporation of an inactive wage
determination, and that agencies may not incorporate the inactive wage
determination if the Administrator instructs otherwise. While the
current regulation requires the Department to ``approv[e]'' the use of
an inactive wage determination, the proposed change permits the
contracting agency to use an inactive wage determination under these
limited circumstances as long as it has notified the Administrator and
has
[[Page 15714]]
not been instructed otherwise. The proposed change is intended to
ensure that contracting agencies incorporate omitted wage
determinations promptly rather than waiting for approval.
The Department also proposes revisions to Sec. 1.6(b) to clarify
when contracting agencies must incorporate multiple wage determinations
into a contract. The proposed language states that when a construction
contract includes work in more than one area (as the term is defined in
Sec. 1.2), and no multi-county project wage determination has been
obtained (as contemplated by the proposed revisions to Sec. 1.2), the
applicable wage determination for each area must be incorporated into
the contract so that all workers on the project are paid the wages that
prevail in their respective areas, consistent with the DBA. The
Department also proposes language stating that when a construction
contract includes work in more than one type of construction (as the
Department has proposed to define the term in Sec. 1.2), the
contracting agency must incorporate the applicable wage determination
for each type of construction where the total work in that category of
construction is substantial. This accords with the Department's
longstanding guidance published in AAM 130 (Mar. 17, 1978) and AAM 131
(July 14, 1978).\54\ The Department intends to continue interpreting
the meaning of ``substantial'' in subregulatory guidance.\55\ The
Department requests comments on the above proposals, including
potential ways to improve the standards for when and how to incorporate
multiple wage determinations into a contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ AAM 130 states that where a project ``includes construction
items that in themselves would be otherwise classified, a multiple
classification may be justified if such construction items are a
substantial part of the project . . . [but] a separate
classification would not apply if such construction items are merely
incidental to the total project to which they are closely related in
function,'' and construction is incidental to the overall project.
AAM 130, p. 2, n.1. AAM 131 similarly states that multiple schedules
are issued if ``the construction items are substantial in relation
to project cost[s].'' However, it, it further explains that ``[o]nly
one schedule is issued if construction items are `incidental' in
function to the overall character of a project . . . and if there is
not a substantial amount of construction in the second category.''
AAM 131, p. 2.
\55\ Most recently, on December 14, 2020, the Administrator
issued AAM 236, which states that ``[w]hen a project has
construction items in a different category of construction,
contracting agencies should generally apply multiple wage
determinations when the cost of the construction exceeds either $2.5
million or 20 percent of the total project costs,'' but that WHD
will consider ``exceptional situations'' on a case-by-case basis.
AAM 236, pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also proposes to add language to Sec. 1.6(b)
clarifying and reinforcing the responsibilities of contracting
agencies, contractors, and subcontractors with regard to wage
determinations. Specifically, the Department proposes to clarify in
Sec. 1.6(b)(1) that contracting agencies are responsible for making
the initial determination of the appropriate wage determination(s) for
a project. In Sec. 1.6(b)(2), the Department proposes to clarify that
contractors and subcontractors have an affirmative obligation to ensure
that wages are paid to laborers and mechanics in compliance with the
DBRA labor standards.
The Department also proposes to revise language in Sec. 1.6(b)
that currently states that the Administrator ``shall give foremost
consideration to area practice'' in resolving questions about ``wage
rate schedules.'' In the Department's experience, this language has
created unnecessary confusion because stakeholders have at times
interpreted it as precluding the Administrator from considering other
factors when resolving questions about wage determinations.
Specifically, the Department has long recognized that when ``it is
clear from the nature of the project itself in a construction sense
that it is to be categorized'' as either building, residential, heavy,
or highway construction, ``it is not necessary to resort to an area
practice'' to determine the proper category of construction. AAM 130,
at 2; see also AAM 131, at 1 (``area practice regarding wages paid will
be taken into consideration together with other factors,'' when ``the
nature of the project in a construction sense is not clear.'');
Chastleton Apartments, WAB No. 84-09, 1984 WL 161751, at *4 (Dec. 11,
1984) (because the ``character of the structure in a construction sense
dictates its characterization for Davis-Bacon wage purposes,'' where
there was a substantial amount of rehabilitation work being done on a
project similar to a commercial building in a construction sense, it
was ``not necessary to determine whether there [was] an industry
practice to recognize'' the work as residential construction). The
regulatory reference to giving ``foremost consideration to area
practice'' in determining which wage determination to apply to a
project arguably is in tension with the Department's longstanding
position, and has resulted in stakeholders contending on occasion that
WHD or a contracting agency must in every instance conduct an
exhaustive review of local area practice as to how work is classified,
even if the nature of the project in a construction sense is clear. The
revised language would resolve this perceived inconsistency and would
streamline determinations regarding construction types by making clear
that while the Administrator should continue considering area practice,
the Administrator may consider other relevant factors, particularly the
nature of the project in a construction sense. This proposed regulatory
revision also would better align the Department's regulations with the
FAR, which does not call for ``foremost consideration'' to be given to
area practice in all circumstances, but rather provides, consistent
with AAMs 130 and 131, that ``[w]hen the nature of a project is not
clear, it is necessary to look at additional factors, with primary
consideration given to locally established area practices.'' 48 CFR
22.404-2(c)(5).
In Sec. 1.6(e), the Department proposes to clarify that if, prior
to contract award (or, as appropriate, prior to the start of
construction), the Administrator provides written notice that the
bidding documents or solicitation included the wrong wage determination
or schedule, or that an included wage determination was withdrawn by
the Department as a result of an Administrative Review Board decision,
the wage determination may not be used for the contract, without regard
to whether bid opening (or initial endorsement or the signing of a
housing assistance payments contract) has occurred. Current regulatory
text states that under such circumstances, notice of such errors is
``effective immediately'' but does not explain the consequences of such
effect. The proposed language is consistent with the Department's
current practice and guidance. See Manual of Operations at 35.
In Sec. 1.6(g), the Department proposes to clarify that under the
Related Acts, if Federal funding or assistance is not approved prior to
contract award (or the beginning of construction where there is no
contract award), the applicable wage determination must be incorporated
retroactive to the date of the contract award or the beginning of
construction; the Department proposes to delete language indicating
that a wage determination must be ``requested,'' as such language
appears to contemplate a project wage determination, which in most
situations will not be necessary as a general wage determination will
apply. The Department also proposes to revise Sec. 1.6(g) to clarify
that it is the head of the applicable Federal agency who must request
any waiver of the requirement that a wage determination
[[Page 15715]]
provided under such circumstances be retroactive to the date of the
contract award or the beginning of construction. The current version of
Sec. 1.6(g) uses the term ``agency'' and is therefore ambiguous as to
whether it refers to the Federal agency providing the funding or
assistance or the State or local agency receiving it. The proposed
clarification that this term refers to Federal agencies reflects both
the Department's current practice and its belief that it is most
appropriate for the relevant Federal agency, rather than a State or
local agency, to bear these responsibilities, including assessing, as
part of the waiver request, whether non-retroactivity would be
necessary and proper in the public interest based on all relevant
considerations.
(B) Requirement To Incorporate Most Recent Wage Determinations Into
Certain Ongoing Contracts
The Department's longstanding position has been to require that
contracts and bid solicitations contain the most recently issued
revision to a wage determination to be applied to construction work to
the extent that such a requirement does not cause undue disruption to
the contracting process. See 47 FR 23644, 23646 (May 28, 1982); United
States Army, ARB No. 96-133, 1997 WL 399373, at *6 (July 17, 1997)
(``The only legitimate reason for not including the most recently
issued wage determination in a contract is based upon disruption of the
procurement process.''). Under the current regulations, a wage
determination is generally applicable for the duration of a contract
once incorporated. See 29 CFR 1.6(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(3)(vi). For
clarity, the Department proposes to add language to Sec. 1.6(a) to
state this affirmative principle.
The Department also proposes to add a new section, Sec.
1.6(c)(2)(iii), to clarify two circumstances where this general
principle does not apply. First, the Department proposes to explain
that the most recent version of any applicable wage determination(s)
must be incorporated when a contract or order is changed to include
additional, substantial construction, alteration, and/or repair work
not within the scope of work of the original contract or order--or to
require the contractor to perform work for an additional time period
not originally obligated, including where an agency exercises an option
provision to unilaterally extend the term of a contract. This proposed
change is consistent with the Department's guidance, case law, and
historical practice, under which such modifications are considered new
contracts. See United States Army, 1997 WL 399373, at *6 (noting that
DOL has consistently ``required that new DBA wage determinations be
incorporated . . . when contracts are modified beyond the obligations
of the original contract''); Iowa Dep't of Transp., WAB No. 94-11, 1994
WL 764106, at *5 (Oct. 7, 1994) (``A contract that has been
`substantially' modified must be treated as a `new' contract in which
the most recently issued wage determination is applied.''); AAM 157
(Dec. 9, 1992) (explaining that exercising an option ``requires a
contractor to perform work for a period of time for which it would not
have been obligated . . . under the terms of the original contract,''
and as such, ``once the option . . . is exercised, the additional
period of performance becomes a new contract''). Under these
circumstances, the most recent version of any wage determination(s)
must be incorporated as of the date of the change or, where applicable,
the date the agency exercises its option to extend the contract's term.
These circumstances do not include situations where the contractor is
simply given additional time to complete its original commitment or
where the additional construction, alteration, and/or repair work in
the modification is merely incidental.
Additionally, modern contracting methods frequently involve a
contractor agreeing to perform construction as the need arises over an
extended time period, with the quantity and timing of the construction
not known when the contract is awarded.\56\ Examples of such contracts
would include, but are not limited to: A multi-year indefinite-
delivery-indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to perform repairs to a
Federal facility when needed; a long-term contract to operate and
maintain part or all of a facility, including repairs and renovations
as needed; \57\ or a schedule contract or blanket purchase agreement
whereby a contractor enters into an agreement with a Federal agency to
provide certain products or services (either of which may involve work
subject to Davis-Bacon coverage, such as installation) or construction
at agreed-upon prices to various agencies or other government entities,
who can order from the schedule at any time during the contract. The
extent of the required construction, the time, and even the place where
the work will be performed may be unclear at the time such contracts
are awarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Depending on the circumstances, these types of contracts
may be principally for services and therefore subject to the SCA,
but contain substantial segregable work that is covered by the DBA.
See 29 CFR 4.116(c)(2).
\57\ The Department of Defense, for example, enters into such
arrangements pursuant to the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative, 10 U.S.C. 2871, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly when such contracts are lengthy, using an outdated
wage determination from the time of the underlying contract award is
contrary to the text and purpose of the DBA because it does not
sufficiently ensure that workers are paid prevailing wages.
Additionally, in the Department's experience, agencies are sometimes
inconsistent as to how they incorporate wage determination revisions
into these types of contracts. Some agencies do so every time
additional Davis-Bacon work is obligated, others do so annually, others
only incorporate applicable wage determinations at the time the
original, underlying contract is awarded, and sometimes no wage
determination is incorporated at all. This inconsistency can prevent
the payment of prevailing wages to workers and can disrupt the
contracting process.
Accordingly, the Department proposes to require, for these types of
contracts, that contracting agencies incorporate the most up-to-date
applicable wage determination(s) annually on each anniversary date of a
contract award or, where there is no contract, on each anniversary date
of the start of construction, or another similar anniversary date where
the agency has sought and received prior approval from the Department
for the alternative date. This proposal is consistent with the rules
governing wage determinations under the SCA, which require that the
contracting agency obtain a wage determination prior to the ``[a]nnual
anniversary date of a multi-year contract subject to annual fiscal
appropriations of the Congress.'' See 29 CFR 4.4(a)(1)(v).
Additionally, consistent with the discussion above, if an option is
exercised for one of these types of contracts, the most recent version
of any wage determination(s) would need to be incorporated as of the
date the agency exercises its option to extend the contract's term
(subject to the exceptions set forth in proposed Sec. 1.6(c)(2)(ii)),
even if that date did not coincide with the anniversary date of the
contract. When any construction work under such a contract is
obligated, the most up-to-date wage determination(s) incorporated into
the underlying contract must be included in each task order, purchase
order, or any other method used to direct performance. Once an
applicable wage determination revision is included in such an order,
that revision would generally be applicable until the
[[Page 15716]]
construction items originally called for by that order are completed,
even if the completion of that work extends beyond the twelve-month
period following the most recent anniversary date of the underlying
contract. By proposing this revision, the Department seeks to ensure
that workers are being paid prevailing wages within the meaning of the
Act, provide certainty and predictability to agencies and contractors
as to when, and how frequently, wage rates in these types of contracts
can be expected to change, and bring consistency to agencies'
application of the DBA. The Department has also included language
noting that contracting and ordering agencies remain responsible for
ensuring that the applicable updated wage determination(s) is included
in task orders, purchase orders, or other similar contract instruments
that are issued under the master contract.
(C) 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1)--Periodic Adjustments
The Department proposes to add a provision to 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1) to
expressly provide a mechanism to regularly update certain non-
collectively bargained prevailing wage rates. Such rates (both base
hourly wages and fringe benefits) would be updated between surveys so
that they do not become out-of-date and fall behind wage rates in the
area.
(1) Background
Based on the data that it receives through its prevailing wage
survey program, WHD generally publishes two types of prevailing wage
rates on the Davis-Bacon wage determinations that it issues: (1) Modal
rates (under the current majority rule, wage rates that are paid to a
majority of workers in a particular classification), and (2) weighted
average rates, which are published whenever the wage data received by
WHD reflects that no single wage rate was paid to a majority of workers
in the classification. See 29 CFR 1.2(a)(1).
Under the current majority rule, modal majority wage rates
typically reflect collectively bargained wage rates. When a CBA rate
prevails on a general wage determination, WHD updates that prevailing
wage rate based on periodic wage and fringe benefit increases in the
CBA. Manual of Operations at 74-75; see also Mistick Construction, 2006
WL 861357, at *7 n.4.\58\ However, when the prevailing wage is set
through the weighted average method based on non-collectively bargained
rates or a mix of collectively bargained rates and non-collectively
bargained rates, or when a non-collectively bargained rate prevails,
such wage rates (currently designated as ``SU'' rates) on general wage
determinations are not updated between surveys, and therefore can
become out-of-date. This proposal would expand WHD's practice of
updating collectively bargained rates between surveys to include
updating non-collectively bargained rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ WHD similarly updates weighted average rates based entirely
on collectively bargained rates (currently designated as ``UAVG''
rates) using periodic wage and fringe benefit increases in the CBAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the goal of WHD is to conduct surveys in each area every 3
years, because of the resource intensive nature of the wage survey
process and the vast number of survey areas, many years can pass
between surveys conducted in any particular area. The 2011 GAO Report
found that, as of 2010, while 36 percent of ``nonunion-prevailing
rates'' \59\ were 3 years old or less, almost 46 percent of these rates
were 10 or more years old. 2011 GAO Report at 18.\60\ As a result of
lengthy intervals between Davis-Bacon surveys, the real value of the
effectively-frozen rates erodes as compensation in the construction
industry and the cost of living rise. The resulting decline in the real
value of prevailing wage rates may adversely affect construction
workers the DBA was intended to protect. See Coutu, 450 U.S. at 771
(``The Court's previous opinions have recognized that `[o]n its face,
the Act is a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction
workers.' '' (citations omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``Nonunion-prevailing rates,'' as used in the GAO report,
is a misnomer, as it refers to weighted average rates that, as
noted, are published whenever the same wage rate is not paid to a
majority of workers in the classification, including when much or
even most of the data reflects union wages, just not that the same
union wage was paid to a majority of workers in the classification.
\60\ See note 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue is one that program stakeholders raised with the GAO.
According to several union and contractor officials interviewed in the
2011 report, the age of the Davis-Bacon ``nonunion-prevailing rates''
means they often do not reflect actual prevailing wages. 2011 GAO
Report at 18.\61\ As a result, the officials said it is ``more
difficult for both union and nonunion contractors to successfully bid
on Federal projects because they cannot recruit workers with
artificially low wages but risk losing contracts if their bids reflect
more realistic wages.'' Id. Regularly updating these rates would
alleviate this situation and better protect workers' wage rates. The
Department anticipates that updated rates would also better reflect
construction industry compensation in communities where federally
funded construction is occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See note 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal to update non-collectively bargained rates is
consistent with, and builds upon, the current regulatory text at 29 CFR
1.6(c)(1), which provides that wage determinations ``may be modified
from time to time to keep them current.'' This regulatory provision
provides legal authority for updating wage rates, and it has been used
as a basis for updating collectively bargained prevailing wage rates
based on CBA submissions between surveys. See Manual of Operations at
74-75. In this rule, the Department proposes to extend this practice to
non-collectively bargained rates based on ECI data. The Department
believes that ``chang[ed] circumstances''--including an increase in
weighted average rates--and the lack of an express mechanism to update
non-collectively bargained rates between surveys under the existing
regulations support this proposed ``extension of current
regulation[s]'' to better effectuate the DBRA's purpose. Motor Vehicle
Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
29, 42 (1983); see also In re Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S.
747, 780 (1968) (Court ``unwilling to prohibit administrative action
imperative for the achievement of an agency's ultimate purposes''
absent ``compelling evidence that such was Congress' intention'').
This proposal is consistent with the Department's broad authority
under the statute to ``establish the method to be used'' to determine
DBA prevailing wage rates. Donovan, 712 F.2d at 63. The Department
believes that the new periodic adjustment proposal will ``on balance
result in a closer approximation of the prevailing wage'' for these
rates and therefore is an appropriate extension of the current
regulation. Id. at 630 (citing American Trucking Ass'ns v. Atchison, T.
& S.F. Ry., 387 U.S. 397, 416 (1967)).
This proposed new provision is particularly appropriate because it
seeks to curb a practice the DBA and Related Acts were enacted to
prevent: Payment of ``substandard'' wages (here, out-of-date non-
collectively bargained rates) on covered construction projects that are
less than current wages for similar work prevailing in the private
sector. Regularly increasing non-collectively bargained weighted
average and prevailing rates that are more than 3 years old would be
consistent with the DBA's purpose of protecting local wage standards.
[[Page 15717]]
As proposed, the periodic adjustment provision would help
effectuate the DBA's purpose by updating significantly out-of-date non-
collectively bargained wage rates, including thousands of wage rates
that were published decades ago, that have not been updated since, and
that therefore likely have fallen behind currently prevailing local
rates. As of September 30, 2018, over 7,100 non-collectively bargained
wage rates, or 5.3 percent of the 134,738 total unique published rates
at that time, had not been updated in 11 to 40 years. See 2019 OIG
Report at 3, 5. Updating such out-of-date construction wages would
better align with the DBRA's main objective.
Tethering the proposed periodic updates to existing non-
collectively bargained prevailing wage rates is intended to keep such
rates more current in the interim period between surveys. It is
reasonable to assume that non-collectively bargained rates, like other
rates that the Secretary has determined to prevail, generally increase
over time like other construction compensation measures. See, e.g.,
Table A (showing recent annual rates of union and non-union
construction wage increases in the United States); Table B (showing
Employment Cost Index changes from 2001 to 2020).
Table A--Current Population Survey (CPS) Wage Growth by Union Status--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median weekly earnings
-------------------------------- Members of
Year Members of unions (%) Non-union (%)
unions Non-union
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015............................................ $1,099 $743 .............. ..............
2016............................................ 1,168 780 6 5
2017............................................ 1,163 797 0 2
2018............................................ 1,220 819 5 3
2019............................................ 1,257 868 3 6
2020............................................ 1,254 920 0 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Average..................................... .............. .............. 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Current Population Survey, Table 43: Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by
union affiliation, occupation, and industry, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat43.htm
(last modified Jan. 22, 2021).
Note: Limited to workers in the construction industry.
Table B--Employment Cost Index (ECI), 2001-2020, Total Compensation of
Private Workers in Construction, and Extraction, Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Occupations
[Average 12-month percent changes (rounded to the nearest tenth)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average %
Year change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 4.5
2002........................................................ 3.5
2003........................................................ 3.9
2004........................................................ 4.5
2005........................................................ 3.1
2006........................................................ 3.5
2007........................................................ 3.5
2008........................................................ 3.7
2009........................................................ 1.7
2010........................................................ 2.0
2011........................................................ 1.6
2012........................................................ 1.5
2013........................................................ 1.8
2014........................................................ 2.0
2015........................................................ 2.0
2016........................................................ 2.4
2017........................................................ 2.7
2018........................................................ 2.3
2019........................................................ 2.3
2020........................................................ 2.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/eci-constant-real-dollar.pdf.
(2) Periodic Adjustment Proposal
This proposal seeks to update non-collectively bargained rates that
are 3 or more years old by adjusting them regularly based on total
compensation data to keep pace with current construction wages and
benefits. Specifically, the Department proposes to add language to
Sec. 1.6(c)(1) to expressly permit adjustments to non-collectively
bargained rates on general wage determinations based on U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data or its
successor data. The Department's proposal provides that non-
collectively bargained rates may be adjusted based on ECI data no more
frequently than once every 3 years, and no sooner than 3 years after
the date of the rate's publication, continuing until the next survey
results in a new general wage determination. This proposed interval
would be consistent with WHD's goal to increase the percentage of
Davis-Bacon wage rates that are 3 years old or less. Under the
proposal, non-collectively bargained rates (wages and fringe benefits)
would be adjusted from the date the rate was originally published and
brought up to their present value. Going forward under the proposed 30-
percent rule, any non-collectively bargained prevailing or weighted
average rates published after this rule became effective would be
updated if they were not re-surveyed within 3 years after publication.
The Department anticipates implementing this new regulatory provision
by issuing general wage determination modifications.
The Department believes that ECI data is appropriate for these
proposed rate adjustments because the ECI tracks both wages and
benefits, and may be used as a proxy for construction compensation
changes over time. Therefore, the Department proposes to use a
compensation growth rate based on the change in the ECI total
compensation index for construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and
forestry occupations to adjust non-collectively bargained rates (both
base hourly and fringe benefit rates) published in 2001 or after.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Because this particular index is unavailable prior to 2001,
the Department proposes to use the compensation growth rate based on
the change in the ECI total compensation index for the goods-
producing industries (which includes the construction industry) to
bring the relatively small percentage of non-collectively bargained
rates published before 2001 up to their 2000 value. The Department
would then adjust the rates up to the present value using the ECI
total compensation index for construction, extraction, farming,
fishing, and forestry occupations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, because updating non-collectively bargained rates
would be resource-intensive, the Department does not anticipate making
all initial adjustments to such rates that are 3 or more years old
simultaneously, but rather anticipates that such adjustments would be
made over a period of time (though as quickly as is reasonably
possible). Similarly, particularly due to the effort involved, the
process of adjusting non-collectively bargained rates that are 3 or
more years old is
[[Page 15718]]
unlikely to begin until approximately 6 months to a year after a final
rule implementing this proposal becomes effective.
The Department seeks comments on this proposal, and invites
comments on alternative data sources to adjust non-collectively
bargained rates. The Department considered proposing to use the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) but considers this data source to be a less
appropriate index to use to update non-collectively bargained rates
because the CPI measures movement of consumer prices as experienced by
day-to-day living expenses, unlike the ECI, which measures changes in
the costs of labor in particular. The CPI does not track changes in
wages or benefits, nor does it reflect the costs of construction
workers nationwide. The Department nonetheless invites comments on use
of the CPI to adjust non-collectively bargained rates.
(D) 29 CFR 1.6(f)
Section 1.6(f) addresses post-award determinations that a wage
determination has been wrongly omitted from a contract. The
Department's proposed changes to this subsection are discussed below in
part III.B.3.xx (``Post-award determinations and operation-of-law''),
together with proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 5.5 and 5.6.
vii. Section 1.7 Scope of Consideration
The Department's existing regulations in Sec. 1.7 address two
related concepts. The first is the level of geographic aggregation of
wage data that should be the default for making a wage determination.
The second is how the Department should expand that level of geographic
aggregation when it does not have sufficient wage survey data to make a
wage determination at the default level. The Department is considering
whether to update the language of Sec. 1.7 to more clearly describe
WHD's process for expanding the geographic scope of survey data, and
whether to modify the regulations by eliminating the current bar on
mixing wage data from ``metropolitan'' and ``rural'' counties when the
geographic scope is expanded.
(A) Background
With regard to the first concept addressed in Sec. 1.7, the
default level of geographic aggregation, the DBA specifies that the
relevant geographic area for determining the prevailing wage is the
``civil subdivision of the State'' where the contract is performed. 40
U.S.C. 3142(b). For many decades now, the Secretary has used the county
as the default civil subdivision for making a wage determination. The
Department codified this procedure in the 1981-1982 rulemaking in Sec.
1.7(a), in which it stated that the relevant area for a wage
determination will ``normally be the county.'' 29 CFR 1.7(a); see 47 FR
23644, 23647 (May 28, 1982).
The use of the county as the default ``area'' means that in making
a wage determination the Administrator first considers the wage survey
data WHD has received from projects of a ``similar character'' in a
given county. See 40 U.S.C. 3142(b). If there is sufficient county-
level data for a ``corresponding class[ ]'' of covered workers (e.g.,
laborers, painters, etc.) working on those projects, the Administrator
then makes a determination of the prevailing wage rate for that class
of workers. Id; 29 CFR 1.7(a). This has a practical corollary for
contracting agencies--in order to determine what wages apply to a given
construction project, the agency needs to identify the county (or
counties) in which the project will be constructed and obtain the wage
determination for the correct type of construction for that county (or
counties) from SAM.gov.
The second concept currently addressed in Sec. 1.7 is the
procedure that WHD follows when it does not receive sufficient survey
wage data at the county level to determine a prevailing wage rate for a
given classification of workers. This process is described in detail in
the 2013 Chesapeake Housing ARB decision. 2013 WL 5872049. In short, if
there is insufficient data to determine a prevailing wage rate for a
classification of workers in a given county, WHD will determine that
county's wage-rate for that classification by progressively expanding
the geographic scope of data (still for the same classification of
workers) that it uses to make the determination. First, WHD expands to
include a group of surrounding counties at a ``group'' level. See 29
CFR 1.7(b) (discussing consideration of wage data in ``surrounding
counties''); Chesapeake Housing, 2013 WL 5872049, at *2-3. If there is
still not sufficient data at the group level, WHD considers a larger
grouping of counties in the State called a ``supergroup,'' and
thereafter uses data at a statewide level. See 29 CFR 1.7(c);
Chesapeake Housing, 2013 WL 5872049, at *2-3.\63\ Currently, WHD
identifies county groupings by using metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs) and other related designations from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). See 75 FR 37246 (June 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ As discussed above in part III.B.1.iii.(A), for residential
and building construction, this expansion of the scope of data
considered also involves the use of data from Federal and federally
assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards at each
county-grouping level when data from non-Federal projects is not
sufficient. Data from Federal and federally assisted projects
subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards is used in all instances to
determine prevailing wage rates for heavy and highway construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current regulations do not define the term ``surrounding
counties'' that delineates the initial county grouping level. However,
the provision at Sec. 1.7(b) that describes ``surrounding counties''
limits the counties that may be used in this grouping by excluding the
use of any data from a ``metropolitan'' county in any wage
determination for a ``rural'' county, and vice versa. 29 CFR 1.7(b). To
be consistent with the existing prohibition at Sec. 1.7(b), WHD's
current practice is to use the OMB designations (discussed above) to
identify whether a county is metropolitan or rural.\64\ Under the
current constraints, such a proxy designation is reasonable, and the
practice has been approved by the ARB. See Mistick Construction, 2006
WL 861357, at *7-8. Although the language in Sec. 1.7(b) does not
apply explicitly to the consideration of data above the surrounding
county level, see Sec. 1.7(c), the Department's current procedures do
not mix metropolitan and rural county data at any level in the
expansion of geographic scope, including even at the statewide level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ OMB does not specifically identify counties as ``rural''
and disclaims that its MSA standards ``produce an urban-rural
classification.'' 75 FR 37246, 37246 (June 28, 2010). Nonetheless,
because OMB identifies counties that have metropolitan
characteristics as part of MSAs, the practice of the WHD
Administrator has been to designate counties as rural if they are
not within an OMB-designated MSA and metropolitan if they are within
an MSA. See Mistick Construction, 2006 WL 861357, at *8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Proposals for Use of ``Metropolitan'' and ``Rural'' Wage Data
The current language in Sec. 1.7(b) barring the cross-
consideration of metropolitan and rural wage data was added to the
Department's regulations in the 1981-1982 rulemaking. See 47 FR 23644
(May 28, 1982). As the Department noted in that rulemaking, the prior
practice up until that point had been to allow the Department to look
to metropolitan wage rates for nearby rural areas when there was
insufficient data from the rural area to determine a prevailing wage
rate. See id. at 23647. In explaining the change in the longstanding
policy, the Department noted commenters had stated that ``importing''
higher rates from metropolitan areas caused labor disruptions where
workers were ``unwilling to return to their usual pay scales after the
project was completed.'' Id. The Department stated that a more
[[Page 15719]]
appropriate alternative would be to use data from rural counties in
other parts of the State. See id. To effectuate this, it imposed the
bar on cross-consideration of rural and metropolitan county data in
Sec. 1.7(b).
The Department has received feedback that that this blanket
decision did not adequately consider the heterogeneity of commuting
patterns and local labor markets between and among counties that may be
designated overall as ``rural'' or ``metropolitan.'' As noted in the
2011 GAO report, the DBA program has been criticized for using
``arbitrary geographic divisions,'' given that the relevant regional
labor markets, which are reflective of area wage rates, ``frequently
cross county and state lines.'' 2011 GAO Report at 24.\65\ OMB itself
notes that ``[c]ounties included in Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas and many other counties may contain both urban and
rural territory and population.'' 75 FR 37246, 37246 (June 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See note 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department understands the point articulated in the GAO report
that actual local labor markets are not constrained by or defined by
county lines--even those lines between counties identified (by OMB or
otherwise) as ``metropolitan'' or ``rural.'' This is particularly the
case for the construction industry, in which workers tend to commute
longer distances than other professionals--resulting in geographically
larger labor markets. See, e.g., Keren Sun et al., Hierarchy Divisions
of the Ability to Endure Commute Costs: An Analysis based on a Set of
Data about Construction Workers, J. of Econ. & Dev. Stud., Dec. 2020,
at 1, 6.\66\ Even within the construction industry, workers in certain
trades have greater or lesser tolerance for longer commutes. Keren Sun,
Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Commute Distance/Time of
Construction Workers, Int'l J. of Arts & Humanities, June 2020, at 34-
35.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ https://jedsnet.com/journals/jeds/Vol_8_No_4_December_2020/1.pdf.
\67\ https://ijah.cgrd.org/images/Vol6No1/3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By excluding a metropolitan county's wage rates from consideration
in a determination for a bordering rural county, the current language
in Sec. 1.7(b) ignores the potential for projects in both counties to
compete for the same supply of construction workers and be in the same
local construction labor market. In many cases, the workers working on
the metropolitan county projects may themselves live across the county
lines in the neighboring rural county and commute to the urban
projects. In such cases, under the current bar, the Department may not
be able to use the wage rates of the same workers to determine the
prevailing wage rate for projects in the county in which they live.
Instead, WHD would import wage rates from other ``rural''-designated
counties, potentially somewhere far across the State. Such a practice
can result in Davis-Bacon wage rates that are lower than the wage rates
that actually prevail in a bi-county labor market and that are based on
wage data from distant locales rather than from neighboring counties.
For these reasons, the Department believes that limitations based
on binary rural and metropolitan designations at the county level can
result in geographic groupings that at times do not fully account for
the realities of relevant construction labor markets. To address this
concern, the Department has considered the possibility of using smaller
basic units than the county as the initial area for a wage
determination--and expanding to labor market areas that do not directly
track county lines. The Department, however, has concluded that
continuing the longstanding practice of using counties as the civil
subdivision basis unit is more administratively feasible.\68\ As a
result, the Department is now considering the option of eliminating the
metropolitan-rural bar in Sec. 1.7(b) and relying instead on other
approaches to determine how to appropriately expand geographic
aggregation when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The Department also considered this option in the 1981-1982
rulemaking, but similarly concluded that the proposal to use the
county as the basic unit of a wage determination was the ``most
administratively feasible.'' See 47 FR 23644, 23647 (May 28, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to allowing WHD to account for actual construction
labor market patterns, this proposal could have other benefits. It
could allow WHD to publish more rates at the group level rather than
having to rely on data from larger geographic areas, because it could
increase the number of counties that may be available to supply data at
the group level. The proposal could also allow WHD to publish more
rates overall by authorizing the use of both metropolitan and rural
county data together when it must rely on statewide data. Combining
rural and urban data at the State level would be a final option for
geographic expansion when otherwise the data could be insufficient to
identify any prevailing wage at all.\69\ The Department believes that
the purposes of the Act are better served by using such combined
statewide data to determine the prevailing wage, when the alternative
could be to fail to publish a wage rate at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The Department is also considering the option of more
explicitly tailoring the ban on mixing metropolitan and rural data
so that it applies only at the ``surrounding counties'' level, but
not at the statewide level or an intermediate level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal to eliminate the strict rural-metropolitan bar would
result in a program that would be more consistent with the Department's
original practice between 1935 and the 1981-1982 rulemaking. Reverting
to this prior status quo would be appropriate in light of the text and
legislative history of the DBA. Congressional hearings shortly after
the passage of the initial 1931 Act suggest that Congress understood
the DBA as allowing the Secretary to refer to metropolitan rates where
rural rates were not available--including by looking to the nearest
city when there was insufficient construction in a village or ``little
town'' to determine a prevailing wage. See 75 Cong. Rec. 12,366, 12,377
(1932) (remarks of Rep. Connery). Likewise, the Department's original
1935 regulations directed the Department to ``the nearest large city''
when there had been no similar construction in the locality in recent
years. See Labor Department Regulation No. 503 section 7(2) (1935).
In light of the above, the Department solicits comments on its
proposal to allow the Administrator the discretion to determine
reasonable county groupings, at any level, without the requirement to
make a distinction between counties WHD designates as rural or
metropolitan.
(C) Proposals for Amending the County Grouping Methodology
In addition to considering whether to eliminate the metropolitan-
rural proviso language in Sec. 1.7(b), the Department is also
considering other potential changes to the methods for describing the
county groupings procedure.
(1) Defining ``Surrounding Counties''
One potential change is to more precisely define ``surrounding
counties,'' as used in Sec. 1.7(b). Because the term is not currently
defined, this has from time to time led to confusion among stakeholders
regarding whether a county can be considered ``surrounding'' if it does
not share a border with the county for which more data is needed. As
noted above, WHD's current method of creating ``surrounding county''
groupings is to use OMB-designed MSAs to create pre-determined county
groupings. This method does not require that all counties in the
grouping share a border with (in other words, be a direct neighbor to)
the county in need. Rather,
[[Page 15720]]
at the ``surrounding county'' grouping, WHD will include counties in a
group as long as they are all a part of the same contiguous area of
either metropolitan or rural counties--even though each county included
may not be directly adjacent to every other county in the group.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ In addition, in certain limited circumstances, WHD has
allowed the aggregation of counties at the ``surrounding counties''
level that are not part of a contiguous grouping of all-metropolitan
or all-rural counties. This has been considered appropriate where,
for example, two rural counties border an MSA on different sides and
do not themselves share a border with each other or with any other
rural counties. Under WHD's current practice, those two rural
counties could be considered to be a county group at the
``surrounding counties'' level even though they neither share a
border nor are part of a contiguous group of counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in the Chesapeake Housing case, one ``surrounding
county'' group that WHD had compiled included the independent city of
Portsmouth, combined with Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Suffolk
counties. 2013 WL 5872049, at *1, n.1. That was appropriate because
those jurisdictions all were part of the same contiguous OMB-designated
metropolitan area, and each county thus shared a border with at least
one other county in the group--even if they did not all share a border
with every other county in the group. See id. at *5-6. Thus, by using
the group, WHD combined data from Virginia Beach and Suffolk counties
at the ``surrounding counties'' level, even though those two counties
do not themselves touch each other.
This grouping strategy--of relying on OMB MSA designations--has
been found to be consistent both with the term ``surrounding counties''
as well as with the metropolitan-rural limitation proviso in Sec.
1.7(b). See Mistick, 2006 WL 861357, at *7-8. An OMB-designated
metropolitan statistical area is, at least by OMB's definition, made up
entirely of ``metropolitan'' counties and thus WHD can group these
counties together without violating the proviso. See id.; Manual of
Operations at 39. Thus, the Department has used these OMB designations
to put together pre-determined groups that can be used as the same
first-level county grouping for any county within the grouping. While
relying on OMB designations is not the only way that the Department
could currently group counties together and comply with the proviso,
the Department recognizes that, if it eliminates the metropolitan-rural
proviso at Sec. 1.7(b), it could be helpful to include in its place
some further language to explain or delimit the meaning of
``surrounding counties'' in another way that would be both
administrable and faithful to the purpose of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts.
The first option would be to eliminate the metropolitan-rural
proviso but not replace it with a further definition or limitation for
``surrounding counties.'' The Department has included this proposal in
the proposed regulatory text of this NPRM. The term ``surrounding
counties'' is not so ambiguous and devoid of meaning that it requires
further definition. Even without some additional specific limitation,
the Department believes the term could reasonably be read to require
that such a grouping be of a contiguous grouping of counties as the
Department currently requires in its use of OMB MSAs (as described
above), with limited exceptions. Thus, while the elimination of the
proviso would allow a nearby rural county to be included in a
``surrounding county'' grouping with metropolitan counties that it
borders, it would not allow WHD to append a faraway rural county to a
``surrounding county'' group made up entirely of metropolitan counties
with which the rural county shares no border at all. Conversely, the
term does not allow the Department to consider a faraway metropolitan
county to be part of the ``surrounding counties'' of a grouping of
rural counties with which the metropolitan county shares no border at
all. Although containing such an inherent definitional limit, this
first option would allow the Department the discretion to develop new
methodologies of grouping counties at the ``surrounding county'' level
and apply them as along as it does so in a manner that is not arbitrary
or capricious.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ For example, the Department could rely on county groupings
in use by State governments for little Davis-Bacon laws or similar
purposes, as long as they are contiguous county groupings that
reasonably can be characterized as ``surrounding counties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second option the Department is considering is to limit
surrounding counties to solely those counties that share a border with
the county for which additional wage data is sought. Such a limitation
would create a relatively narrow grouping at the initial county
grouping stage--narrower than the current practice of using OMB MSAs.
As discussed above, construction workers tend to commute longer than
other professionals. This potential one-county-over grouping limitation
would ensure that, in the vast majority of cases, the ``surrounding
county'' grouping would not expand outward beyond the home counties or
commuting range of the construction workers who would work on projects
in the county at issue. The narrowness of such a limitation would also
be a drawback, as it could lead to fewer wage rates being set at the
``surrounding counties'' group level. Another drawback is that such a
limitation would not allow for the use of pre-determined county
groupings that would be the same for a number of counties--because each
county may have a different set of counties with which it alone shares
a border. This could result in a significant burden on WHD in
developing far more county-grouping rates than it currently does, and
could result in less uniformity in required prevailing wage rates among
nearby counties.
A third option would be to include language that would define the
``surrounding counties'' grouping as a grouping of counties that are
all a part of the same ``contiguous local construction labor market''
or some comparable definition. In practice, this methodology could
result in similar (but not identical) groupings as the current
methodology, as the Department could decide to use OMB designations to
assist in determining what counties are part of the contiguous local
labor market. Without the strict metropolitan-rural proviso, however,
this option would allow the Department to use additional evidence on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether the OMB designations--which do
not track construction markets specifically--are too narrow for a given
construction market. Under this option, the Department could consider
other measures of construction labor market integration, including
whether construction workers in general (or workers in specific
construction trades) typically commute between or work in two bordering
counties or in a cluster of counties.
This third option also would bring with it some potential benefits
and drawbacks. On the one hand, the ability to identify local
construction labor markets would allow the Department to make pre-
determined county groupings much like it does now. This would reduce
somewhat the burden of the second option--of calculating a different
county grouping for each individual county to account for the counties
that border specifically that county. It would also explicitly
articulate the limitation that the Department believes is inherent in
the term ``surrounding counties''--that the grouping must be limited to
a ``contiguous'' group of counties, with limited exceptions. On the
other hand, the case-by-case determination of a local ``construction''
labor market (that might
[[Page 15721]]
be different from an OMB MSA) could also be burdensome on WHD. The
definition, however, could allow such a case-by-case determination but
not require it. Accordingly, if such case-by-case determinations become
too burdensome, WHD could revert to the adoption of designations from
OMB or some other externally-defined metric.
Finally, the Department recognizes that even if it retains the
metropolitan-rural proviso, doing so does not bind WHD to the current
practice of using OMB-designated county groupings and other procedures.
Under the language of the current regulation, the Department retains
the authority to make its own determinations regarding whether a county
is ``metropolitan'' or ``rural.'' See 29 CFR 1.7(b). The Department
also retains certain flexibility for determining how to group counties
at each level and is not limited to using the OMB designations. As
noted above, the Department also believes that the plain text of Sec.
1.7(b) does not necessarily limit it from combining metropolitan and
rural data beyond the ``surrounding counties'' group level.
(2) Other Proposed Changes to Sec. 1.7
The Department is also considering other proposed changes to Sec.
1.7. These include nonsubstantive changes to the wording of the
paragraphs that clarify that the threshold for expansion in each one is
insufficient ``current wage data.'' The existing regulation now defines
``current wage data'' in Sec. 1.7(a) as ``data on wages paid on
current projects or, where necessary, projects under construction no
more than one year prior to the beginning of the survey or the request
for a wage determination, as appropriate.'' The Department seeks
comment on whether this definition should be kept in its current format
or amended to narrow or expand its scope.
The Department is also considering whether to amend Sec. 1.7(c) to
better describe the process for expanding from the ``surrounding
county'' level to consider data from an intermediary level (such as the
current ``supergroup'' level) before relying on statewide data. For
example, as the Department has included in the current proposed
regulatory text, the Department could describe this second level of
county groupings as a consideration of ``comparable counties or groups
of counties in the State.'' As with the third option discussed above
for defining ``surrounding counties,'' this ``comparable counties''
language in Sec. 1.7(c) would allow the Department to continue to use
the procedure described in Chesapeake Housing of combining various MSAs
or various non-contiguous groups of rural counties to create
``supergroups.'' It would also allow a more nuanced analysis of
comparable labor markets using construction market data specifically.
As the foregoing discussion reflects, there is no perfect solution
for identifying county groupings in Sec. 1.7. Each possibility
described above has potential benefits and drawbacks. In addition, the
Department notes that the significance of this section in the wage
determination process is also related to the level of participation by
interested parties in WHD's voluntary wage survey. If more interested
parties participate in the wage survey, then there will be fewer
counties without sufficient wage data for which the Sec. 1.7 expansion
process becomes relevant. Absent sufficient survey information,
however, WHD will need to continue to include a larger geographic scope
to ensure that it effectuates the purposes of the DBA and Related
Acts--to issue wage determinations to establish minimum wages on
federally funded or assisted construction projects. The Department thus
seeks comment on all aspects of amending the county grouping
methodology of Sec. 1.7--including administrative feasibility and the
distinction between rural and metropolitan counties--to ensure that it
has considered the relevant possibilities for amending or retaining the
various elements of this methodology.
viii. Section 1.8 Reconsideration by the Administrator
The Department proposes revisions to Sec. Sec. 1.8 and 5.13 to
explicitly provide procedures for reconsideration by the Administrator
of decisions, rulings, or interpretations made by an authorized
representative of the Administrator. Parts 1 and 5 both define the term
``Administrator'' to mean the WHD Administrator or an authorized
representative of the Administrator. See 29 CFR 1.2(c), 5.2(b).
Accordingly, when parties seek rulings, interpretations, or decisions
from the Administrator regarding the Davis-Bacon labor standards, it is
often the practice of the Department to have such decisions made in the
first instance by an authorized representative. After an authorized
representative issues a decision, the party may request reconsideration
by the Administrator. The decision typically provides a time frame in
which to request reconsideration by the Administrator, often 30 days.
To provide greater clarity and uniformity, the Department proposes to
codify this practice and to clarify how and when reconsideration may be
sought.
First, the Department proposes to amend Sec. 1.8, which concerns
reconsideration by the Administrator of wage determinations and
decisions regarding the application of wage determinations under part
1, to provide that if a decision for which reconsideration is sought
was made by an authorized representative of the Administrator, the
interested party seeking reconsideration may request further
reconsideration by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. The
Department proposes that such requests must be submitted within 30 days
from the date the decision is issued, and that this time period may be
extended for good cause at the Administrator's discretion upon a
request by the interested party. Second, the Department proposes to
amend Sec. 5.13, which concerns rulings and interpretations under
parts 1, 3, and 5, to similarly provide for the Administrator's
reconsideration of rulings and interpretations issued by an authorized
representative. The Department proposes to apply the same procedures
for such reconsideration requests as apply to reconsideration requests
under Sec. 1.8. The Department also proposes to divide Sec. Sec. 1.8
and 5.13 into paragraphs for clarity and readability, and to add email
addresses for parties to submit requests for reconsideration or for
rulings or interpretations, respectively.
ix. Section 1.10 Severability
The Department proposes to add a new Sec. 1.10, titled
``Severability.'' The proposed severability provision explains that
each provision is capable of operating independently from one another,
and that if any provision of part 1 is held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the Department
intends that the remaining provisions remain in effect.
x. References to Website for Accessing Wage Determinations
The Department proposes to revise Sec. Sec. 1.2, 1.5, and 1.6 to
reflect, in more general terms, that wage determinations are maintained
online without a reference to a specific website.
The current regulations reference Wage Determinations OnLine
(WDOL), previously available at https://www.wdol.gov, which was
established following the enactment of the E-Government Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (2002). WDOL.gov served as the
source for Federal contracting agencies to use when obtaining wage
determinations.
[[Page 15722]]
See 70 FR 50887 (Aug. 26, 2005). WDOL.gov was decommissioned on June
14, 2019, and the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) became the
authoritative and single location for obtaining DBA general wage
determinations.\72\ The transition of wage determinations onto SAM.gov
was part of the Integrated Award Environment, a government-wide
initiative administered by GSA to manage and integrate multiple online
systems used for awarding and administering Federal financial
assistance and contracts.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ WDOL.gov Decommissioning Approved by IAE Governance: System
Set to Transition to beta.SAM.gov on June 14, 2019, GSA Interact
(May 21, 2019), https://interact.gsa.gov/blog/wdolgov-decommissioning-approved-iae-governance-system-set-transition-betasamgov-june-14-2019.
\73\ About This Site, System for Award Management, https://sam.gov/content/about/this-site (last visited Nov. 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, wage determinations can be found at https://sam.gov/content/wage-determinations. In order to avoid outdated website domain
references in the regulations should the domain name change in the
future, the Department proposes to use the more general term
``Department of Labor-approved website,'' which would refer to any
official government website the Department approves for posting wage
determinations.
xi. Appendices A and B to Part 1
The Department proposes to remove Appendices A and B from 29 CFR
part 1 and make conforming technical edits to sections that reference
those provisions. Appendix A lists the Davis-Bacon Act and the Related
Acts, in other words, the statutes related to the Davis-Bacon Act that
require the payment of wages at rates predetermined by the Secretary of
Labor pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, and Appendix B lists regional
offices of the Wage and Hour Division. The Department proposes to
rescind these appendices as they are no longer current, and updated
information contained in both appendices can be found on WHD's website
at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/. Specifically, a listing of
statutes requiring the payment of wages at rates predetermined by the
Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act is currently at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts, and a listing of WHD
regional offices is currently found at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/contact/local-offices.
xii. Frequently Conformed Rates
The Department also proposes to revise Sec. Sec. 1.3 and 5.5 to
provide that, where WHD has received insufficient data through its wage
survey process to publish a prevailing wage for a classification for
which conformance requests are regularly submitted, WHD nonetheless may
list the classification and wage and fringe benefit rates for the
classification on the wage determination, provided that the three basic
criteria for conformance of a classification and wage and fringe
benefit rate have been satisfied: (1) The work performed by the
classification is not performed by a classification in the wage
determination; (2) the classification is used in the area by the
construction industry; and (3) the wage rate for the classification
bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained in the wage
determination. The Department specifically proposes that the wage and
fringe benefit rates for these classifications be determined in
accordance with the ``reasonable relationship'' criterion that is
currently used in conforming missing classifications pursuant to
current 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A). The Department welcomes comments
regarding all aspects of this proposal, which is described more fully
below.
WHD determines DBA prevailing wage rates based on wage survey data
that responding contractors and other interested parties voluntarily
provide. See 29 CFR 1.1 through 1.7. WHD sometimes receives robust
participation in its wage surveys, thereby enabling it to publish wage
determinations that list prevailing wage rates for numerous
construction classifications. However, stakeholder participation can be
more limited, particularly in surveys for residential construction or
in rural areas, and WHD therefore does not always receive sufficient
wage data to publish prevailing wage rates for various classifications
generally necessary for various types of construction.
Whenever a wage determination lacks a classification of work that
is necessary for performance of DBRA-covered construction, the missing
classification and an appropriate wage rate must be added to the wage
determination on a contract-specific basis through the conformance
process. Conformance is the expedited process by which a classification
and wage and fringe benefit rate are added to an existing wage
determination applicable to a specific DBRA-covered contract. See 29
CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A). When, for example, a wage determination lists
only certain skilled classifications such as carpenter, plumber, and
electrician (because they are the skilled classifications for which WHD
received sufficient wage data through its survey process), the
conformance process is used to provide contractors with minimum wage
rates for other necessary classifications (such as, in this example,
painters and bricklayers).
``By design, the Davis-Bacon conformance process is an expedited
proceeding created to `fill in the gaps' '' in an existing wage
determination, with the ``narrow goal'' of establishing an appropriate
wage rate for a classification needed for performance of the contract.
Am. Bldg. Automation, Inc., ARB No. 00-067, 2001 WL 328123, at *3 (Mar.
30, 2001). As a general matter, WHD is given ``broad discretion'' in
setting a conformed wage rate, and the Administrator's decisions ``will
be reversed only if inconsistent with the regulations, or if they are
unreasonable in some sense[.]'' Millwright Loc. 1755, ARB No. 98-015,
2000 WL 670307, at *6 (May 11, 2000) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). See, e.g., Constr. Terrebonne Par. Juvenile Justice Complex,
ARB No. 17-0056, 2020 WL 5902440, at *2-4 (Sept. 4, 2020) (reaffirming
the Administrator's ``broad discretion'' in determining appropriate
conformed wage rates); Courtland Constr. Corp., ARB No. 17-074, 2019 WL
5089598, at *2 (Sept. 30, 2019) (same).
The regulations require the following criteria be met for a
proposed classification and wage rate to be conformed to a wage
determination: (1) The work to be performed by the requested
classification is not performed by a classification in the wage
determination; (2) the classification is used in the area by the
construction industry; and (3) the proposed wage rate, including any
bona fide fringe benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to the wage
rates in the wage determination. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A).
Pursuant to the first conformance criterion, WHD may approve a
conformance request only where the work of the proposed classification
is not performed by any classification on the wage determination. WHD
need not ``determine that a classification in the wage determination
actually is the prevailing classification for the tasks in question,
only that there is evidence to establish that the classification
actually performs the disputed tasks in the locality.'' Am. Bldg.
Automation, 2001 WL 328123, at *4. Even if workers perform only a
subset of the duties of a classification, they are still performing
work that is covered by the classification, and conformance of a new
classification thus would be inappropriate. See, e.g., Fry Bros. Corp.,
WAB No. 76-06, 1977 WL 24823, at *6
[[Page 15723]]
(June 14, 1977). In instances where the first and second conformance
criteria are satisfied and it has been determined that the requested
classification should be added to the contract wage determination, WHD
will address whether the third criterion has also been satisfied, i.e.,
whether ``[t]he proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe
benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates'' in the
wage determination.
WHD typically receives thousands of conformance requests each year
(sometimes over 10,000 in a given year). In some instances, including
instances where contractors are unaware that their work falls within
the scope of work performed by an established classification on the
wage determination, WHD receives conformance requests where conformance
plainly is not appropriate because the wage determination already
contains a classification that performs the work of the proposed
classification. In other instances, however, conformance is necessary
because the applicable wage determination does not contain all of the
classifications that are necessary to complete the project. The
considerable need for conformances due to the absence of necessary
classifications on wage determinations reduces certainty for
prospective contractors in the bidding process, who may be unsure of
what wage rate must be paid to laborers and mechanics performing work
on the project, and taxes WHD's resources. If such uncertainty causes
contractors to underbid on construction projects and subsequently to
pay subminimum wages to workers, missing classifications on wage
determinations can result in the underpayment of wages to workers.
To address this issue, the Department proposes revising 29 CFR 1.3
and 5.5(a)(1) to expressly authorize WHD to list classifications and
corresponding wage and fringe benefit rates on wage determinations even
when WHD has received insufficient data through its wage survey
process. Under this proposal, for key classifications or other
classifications for which conformance requests are regularly
submitted,\74\ the Administrator would be authorized to list the
classification on the wage determination along with wage and fringe
benefit rates that bear a ``reasonable relationship'' to the prevailing
wage and fringe benefit rates contained in the wage determination,
using essentially the same criteria under which such classifications
and rates are currently conformed by WHD pursuant to current Sec.
5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3). In other words, for a classification for which
conformance requests are regularly submitted, and for which WHD
received insufficient data through its wage survey process, WHD would
be expressly authorized to essentially ``pre-approve'' certain
conformed classifications and wage rates, thereby providing contracting
agencies, contractors and workers with advance notice of the minimum
wage and fringe benefits required to be paid for work within those
classifications. WHD would list such classifications and wage and
fringe benefit rates on wage determinations where: (1) The work
performed by the classification is not performed by a classification in
the wage determination for which a prevailing wage rate has been
determined; (2) the classification is used in the area by the
construction industry; and (3) the wage rate for the classification
bears a reasonable relationship to the prevailing wage rates contained
in the wage determination. The Administrator would establish wage rates
for such classifications in accordance with proposed Sec.
5.5(a)(1)(iii)(A)(3). Contractors would be required to pay workers
performing work within such classifications at no less than the rates
listed on the wage determination. Such classifications and rates on a
wage determination would be designated with a distinct term,
abbreviation, or description to denote that they essentially reflect
pre-approved conformed rates rather than prevailing wage and fringe
benefit rates that have been determined through the Davis-Bacon wage
survey process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ As explained in WHD's Prevailing Wage Resource Book, WHD
has identified several ``key classifications'' normally necessary
for one of the four types of construction (building, highway, heavy,
and residential) for which WHD publishes general wage
determinations. Davis-Bacon Surveys at 6. The Prevailing Wage
Resource Book contains a table that lists the key classifications
for each type of construction. The table, which may be updated
periodically as warranted, currently identifies the key
classifications for building construction as heat and frost
insulators, bricklayers, boilermakers, carpenters, cement masons,
electricians, iron workers, laborers (common), painters,
pipefitters, plumbers, power equipment operators (operating
engineers), roofers, sheet metal workers, tile setters, and truck
drivers; the key classifications for residential construction as
bricklayers, carpenters, cement masons, electricians, iron workers,
laborers (common), painters, plumbers, power equipment operators
(operating engineers), roofers, sheet metal workers, and truck
drivers; and the key classifications for heavy and highway
construction as carpenters, cement masons, electricians, iron
workers, laborers (common), painters, power equipment operators
(operating engineers), and truck drivers. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These rates would apply to the applicable classification without
the need to submit a conformance request in accordance with current
Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(C). However, if a contracting agency,
contractor, union, or other interested party has questions or concerns
about how particular work should be classified--and, specifically,
whether the work at issue is performed by a particular classification
included on a wage determination (including classifications listed
pursuant to this proposal) as a matter of local area practice or
otherwise, the contracting agency should submit a conformance request
in accordance with Sec. 5.5(a)(1) or seek guidance from WHD under 29
CFR 5.13. Moreover, under this proposal, contracting agencies would
still be required to submit conformance requests for any needed
classifications not listed on the wage determination, which would be
approved, modified or disapproved as warranted after award of the
contract, as required by the regulatory provisions applicable to
conformance requests.
2. 29 CFR Part 3
``Anti-kickback'' and payroll submission regulations under section
2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 3145, popularly
known as the Copeland Act, are set forth in 29 CFR part 3. This part
details the obligations of contractors and subcontractors relative to
the weekly submission of statements regarding the wages paid on work
covered by the Davis-Bacon labor standards; sets forth the
circumstances and procedures governing the making of payroll deductions
from the wages of those employed on such work; and delineates the
methods of payment permissible on such work.
i. Corresponding Edits to Part 3
The Department proposes multiple revisions to various sections in
part 3 to update the language and ensure that terms are used in a
manner consistent with the terminology used in 29 CFR parts 1 and 5, to
update websites and contact information, and to make other similar,
non-substantive changes. The Department also proposes conforming edits
to part 3 to reflect proposed changes to part 5, such as revising Sec.
3.2 to clarify existing definitions or to add new defined terms also
found in parts 1 and 5. The Department welcomes comment on whether it
should further consolidate and/or harmonize the definitions in
Sec. Sec. 1.2, 3.2, and 5.2 in a final rule, such as by placing all
definitions in a single regulatory section applicable to all three
parts.
The Department further proposes to change certain requirements
associated with the submission of certified payrolls. To the extent
that such
[[Page 15724]]
changes are substantive, the reasons for these proposed changes are
provided in the discussions of proposed Sec. Sec. 5.2 and 5.5. The
Department also proposes to remove Sec. 3.5(e) regarding deductions
for the purchase of United States Defense Stamps and Bonds, as the
Defense Stamps and Bonds are no longer available for purchase.
Similarly, the Department proposes to simplify the language regarding
deductions for charitable donations at Sec. 3.5(g) by eliminating
references to specific charitable organizations and instead permitting
voluntary deductions to charitable organizations as defined by 26
U.S.C. 501(c)(3).
Finally, the Department proposes to add language to Sec. 3.11
explaining that the requirements set forth in part 3 are considered to
be effective as a matter of law, whether or not these requirements are
physically incorporated into a covered contract, and cross-referencing
the proposed new language discussing incorporation by operation of law
at Sec. 5.5(e), discussed further below.
3. 29 CFR Part 5
i. Section 5.1 Purpose and Scope
The Department proposes minor technical revisions to Sec. 5.1 to
update statutory references, and further proposes to revise Sec. 5.1
by deleting the listing of laws requiring Davis-Bacon labor standards
provisions, given that any such list inevitably becomes out-of-date due
to statutory revisions and the enactment of new Related Acts. In lieu
of this listing in the regulation, the Department proposes to add new
sub-paragraph (a)(1) to reference the WHD website (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts) on which a listing of laws requiring
Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions is currently found and regularly
updated.
ii. Section 5.2 Definitions
(A) Agency, Agency Head, Contracting Officer, Secretary, and Davis-
Bacon Labor Standards
The Department proposes to revise the definitions of ``agency
head'' and ``contracting officer'' and to add a definition of
``agency'' to reflect more clearly that State and local agencies enter
into contracts for projects that are subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards and that they allocate Federal assistance they have received
under a Davis-Bacon Related Act to sub-recipients. These proposed
definitional changes also are intended to reflect that, for some
funding programs, the responsible Federal agency has delegated
administrative and enforcement authority to states or local agencies.
When the current regulations refer to the obligations or authority of
agencies, agency heads, and contracting officers, they are referring to
Federal agencies and Federal contracting officers. However, as noted
above, State or local agencies and their agency heads and contracting
officers exercise similar authority in the administration and
enforcement of Davis-Bacon labor standards. Because the existing
definitions define ``agency head'' and ``contracting officer'' as
particular ``Federal'' officials or persons authorized to act on their
behalf, which does not clearly reflect the role of State and local
agencies in effectuating Davis-Bacon requirements, including by
entering into contracts for projects subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards and inserting the Davis-Bacon contract clauses in such
contracts, the Department proposes to revise these definitions to
reflect the role of State and local agencies. The proposed revisions
also enable the regulations to specify the obligations and authority
held by both State or local and Federal agencies, as opposed to
obligations that are specific to one or the other.
The Department also proposes to define the term ``Federal agency''
as a sub-definition of ``agency'' to distinguish those situations where
the regulations refer specifically to an obligation or authority that
is limited solely to a Federal agency that enters into contracts for
projects subject to the Davis-Bacon labor standards or allocates
Federal assistance under a Davis-Bacon Related Act.
The Department also proposes to add the District of Columbia to the
definition of ``Federal agency.'' The DBA states in part that it
applies to every contract in excess of $2,000, to which the Federal
Government ``or the District of Columbia'' is a party. See 40 U.S.C.
3142(a). As described above, Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950
authorizes the Department to prescribe regulations to ensure that the
Act is implemented in a consistent manner by all agencies subject to
the Act. See 5 U.S.C. app 1. Accordingly, the proposed change to the
definition of ``Federal agency'' in Sec. 5.2 clarifies that the
District of Columbia is subject to the DBA and the regulations
implemented by the Department pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 14 of
1950.\75\ The proposed change is also consistent with the definition of
``Federal agency'' in part 3 of this title, which specifically includes
the District of Columbia. See 29 CFR 3.2(g). The proposed change simply
reflects the DBA's applicability to the District of Columbia and is not
intended to reflect a broader or more general characterization of the
District as a Federal Government entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ The 1973 Home Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, transferred from
the President to the District of Columbia the authority to organize
and reorganize specific governmental functions of the District of
Columbia, but does not contain any language removing the District of
Columbia from the Department's authority to prescribe DBA
regulations pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also proposes a change to the definition of
``Secretary'' to delete a reference to the Under Secretary for
Employment Standards; as noted above, the Employment Standards
Administration was eliminated in a reorganization in 2009 and its
authorities and responsibilities were devolved into its constituent
components, including WHD.
Lastly, the Department proposes a minor technical edit to the
definition of ``Davis-Bacon labor standards'' to reflect proposed
changes to Sec. 5.1, discussed above.
(B) Building or Work
(1) Energy Infrastructure and Related Activities
The Department proposes to modernize the definition of the terms
``building or work'' by including solar panels, wind turbines,
broadband installation, and installation of electric car chargers to
the non-exclusive list of construction activities encompassed by the
definition. These proposed changes to the definition are intended to
reflect the significance of energy infrastructure and related projects
to modern-day construction activities subject to the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts, as well as to illustrate the types of energy-
infrastructure and related activities that are encompassed by the
definition of ``building or work.''
(2) Coverage of a Portion of a Building or Work
The Department proposes to add language to the definitions of
``building or work'' and ``public building or public work'' to clarify
that these definitions can be met even when the construction activity
involves only a portion of an overall building, structure, or
improvement. The definition of ``building or work'' already states that
the terms ``building'' and ``work'' ``generally include construction
activity as distinguished from manufacturing, furnishing of materials,
or servicing and maintenance work,'' and includes ``without limitation,
buildings, structures, and improvements of all types.'' 29 CFR 5.2(i).
In addition, the
[[Page 15725]]
regulation already provides several examples of construction activity
included within the term ``building or work'' that do not constitute an
entire building, structure, or improvement, such as ``dredging,
shoring, . . . scaffolding, drilling, blasting, excavating, clearing,
and landscaping.'' Id. Moreover, the current regulations define the
term ``construction, prosecution, completion, or repair'' to mean ``all
types of work done on a particular building or work at the site thereof
. . . including, without limitation . . . [a]ltering, remodeling,
installation . . . ; [p]ainting and decorating.'' Id. Sec. 5.2(j).
However, to further make plain that ``building or work'' includes
not only construction activity involving an entire building, structure,
or improvement, but also construction activity involving a portion of a
building, structure, or improvement, or the installation of equipment
or components into a building, structure, or improvement, the
Department proposes to add a sentence to this definition stating that
``[t]he term building or work also includes a portion of a building or
work, or the installation (where appropriate) of equipment or
components into a building or work.'' The Department also proposes to
include additional language in the definition of ``public building or
public work'' to clarify that a ``public building'' or ``public work''
includes the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of a
portion of a building or work that is carried on directly by authority
of or with funds of a Federal agency to serve the interest of the
general public, even where construction of the entire building or work
does not fit within this definition.
These proposed revisions are consistent with the Davis-Bacon Act.
The concepts of alteration or repair presuppose that only a portion of
a building, structure, or improvement will be affected. By specifically
including the alteration or repair of public buildings or works within
its scope of coverage, the Davis-Bacon Act itself necessitates that
construction activity involving merely a portion of a building or work
may be subject to coverage.
These proposed revisions are also consistent with the Department's
longstanding policy that a ``public building'' or ``public work''
includes construction activity involving a portion of a building or
work, or the installation of equipment or components into a building or
work when the other requirements for Davis-Bacon coverage are
satisfied. See, e.g., AAM 52 (July 9, 1963) (holding that the upgrade
of communications systems at a military base, including the
installation of improved cabling, constituted the construction,
alteration or repair of a public work); Letter from Sylvester L. Green,
Director, Division of Contract Standards Operations, to Robert Olsen,
Bureau of Reclamation (Mar. 18, 1985) (finding that the removal and
replacement of stator cores in a hydroelectric generator was covered
under the Davis-Bacon Act as the alteration or repair of a public
work); Letter from Samuel D. Walker, Acting Administrator, to Edward
Murphy (Aug. 29, 1990) (stating that ``[t]he Department has ruled on
numerous occasions that repair or alteration of boilers, generators,
furnaces, etc. constitutes repair or alteration of a `public work' '');
Letter from Nancy Leppink, Deputy Administrator, to Armin J. Moeller
(Dec. 12, 2012) (finding that the installation of equipment such as
generators or turbines into a hydroelectric plant is considered to be
the improvement or alteration of a public work).
Similarly, the proposed revisions are consistent with the
Department's longstanding position that a ``public building'' or
``public work'' may include structures, buildings, or improvements that
will not be owned by the Federal government when construction is
completed, so long as the construction is carried on directly by
authority of or with funds of a Federal agency to serve the interest of
the general public. Accordingly, the Department has long held that the
Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions may apply to construction
undertaken when the government is merely going to have the use of the
building or work, such as in lease-construction contracts, depending
upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the contract. See
Reconsideration of Applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to the Veteran
Admin.'s Lease of Med. Facilities, 18 Op. O.L.C. 109, 119 n.10 (May 23,
1994) (``1994 OLC Memorandum'') (``[T]he determination whether a lease-
construction contract calls for construction of a public building or
public work likely will depend on the details of the particular
arrangement.''); FOH 15b07. In AAM 176 (June 22, 1994), WHD provided
guidance to the contracting community regarding the DBA's application
to lease-construction contracts, and specifically advised that the
following non-exclusive list of factors from the 1994 OLC Memorandum
should be considered in determining the scope of DBA coverage: (1) The
length of the lease; (2) the extent of Government involvement in the
construction project (such as whether the building is being built to
Government requirements and whether the Government has the right to
inspect the progress of the work); (3) the extent to which the
construction will be used for private rather than public purposes; (4)
the extent to which the costs of construction will be fully paid for by
the lease payments; and (5) whether the contract is written as a lease
solely to evade the requirements of the DBA.
In sum, as noted above, a building or work includes construction
activity involving only a portion of a building, structure, or
improvement. As also noted above, a public building or public work is
not limited to buildings or works that will be owned by the Federal
Government, but may include buildings or works that serve the general
public interest, including spaces to be leased or used by the Federal
Government. Accordingly, it necessarily follows that a contract for the
construction of a portion of a building, structure, or improvement may
be a covered contract for construction of a ``public building'' or
``public work'' where the other requirements for coverage are met, even
if the Federal Government is not going to own, lease, use, or otherwise
be involved with the construction of the remaining portions of the
building or work. For example, as WHD has repeatedly asserted in
connection with one contracting agency's lease-construction contracts,
where the Federal government enters into a lease for a portion of an
otherwise private building--and, as a condition of the lease, requires
and pays for specific tenant improvements requiring alterations and
repairs to that portion to prepare the space for government occupancy
in accordance with government specifications--Davis-Bacon labor
standards may apply to the tenant improvements or other specific
construction activity called for by such a contract. In such
circumstances, the factors discussed in AAM 176 would still need to be
considered to determine if coverage is appropriate, but the factors
would be applied specifically with reference to the leased portion of
the building and the construction required by the lease.
Finally, these proposed revisions would further the remedial
purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act by ensuring that the Act's protections
apply to contracts for construction activity for which the government
is responsible. Walsh v. Schlecht, 429 U.S. 401, 411 (1977)
(reiterating that the DBA ``was not enacted to benefit contractors, but
rather to protect their employees from substandard earnings by fixing a
floor under wages on Government projects'')
[[Page 15726]]
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); 1994 OLC Memorandum,
18 Op. O.L.C. at 121 (``[W]here the government is financially
responsible for construction costs, the purposes of the Davis-Bacon Act
may be implicated.''). If the Davis-Bacon Act were only applied in
situations where the Federal government is involved in the construction
of the entire (or even the majority of the) building or work, coverage
of contracts would be dependent on the size of the building or work,
even if two otherwise equivalent contracts involved the same square
footage and the government was paying for the same amount of
construction. Such an application of coverage would undermine the
statute's remedial purpose by permitting publicly funded construction
contracts for millions of dollars of construction activity to evade
coverage merely based on the size of the overall structure or building.
Accordingly, and as noted above, the Department proposes revisions
to the definitions of ``building or work'' and ``public building or
public work'' that serve to clarify rather than change existing
coverage requirements. However, the Department understands that in the
absence of such clarity under the existing regulations, contracting
agencies have differed in their implementation of Davis-Bacon labor
standards where construction activity involves only a portion of a
building, structure, or improvement, particularly in the context of
lease-construction contracts. Thus, as a practical matter, the proposed
revisions will result in broader application of Davis-Bacon labor
standards. The Department therefore invites comment on the benefits and
costs of these proposed revisions to private business owners, workers,
and the Federal government, particularly in the context of leasing.
(C) Construction, Prosecution, Completion, or Repair
The Department also proposes to add a new sub-definition to the
term ``construction, prosecution, completion, or repair'' in Sec. 5.2,
to better clarify when demolition and similar activities are covered by
the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
In general, the Davis-Bacon labor standards apply to contracts
``for construction, alteration or repair . . . of public buildings and
public works[.]'' 40 U.S.C. 3142(a). Early in the DBA's history, the
Attorney General examined whether demolition fit within these terms,
and concluded that ``[t]he statute is restricted by its terms to
`construction, alteration, and/or repair,' '' and that this language
``does not include the demolition of existing structures'' alone. 38
Op. Atty. Gen. 229 (1935). The Attorney General ``reserve[d] . . . the
question . . . of [the coverage of] a razing or clearing operation
provided for in a building contract, to be performed by the contractor
as an incident of the building project.'' Id. Consistent with the
Attorney General's opinion, the Department has long maintained that
standalone demolition work is generally not covered by the Davis-Bacon
labor standards. See AAM 190 (Aug. 29, 1998); WHD Opinion Letter SCA-78
(Nov. 27, 1991); WHD Opinion Letter DBRA-40 (Jan. 24, 1986); WHD
Opinion Letter DBRA-48 (Apr. 13, 1973); AAM 54 (July 29, 1963); FOH
15d03(a).
However, the Department has understood the Davis-Bacon labor
standards to cover demolition and removal under certain circumstances.
First, demolition and removal activities are covered by Davis-Bacon
labor standards when such activities themselves constitute
construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or work. Thus,
for example, the Department has explained that removal of asbestos or
paint from a facility that will not be demolished--even if subsequent
reinsulating or repainting is not considered--is covered by Davis-Bacon
because the asbestos or paint removal is an ``alteration'' of the
facility. See AAM 153 (Aug. 6, 1990). Likewise, the Department has
explained that Davis-Bacon can apply to certain hazardous waste removal
contracts, because ``substantial excavation of contaminated soils
followed by restoration of the environment'' is ``construction work''
under the DBA and because the term ``landscaping'' as used in the DBA
regulations includes ``elaborate landscaping activities such as
substantial earth moving and the rearrangement or reclamation of the
terrain that, standing alone, are properly characterized as the
construction, restoration, or repair of the a public work.'' AAM 155
(Mar. 25, 1991); see also AAM 190 (noting that ``hazardous waste
removal contracts that involve substantial earth moving to remove
contaminated soil and recontour the surface'' can be considered DBA-
covered construction activities)
Second, the Department has consistently maintained that if future
construction that will be subject to the Davis-Bacon labor standards is
contemplated on a demolition site--either because the demolition is
part of a contract for such construction or because such construction
is contemplated as part of a future contract, then the demolition of
the previously-existing structure is considered part of the
construction of the subsequent building or work and therefore within
the scope of the Davis-Bacon labor standards. See AAM 190. This
position is also articulated in the Department's SCA regulations at 29
CFR 4.116(b). Likewise, the Department has explained that certain
activities under hazardous waste removal and remediation contracts,
including ``the dismantling or demolition of buildings, ground
improvements and other real property structures and . . . the removal
of such structures or portions of them'' are covered by Davis-Bacon
labor standards ``if this work will result in the construction,
alteration, or repair of a public building or public work at that
location.'' AAM 187 (Nov. 18, 1996), attachment: Superfund Guidance,
Davis Bacon Act/Service Contract Act and Related Bonding, Jan. 1992)
(emphasis in original).
While the Department has addressed these distinctions to a degree
in the SCA regulations and in subregulatory guidance, the Department
believes that clear standards for the coverage of demolition and
removal and related activities in the DBA regulations will assist
agencies, contractors, workers, and other stakeholders in identifying
whether contracts for demolition are within the scope of the DBA. This,
in turn, would ensure that the correct contract provisions and wage
determinations are incorporated into the contract, thereby providing
contractors with the correct wage determinations prior to bidding and
requiring the payment of Davis-Bacon prevailing wages where
appropriate.\76\ Accordingly, the Department proposes to add a new
paragraph (2)(v) to the definition of ``construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair'' to assist agencies, contractors, workers, and
other stakeholders in identifying when demolition and related
activities fall within the scope of the DBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The Department notes that under Federal contracts and
subcontracts, demolition contracts that do not fall within the DBA's
scope are instead service contracts covered by the SCA, and the
Department uses DBA prevailing wage rates as a basis for the SCA
wage determination. See AAM 190. However, federally-funded
demolition work carried out by State or local governments that does
not meet the criteria for coverage under a Davis-Bacon Related Act
would generally not be subject to Federal prevailing wage
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the Department proposes to clarify that demolition
work is covered under any of three circumstances: (1) Where the
demolition and/or removal activities themselves constitute
construction, alteration, and/or repair of an existing public building
or work; (2) where subsequent
[[Page 15727]]
construction covered in whole or in part by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards is planned or contemplated at the site of the demolition or
removal, either as part of the same contract or as part of a future
contract; or (3) where otherwise required by statute.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ This third option accounts for Related Acts whose broader
language may permit greater coverage of demolition work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While determining whether demolition is performed in contemplation
of a future construction project is a fact-specific question, the
Department also proposes a non-exclusive list of factors that can
inform this determination. Although the inclusion of demolition
activities in the scope of a contract for the subsequent construction
of a public building or work is sufficient to warrant Davis-Bacon
coverage, such a condition is not a necessary one. Other factors that
may be relevant include the existence of engineering or architectural
plans or surveys; the allocation of, or an application for, Federal
funds; contract negotiations or bid solicitations; the stated intent of
the relevant government officials; the disposition of the site after
demolition (e.g., whether it is to be sealed and abandoned or left in a
State that is prepared for future construction); and other factors.
Based on these guidelines, Davis-Bacon coverage may apply, for example,
to the removal and disposal of contaminated soil in preparation for
construction of a building, or the demolition of a parking lot to
prepare the site for a future public park. In contrast, Davis-Bacon
likely would not apply to the demolition of an abandoned, dilapidated,
or condemned building to eliminate it as a public hazard, reduce
likelihood of squatters or trespassers, or to make the land more
desirable for sale to private parties for purely private construction.
(D) Contract, Contractor, Prime Contractor, and Subcontractor
The Department proposes non-substantive revisions to the definition
of ``contract'' and also proposes new definitions in Sec. 5.2 for the
terms ``contractor,'' ``subcontractor'' and ``prime contractor.'' These
definitions apply to 29 CFR part 5, including the DBRA contract clauses
in Sec. 5.5(a) and (b) of this part.
Neither the DBA nor CWHSSA defines the terms ``contract,''
``contractor,'' ``prime contractor,'' or ``subcontractor.'' The
language of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, however, makes it clear
that Congress intended the prevailing wage and overtime requirements to
apply broadly to both prime contracts executed directly with Federal
agencies as well as any subcontracts through which the prime
contractors carry out the work on the prime contract. See 40 U.S.C.
3142(c); 40 U.S.C. 3702(b), (d). Thus, the Department's existing
regulations define the term ``contract'' as including ``any prime
contract . . . and any subcontract of any tier thereunder.'' 29 CFR
5.2(h). As indicated by the reference in the existing regulations to
the laws listed in Sec. 5.1, the term also may include the contracts
between Federal, State or local government entities administering
Federal assistance and the direct recipients or beneficiaries of that
assistance, where such assistance is covered by one of the Related
Acts--as well as the construction contracts and subcontracts of any
tier financed by or facilitated by such a contract for assistance.
In other Federal contractor labor standards regulations, the
Department has sometimes included more detailed definitions of a
``contract.'' In the regulations implementing Executive Order 13658
(Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors), for example, the
Department defined contract as ``an agreement between two or more
parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise
recognizable at law'' and listed many types of specific instruments
that fall within that definition. 29 CFR 10.2. The Department's SCA
regulations, while containing a definition of ``contract'' that is
similar to the current Davis-Bacon regulatory definition at 29 CFR
5.2(h), separately specify that ``the nomenclature, type, or particular
form of contract used . . . is not determinative of coverage'' at 29
CFR 4.111(a).
The term ``contract'' in the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts has been
interpreted in a similarly broad manner. See, e.g., Bldg. & Const.
Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Turnage, 705 F. Supp. 5, 6 (D.D.C. 1988)
(``The Court finds that it is reasonable to conclude, as the WAB has
done, that the nature of the contract is not controlling so long as
construction work is part of it.''). Similarly, in its 1994 memorandum,
the OLC cited the basic common-law understanding of the term to explain
that, for the purposes of the DBA, ``[t]here can be no question that a
lease is a contract, obliging each party to take certain actions.''
1994 OLC Memorandum, 18 Op. O.L.C. at 113 n.3 (citing Arthur Linton
Corbin, Corbin on Contracts sections 1.2-1.3 (rev. ed., Joseph M.
Perillo, ed., 1993)). The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts thus have been
routinely applied to various types of agreements that meet the common-
law definition of a ``contract''--such as, for example, leases, utility
privatization agreements, individual job orders or task letters issued
under basic ordering agreements, and loans or agreements in which the
only consideration from the agency is a loan guarantee--as long as the
other elements of DBRA coverage are satisfied.
However, the Department considers that it may not be necessary to
include in the regulatory text itself a similarly detailed recitation
of types of agreements that may be considered to be contracts, because
such a list necessarily follows from the use of the term ``contract''
in the statute and the Department is not aware of any argument to the
contrary. The Department thus seeks comment on whether a more detailed
definition of the term ``contract'' is warranted, including whether
aspects of the definition at 29 CFR 10.2 or the SCA regulations should
or should not be included in the regulatory definition of contract at
Sec. 5.2.
The Department also seeks comment on whether it is necessary to
explicitly promulgate in the definition of ``contract'' in Sec. 5.2,
or elsewhere in the regulations, an explanation regarding contracts
that may be found to be void. The Department intends the use of the
term in the regulations to apply also to any agreement in which the
parties intended for a contract to be formed, even if (as a matter of
the common law) the contract may later be considered to be void ab
initio or otherwise fail to satisfy the elements of the traditional
definition of a contract. Such usage follows from the statutory
requirement that the relevant labor standards clauses must be included
not just in ``contracts'' but also in the advertised specifications
that may (or may not) become a covered contract. See 40 U.S.C. 3142(a).
In addition to the term ``contract,'' the existing DBRA regulations
use the terms ``contractor,'' ``subcontractor,'' and ``prime
contractor,'' but do not currently define the latter three terms. The
Department proposes to include a definition of the term ``contractor''
to clarify that, where used in the regulations, it applies to both
prime contractors and subcontractors. In addition, the definition would
clarify that sureties may also--under appropriate circumstances--be
considered ``contractors'' under the regulations. This is consistent
with the Department's longstanding interpretation. See Liberty Mutual
Ins., ARB No. 00-018, 2003 WL 21499861 at *6 (June 30, 2003) (finding
that the term ``contractor'' included sureties
[[Page 15728]]
completing a contract pursuant to a performance bond). As the ARB
explained in the Liberty Mutual case, the term ``contractor'' in the
DBA should be interpreted broadly in light of Congress's ``overarching
. . . concern'' in the 1935 amendments to the Act that the new
withholding authority included in those amendments would ensure workers
received the pay they were due. Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 1155, at 3
(1935)). As discussed below, the proposed definition of contractor also
reflects the long-held interpretation that bona fide ``material
suppliers'' are generally not considered to be contractors under the
DBRA, subject to certain exceptions.
The Department also proposes a nonsubstantive change to move, with
minor nonsubstantive edits, two sentences from the existing definition
of ``contract'' to the new definition of ``contractor.'' These
sentences clarify that State and local governments are not regarded as
contractors or subcontractors under the Related Acts in situations
where construction is performed by their own employees, but that under
statutes that require payment of Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to all
laborers and mechanics employed in the assisted project or in the
project's development, State and local recipients of Federal aid must
pay these employees according to Davis-Bacon labor standards. In
addition, the Department proposes to supplement that language to
explain (as the Department has similarly clarified in the SCA
regulations) that the U.S. Government, its agencies, and
instrumentalities are also not contractors or subcontractors for the
purposes of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. Cf. 29 CFR 4.1a(f).
The Department proposes to add a definition for the term ``prime
contractor'' as it is used in part 5 of the regulations. Consistent
with the ARB's decision in Liberty Mutual, discussed above, the
Department proposes a broad definition of prime contractor that
prioritizes the appropriate allocation of responsibility for contract
compliance and enhances the effectiveness of the withholding remedy.
The proposed definition clarifies that the label an entity gives itself
is not controlling, and an entity is considered to be a ``prime
contractor'' based on its contractual relationship with the Government,
its control over the entity holding the prime contract, or the duties
it has been delegated.
The definition begins by identifying as a prime contractor any
person or entity that enters into a covered contract with an agency.
This includes, under appropriate circumstances, entities that may not
be understood in lay terms to be ``construction contractors.'' For
example, where a non-profit organization, owner/developer, borrower or
recipient, project manager, or single-purpose entity contracts with a
State or local government agency for covered financing or assistance
with the construction of housing--and the other required elements of
the relevant statute are satisfied--that owner/developer or recipient
entity is considered to be the ``prime contractor'' under the
regulations. This is so even if the entity does not consider itself to
be a ``construction contractor'' and itself does not employ laborers
and mechanics and instead subcontracts with a general contractor to
complete the construction. See, e.g., Phoenix Dev. Co., WAB No. 90-09,
1991 WL 494725, at *1 (Mar. 29, 1991) (``It is well settled that prime
contractors (`owners-developers' under the HUD contract at hand) are
responsible for the Davis-Bacon compliance of their subcontractors.'');
Werzalit of Am., Inc., WAB No. 85-19, 1986 WL 193106, at *3 (Apr. 7,
1986) (rejecting petitioner's argument that it was a loan ``recipient''
standing in the shoes of a State or local government and not a prime
``contractor'').
The proposed definition also includes as a ``prime contractor'' the
controlling shareholder or member of any entity holding a prime
contract, the joint venturers or partners in any joint venture or
partnership holding a prime contract, any contractor (e.g., a general
contractor) that has been delegated all or substantially all of the
responsibilities for overseeing and/or performing the construction
anticipated by the prime contract, and any other person or entity that
has been delegated all or substantially all of the responsibility for
overseeing Davis-Bacon labor standards compliance on a prime contract.
Under this definition, more than one entity on a contract--for example,
both the owner/developer and the general contractor--may be considered
to be ``prime contractors'' on the same contract. Accordingly, the
proposal also explains that any two of these nominally different legal
entities are considered to be the ``same prime contractor'' for the
purposes of cross-withholding.
Although the Department has not previously included a definition of
prime contractor in the implementing regulations, the proposed
definition is consistent with the Department's prior enforcement of the
DBRA. In appropriate circumstances, for example, the Department has
considered a general contractor to be a ``prime contractor'' that is
therefore responsible for the violations of its subcontractors under
the regulations--even where that general contractor does not directly
hold the contract with the Government (or is not the direct recipient
of Federal assistance), but instead has been hired by the private
developer that holds the overall construction contract. See Palisades
Urb. Renewal Enters. LLP., OALJ No. 2006-DBA-00001 (Aug. 3, 2007), at
16, aff'd, ARB No. 07-124, (July 30, 2009); Milnor Constr. Corp., WAB
No. 91-21, 1991 WL 494763, at *1, 3 (Sept. 12, 1991); cf. Vulcan Arbor
Hill Corp. v. Reich, 81 F.3d 1110, 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (referencing
agreement by developer that ``its prime'' contractor would comply with
Davis-Bacon standards). Likewise, where a joint venture holds the
contract with the government, the Department has characterized the
actions of the parties to that joint venture as the actions of ``prime
contractors.'' See Big Six, Inc., WAB No. 75-03, 1975 WL 22569, at *2
(July 21, 1975).
The proposed definition of prime contractor is also similar to,
although somewhat narrower than, the broad definition of the term
``contractor'' in the FAR part 9 regulations that govern suspension and
debarment across a broad swath of Federal procurement contracts. In
that context, where the Federal Government seeks to protect its
interest in effectively and efficiently completing procurement
contracts, the FAR Council has adopted an expansive definition of
contractor that includes affiliates or principals that functionally
control the prime contract with the government. See 48 CFR 9.403. Under
that definition, ``Contractor'' means any individual or entity that
``[d]irectly or indirectly (e.g., through an affiliate)'' is awarded a
Government contract or ``[c]onducts business . . . with the Government
as an agent or representative of another contractor.'' Id.\78\ The
Department has a similar interest here in protecting against the use of
the corporate form to avoid
[[Page 15729]]
responsibility for the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ The definition section in 48 CFR 9.403 specifies that it
applies only ``as used in this subpart''--referring to subpart 9.4
of the FAR. It thus applies only to the general suspension and
debarment provisions of the FAR and thus does not apply to the
regulations within the FAR that implement the Davis-Bacon labor
standards, which are located in FAR part 22 and the contract clauses
FAR part 52. The DBRA-specific provisions of the FAR are based on
the Department's regulations in parts 1, 3, and 5 of subtitle 29 of
the CFR, which are the subject of this NPRM. Thus, the Department
expects that, after this rule is final, the FAR Council will
consider how to amend FAR part 22 and the FAR contract clauses to
appropriately incorporate the new and amended definitions that are
adopted in the Department's final rule. The Department does not
anticipate that this rulemaking would affect FAR subpart 9.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department seeks comment on the proposed definition of ``prime
contractor,'' in particular as it affects the withholding contract
clauses at Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3), the prime contractor
responsibility provisions at Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4), and the
proposed provisions in Sec. 5.9 regarding the authority and
responsibility of contracting agencies for satisfying requests for
cross-withholding.
Finally, the Department proposes a new definition of the term
``subcontractor.'' The proposed definition would affirmatively state
that a ``subcontractor'' is ``any contractor that agrees to perform or
be responsible for the performance of any part of a contract that is
subject wholly or in part to the labor standards provisions of any of
the laws referenced in Sec. 5.1.'' Like the current definition of
``contract,'' the proposed definition of ``subcontractor'' also
reflects that the Act covers subcontracts of any tier--and thus the
proposed definition of ``subcontractor'' would state that the term
includes subcontractors of any tier. See 40 U.S.C. 3412; Castro v. Fid.
& Deposit Co. of Md., 39 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2014). The proposed
definition for ``subcontractor'' necessarily excludes material
suppliers (except for narrow exceptions), because such material
suppliers are excluded from the definition of ``contractor,'' as
proposed, and that definition applies to both prime contractors and
subcontractors. Finally, the proposed definition of ``subcontractor''
also clarifies that the term does not include laborers or mechanics for
whom a prevailing wage must be paid. As discussed below, and as
Congress expressly indicated, the requirement to pay a prevailing wage
to ordinary laborers and mechanics cannot be evaded by characterizing
such workers as ``owner operators'' or ``subcontractors.'' See 40
U.S.C. 3142(c)(1) (requiring payment of prevailing wage ``regardless of
any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and the laborers and mechanics'').
(E) Apprentice and Helper
The Department proposes to amend the current regulatory definition
in Sec. 5.2(n) of ``apprentice, trainee, and helper'' to remove
references to trainees. A trainee is currently defined as a person
registered and receiving on-the-job training in a construction
occupation under a program approved and certified in advance by ETA as
meeting its standards for on-the-job training programs, but ETA no
longer reviews or approves on-the-job training programs so this
definition is unnecessary. See section III.B.3.iii.(C) (``29 CFR
5.5(a)(4) Apprentices.''). The Department also proposes to modify the
definition of ``apprentice and helper'' to reflect the current name of
the office designated by the Secretary of Labor, within the Department,
to register apprenticeship programs.
(F) Laborer or Mechanic
The Department proposes to amend the regulatory definition of
``laborer or mechanic'' to remove the reference to trainees and to
replace the term ``foremen'' with the gender-neutral term ``working
supervisors.'' \79\ The Department does not propose any additional
substantive changes to this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ The proposal addressing trainees is discussed in greater
detail below in section III.B.3.iii.(C) (``29 CFR 5.5(a)(4)
Apprentices.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because the Department frequently receives questions
pertaining to the application of the definition of ``laborer or
mechanic''--and thus the application the Davis-Bacon labor standards--
to members of survey crews, the Department provides the following
information to clarify when survey crew members are laborers or
mechanics under the existing definition of that term.
The Department has historically recognized that members of survey
crews who perform primarily physical and/or manual work on a DBA or
Related Acts covered project on the site of the work immediately prior
to or during construction in direct support of construction crews may
be laborers or mechanics subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards.\80\ Whether or not a specific survey crew member is covered
by these standards is a question or fact, which takes into account the
actual duties performed and whether these duties are ``manual or
physical in nature'' including the ``use of tools or . . . work of a
trade.'' When considering whether a survey crew member performs
primarily physical and/or manual duties, it is appropriate to consider
the relative importance of the worker's different duties, including
(but not solely) the time spent performing these duties. Thus, survey
crew members who spend most of their time on a covered project taking
or assisting in taking measurements would likely be deemed laborers or
mechanics (provided that they do not meet the tests for exemption as
professional, executive, or administrative employees under part 541).
If their work meets other required criteria (i.e., it is performed on
the site of the work, where required, and immediately prior to or
during construction in direct support of construction crews), it would
be covered by the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See, e.g., AAM 212 (Mar. 22, 2013). While AAM 212 was
rescinded to allow the Department to seek a broader appreciation of
the coverage issue it addressed and due to its incomplete
implementation, see AAM 235 (Dec. 14, 2020), its rescission did not
change the applicable standard, which is the definition of ``laborer
or mechanic'' as currently set forth in 29 CFR 5.2(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department seeks comment on issues relevant to the application
of the current definition to survey crew members, especially the range
of duties performed by, and training required of, survey crew members
who perform work on construction projects and whether the range of
duties or required training varies for different roles within a survey
crew based on the licensure status of the crew members, or for
different types of construction projects.
(G) Site of the Work and Related Provisions
The Department proposes the following revisions related to the
DBRA's ``site of the work'' requirement: (1) Revising the definition of
``site of the work'' to further encompass certain construction of
significant portions of a building or work at secondary worksites, (2)
clarifying the application of the ``site of the work'' principle to
flaggers, (3) revising the regulations to better delineate and clarify
the ``material supplier'' exemption, and (4) revising the regulations
to set clear standards for DBA coverage of truck drivers.
(1) Current Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Related to Site of the
Work
a. Site of the Work
The DBA and Related Acts generally apply to ``mechanics and
laborers employed directly on the site of the work'' by
``contractor[s]'' and ``subcontractor[s]'' on contracts for
``construction, alteration, or repair, including painting and
decorating, of [covered] public buildings and public works.'' 40 U.S.C.
3142(a), (c)(1). The Department's current regulations define ``site of
the work'' as including ``the physical place or places where the
building or work called for in the contract will remain'' and ``any
other site where a significant portion of the building or work is
constructed, provided that such site is established specifically for
the performance of the contract or project.'' 29 CFR 5.2(l)(1). They
further provide that in general, ``job headquarters, tool yards, batch
plants, borrow pits, etc.'' are part of the
[[Page 15730]]
``site of the work'' if they are ``dedicated exclusively, or nearly so,
to performance of the covered contract or project'' and also are
``adjacent or virtually adjacent to the site of the work'' itself. 29
CFR 5.2(l)(2).
The ``site of the work'' requirement does not apply to Related Acts
that extend Davis-Bacon coverage to all laborers and mechanics employed
in the ``development'' of a project; such statutes include the United
States Housing Act of 1937; the Housing Act of 1949; and the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. See
Sec. 5.2(j)(1); 42 U.S.C. 1437j(a); 25 U.S.C. 4114(b)(1),
4225(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 12836(a). As the Department has previously
noted, ``the language and/or clear legislative history'' of these
statutes ``reflected clear congressional intent that a different
coverage standard be applied.'' 65 FR 80267 at 80275; see, e.g., L.T.G.
Constr. Co., WAB Case No. 93-15, 1994 WL 764105, at *4 (Dec. 30, 1994)
(noting that ``the Housing Act [of 1937] contains no `site of work'
limitation similar to that found in the Davis-Bacon Act'').
b. Off-Site Transportation
The ``site of the work'' requirement is also referenced in the
current regulation's definition of ``construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair,'' which provides that ``the transportation of
materials or supplies to or from the site of the work'' is not covered
by the DBRA, except for such transportation under the statutes to which
the ``site of the work'' requirement does not apply. 29 CFR 5.2(j)(2).
However, transportation to or from the site of the work is covered by
the DBRA where a covered laborer or mechanic (1) transports materials
between an ``adjacent or virtually adjacent'' dedicated support site
that is part of the site of the work pursuant to 29 CFR 5.2(l)(2), or
(2) transports portions of the building or work between a site where a
significant portion of the building or work is constructed and that is
established specifically for contract or job performance, which is part
of the site of the work pursuant to 29 CFR 5.2(l)(1), and the physical
place or places where the building or work will remain.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ For more detail on this topic, see the section titled
``Coverage of Construction Work at Secondary Construction Sites.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Material Supplier Exception
While not explicitly set out in the statute, the DBA has long been
understood to exclude from coverage employees of bona fide ``material
suppliers'' or ``materialmen'' whose sole responsibility is to provide
materials (such as sand, gravel, and ready-mixed concrete) to a project
if they also supply those materials to the general public, and the
plant manufacturing the materials is not established specifically for a
particular contract or located at the site of the work. See AAM 45
(Nov. 9, 1962) (enclosing WHD Opinion Letter DB-30 (Oct. 15, 1962));
AAM 36 (Mar. 16, 1952) (enclosing WHD Opinion Letter DB-22 (Mar. 12,
1962)); H.B. Zachry Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 352, 359 (Ct. Cl.
1965); FOH 15e16. This principle has generally been understood to
derive from the limitation of the DBA's statutory coverage to
``contractor[s]'' and ``subcontractor[s].'' See AAM 36, WHD Opinion
Letter DB-22, at 2 (discussing ``the application of the term
subcontractor, as distinguished from materialman or submaterialman'');
cf. MacEvoy v. United States, 322 U.S. 102 (1944) (distinguishing a
``subcontractor'' from ``ordinary laborers and materialmen'' under the
Miller Act); FOH 15e16 (``[B]ona fide material suppliers are not
considered contractors under DBRA.''). As the Department has explained,
this exception applies to employees of companies ``whose only
contractual obligations for on-site work are to deliver materials and/
or pick up materials.'' PWRB, DBA/DBRA Compliance Principles at 7
(emphasis added).
Like the ``site of the work'' restriction, the material supplier
exception does not apply to work under statutes that extend Davis-Bacon
coverage to all laborers and mechanics employed in the ``development''
of a project, regardless of whether they are employed by
``contractors'' or ``subcontractors.'' See existing regulation 29 CFR
5.2(j)(1) (defining ``construction, prosecution, completion, or
repair'' as including ``[a]ll types of work done on a particular
building or work at the site thereof . . . by laborers and mechanics
employed by a construction contractor or construction subcontractor
(or, under the United States Housing Act of 1937; the Housing Act of
1949; and the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996, all work done in the construction or development of the
project)''); existing regulation 29 CFR 5.2(i) (``The manufacture or
furnishing of materials, articles, supplies or equipment . . . is not a
building or work within the meaning of the regulations in this part
unless conducted in connection with and at the site of such a building
or work as is described in the foregoing sentence, or under the United
States Housing Act of 1937 and the Housing Act of 1949 in the
construction or development of the project.'').
d. Relevant Regulatory History and Case Law
The regulatory provisions discussed above were shaped by three
appellate court decisions between 1992 and 2000. The language in Sec.
5.2(l) that deems dedicated sites such as batch plants and borrow pits
part of the site of the work only if they are ``adjacent or virtually
adjacent'' to the construction site was adopted in 2000 in response to
Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. v. Reich, 24 F. 3d 1447 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
and L.P. Cavett Company v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 101 F.3d 1111 (6th Cir.
1996), which concluded that batch plants located only a few miles from
the construction site (2 miles in Ball, 3 miles in L.P. Cavett) were
not part of the ``site of the work.'' See 65 FR 80268 (``2000 final
rule'').\82\ The ``adjacent or virtually adjacent'' requirement in the
current regulatory text is one that the courts in Ball and L.P. Cavett
suggested would be permissible. Similarly, the provision in Sec.
5.2(j)(2) that excludes, with narrow exceptions, ``the transportation
of materials or supplies to or from the site of the work'' from
coverage stems from a 1992 interim final rule, see 57 FR 19204 (May 4,
1992) (``1992 IFR''), that implemented Building & Construction Trades
Dep't, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Dep't of Labor Wage Appeals Bd. (Midway), in
which the D.C. Circuit held that drivers of a prime contractor's
subsidiary who picked up supplies and transported them to the job site
were not covered by the DBA because ``the Act applies only to employees
working directly on the physical site of the public building or public
work under construction.'' 932 F.2d 985, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1991).\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Prior to 2000, the Department had interpreted ``site of the
work'' more broadly to include, in addition to the site where the
work or building would remain, ``adjacent or nearby property used by
the contractor or subcontractor in such construction which can
reasonably be said to be included in the `site.' '' 29 CFR 5.2(l)
(1990); see 65 FR 80268, 80269 (Dec. 20, 2000); AAM 86 (Feb. 11,
1970).
\83\ Prior to 1992, the Department had interpreted the DBA as
covering the transportation of materials and supplies to or from the
site of the work by workers employed by a contractor or
subcontractor. See 29 CFR 5.2(j) (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Proposed Regulatory Revisions
The Department proposes the following regulatory changes related to
the ``site of the work'' requirement: (1) Revising the definition of
``site of the work'' to further encompass certain construction of
significant portions of a
[[Page 15731]]
building or work at secondary worksites, (2) clarifying the application
of the ``site of the work'' principle to flaggers, (3) revising the
regulations to better delineate and clarify the ``material supplier''
exemption, and (4) revising the regulations to set clear standards for
DBA coverage of truck drivers. Each proposal is explained in turn.
a. Coverage of Construction Work at Secondary Construction Sites
In the 2000 final rule, the Department amended the definition of
``site of the work'' to include a site away from the location where the
building or work will remain, where the site is established
specifically for the performance of the contract or project and a
``significant portion'' of a building or work is constructed at the
site. 29 CFR 5.2(l)(1). The Department explained that this change was
intended to respond to technological developments that had enabled
companies in some cases to construct entire portions of public
buildings or works off-site, leaving only assembly or placement of the
building or work remaining. See 65 FR 80273 (describing ``the
innovative construction techniques developed and currently in use,
which allow significant portions of public buildings and public works
to be constructed at locations other than the final resting place of
the building or work''). The Department cited examples, including a dam
project where ``two massive floating structures, each about the length
of a football field'' were constructed upriver and then floated
downriver and submerged, the construction and assembly of military
housing units in Portland for final placement in Alaska, and the
construction of modular units to be assembled into a mobile service
tower for Titan missiles. See id. (citing ATCO Construction, Inc., WAB
No. 86-1 (Aug. 22, 1986), and Titan IV Mobile Serv. Tower, WAB No. 89-
14 (May 10, 1991)).
The Department stressed that this new provision would apply only at
a location where ``such a large amount of construction is taking place
that it is fair and reasonable to view such location as a site where
the public building or work is being constructed,'' and reaffirmed its
longstanding position that ``[o]rdinary commercial fabrication plants,
such as plants that manufacture prefabricated housing components,'' are
not part of the site of the work. 65 FR at 80274; see, e.g., AAM 86
(Feb. 11, 1970) at 1-2 (explaining that the site of the work does not
include a contractor's permanent ``fabrication plant[s] . . . whose
locations and continuance are governed by his general business
operations . . . even though mechanics and laborers working at such an
establishment may . . . make doors, windows, frames, or forms''). It
accordingly described this expansion of coverage as a narrow one. See
65 FR at 80276 (``[T]he Department believes that the instances where
substantial amounts of construction are performed at one location and
then transported to another location for final installation are
rare.''). Consistent with this amendment, the Department also revised
Sec. 5.2(j) to cover transportation of portion(s) of the building or
work between such a site and the location where the building or work
would remain.
Since 2000, technological developments have continued to facilitate
off-site construction that replaces on-site construction to an even
greater degree, and the Department expects such trends to continue in
the future. For example, one recent industry analysis notes that both
design firms and contractors ``are forecasting expanded use of both
[prefabrication and modular construction] over the coming years as the
benefits are more widely measured, owners become increasingly
comfortable with the process and the outcomes, and the industry
develops more resources to support innovative applications.'' Dodge
Data and Analytics, Prefabrication and Modular Construction 2020
(2020), at 4.\84\ In the specific context of Federal government
contracting, a GSA document cites several benefits to ``pre-
engineered'' or ``modular'' construction, including decreased
construction time, cost savings, and fewer environmental and safety
hazards. GSA, Schedule 56--Building and Building Materials, Industrial
Service and Supplies, Pre-Engineered/Prefabricated Buildings Customer
Ordering Guide (GSA Schedule 56), at 5-7.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ https://modular.org/documents/public/PrefabModularSmartMarketReport2020.pdf.
\85\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/SCHEDULE_56_-_ORDERING_GUIDE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2000 final rule, the Department explained that ``[i]t [was]
the Department's intention in [that] rulemaking to require in the
future that workers who construct significant portions of a Federal or
federally assisted project at a location other than where the project
will finally remain, will receive prevailing wages as Congress intended
when it enacted the Davis-Bacon and related Acts.'' 65 FR at 80274.
However, by limiting such coverage to facilities that are established
specifically for the performance of a particular contract or project,
the current regulation falls short of its stated goal. The Department
stated at the time that this limit was necessary to exclude
``[o]rdinary commercial fabrication plants, such as plants that
manufacture prefabricated housing components.'' 65 FR at 80274.
However, such an exclusion can be more effectively accomplished with
language that expands on the term ``significant portion.''
The Department accordingly proposes to revise Davis-Bacon coverage
of off-site construction of ``significant portions'' of a building or
work so that such coverage is not limited to facilities established
specifically for the performance of a contract or project. Rather, the
Department proposes to amend the definition of ``site of the work'' to
include off-site construction where the ``significant portions'' are
constructed for specific use in a designated building or work, rather
than simply reflecting products that the contractor or subcontractor
makes available to the general public. The Department also proposes to
explain the term ``significant portions'' to ensure that this expansion
does not result in the coverage of activities that have long been
understood to be outside the DBA's scope.
Specifically, the Department proposes to explain that ``significant
portion'' means that entire portions or modules of the building or
work, as opposed to smaller prefabricated components, are delivered to
the place where the building or work will remain, with minimal
construction work remaining other than the installation and/or assembly
of the portions or modules. As the Midway court observed, the 1932
House debate on the DBA demonstrates that its drafters understood that
off-site prefabrication sites would generally not beconsidered part of
the site of the work. See Midway, 932 F.2d at 991 n.12. As in 2000, the
Department does not propose to alter this well-established principle.
Such prefabrication, however, is distinguishable from modern methods of
``pre-engineering'' or ``modular'' construction, in which significant
portions of a building or work are constructed and then simply
assembled onsite ``similar to a child's building block kit.'' GSA
Schedule 56 at 5.\86\ Under the latter circumstances, as the Department
noted in 2000, ``such a large amount of construction is taking place
[at an offsite location] that it is fair and reasonable to view such
location as a site where the public building or work is being
constructed.'' 65 FR at 80274; see also id. at 80272 (stating that
``the Department views such [secondary construction] locations as the
actual
[[Page 15732]]
physical site of the public building or work being constructed''). In
other words, when ``significant portions'' of a building or work that
historically would have been built where the building or work will
ultimately remain are instead constructed elsewhere, the exclusion from
the DBA of laborers and mechanics engaged in such construction is
inconsistent with the DBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See note 85, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the contractor/material supplier distinction discussed
above, the Department also proposes to add, as an additional
requirement for coverage of offsite construction, that the portions or
modules are constructed for specific use in a designated building or
work, rather than simply reflecting products that the contractor or
subcontractor makes available to the general public. When significant
portions or modules are constructed specifically for a particular
building or work and not as part of the contractor's regular
manufacturing operations, the company is not a material supplier but a
contractor or subcontractor. See United Constr. Co., Inc., WAB No. 82-
10, 1983 WL 144675, at *3 (Jan. 14, 1983) (examining, as part of an
inquiry into whether support activities are on the ``site of the
work,'' ``whether the activities are sufficiently independent of the
primary project to determine that the function of the support
activities may be viewed as similar to that of materialman'').
For clarity, the Department also proposes to amend Sec. 5.2 to use
the term ``secondary construction sites'' to describe such locations,
and to use the term ``primary construction sites'' to describe the
place where the building or work will remain. The Department
additionally proposes to use the term ``nearby dedicated support site''
to describe locations such as batch plants that are part of the site of
the work because they are dedicated exclusively, or nearly so, to the
project, and are adjacent or nearly adjacent to a primary or secondary
construction site.
The Department specifically seeks public comment on (1) examples of
the types of off-site construction techniques described above, and the
extent to which they are used in government and government-funded
contracting, and (2) whether the proposed limits, including the
clarification of ``significant portion,'' are appropriate.
b. Clarification of Application of ``Site of the Work'' Principle to
Flaggers
The Department also proposes to clarify that workers engaged in
traffic control and related activities adjacent or nearly adjacent to
the primary construction site are working on the site of the work.
Often, particularly for heavy and highway projects, it is necessary to
direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic around or away from the primary
construction site. Certain workers of contractors or subcontractors,
typically called ``flaggers'' or ``traffic directors,'' may therefore
engage in activities such as setting up barriers and traffic cones,
using a flag and/or stop sign to control and direct traffic, and
related activities such as helping heavy equipment move in and out of
construction zones. Although some flaggers work within the confines of
the primary construction site, others work outside of that area and do
not enter the construction zone itself.
The Department has previously explained that flaggers are laborers
or mechanics within the meaning of the DBA. See AAM 141 (Aug. 16,
1985); FOH 15e10(a); Superior Paving & Materials, Inc., ARB No. 99-065
(June 12, 2002). The Department now proposes to clarify, in the
definition of ``nearby dedicated support sites,'' that such workers,
even if they are not working precisely on the site where the building
or work would remain, are working on the site of the work if they work
at a location adjacent or virtually adjacent to the primary
construction site, such as a few blocks away or a short distance down a
highway. Although the Department believes that any adjacent or
virtually adjacent locations at which such work is performed are
included within the current regulatory ``site of the work'' definition,
given that questions have arisen regarding this coverage issue, the
Department proposes to make this principle explicit.
As the Department has previously noted, such work by flaggers and
traffic operators is integrally related to other construction work at
the worksite and construction at the site would not be possible
otherwise. See AAM 141; FOH 15e10(a). Additionally, as noted above and
as the ARB has previously explained, the principle of adjacency or
virtual adjacency in this context is consistent with the statutory
``site of the work'' limitation as interpreted by courts. See Bechtel
Constructors Corp., ARB No. 97-149, 1998 WL 168939, at *5 (March 25,
1998) (explaining that ``it is not uncommon or atypical for
construction work related to a project to be performed outside the
boundaries defined by the structure that remains upon completion of the
work,'' such as where a crane in an urban environment is positioned
adjacent to the future building site). This proposed change would
therefore be consistent with the DBA and would eliminate any ambiguity
regarding these workers' coverage.
c. Clarification of ``Material Supplier'' Distinction
Next, the Department proposes to clarify the distinction between
subcontractors and ``material suppliers'' and to make explicit that
employees of material suppliers are not covered by the DBA and most of
the Related Acts. Although, as explained above, this distinction has
existed since the DBA's inception, the precise line between ``material
supplier'' and ``subcontractor'' is not always clear, and is sometimes
the subject of litigation.
The Department proposes to clarify the scope of the material
supplier exception consistent with case law and WHD guidance. First,
the Department proposes to add a new definition of ``material
supplier'' to Sec. 5.2, and to define the term as an employer meeting
three criteria: First, the employer's only obligations for work on the
contract or project are the delivery of materials, articles, supplies,
or equipment, which may include pickup in addition to, but not
exclusive of, delivery; \87\ second, the employer also supplies
materials to the general public; and third, the employer's facility
manufacturing the materials, articles, supplies, or equipment, is
neither established specifically for the contract or project nor
located at the site of the work. See H.B. Zachry, 344 F.2d at 359; AAM
5 (Dec. 26, 1957); AAM 31 (Dec. 11, 1961); AAM 36 (Mar. 16, 1962); AAM
45 (Nov. 9, 1962); AAM 53 (July 22, 1963). The subsection further
clarifies that if an employer, in addition to being engaged in material
supply and pickup, also engages in other construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair work at the site of the work, it is not a
material supplier but a subcontractor. See PWRB, DBA/DBRA Compliance
Principles, at 7-8 (``[I]f a material supplier, manufacturer, or
carrier undertakes to perform a part of a construction contract as a
subcontractor, its laborers and mechanics employed at the site of the
work would be subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards in the same manner
as those employed by any other
[[Page 15733]]
contractor or subcontractor.''); FOH 15e16(c) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ The Department notes that under this definition, an
employer that contracts only for pickup of materials from the site
of the work is not a material supplier but a subcontractor. This is
consistent with the plain meaning of the term ``material supplier''
and with the Department's case law. See Kiewit-Shea, Case No. 84-
DBA-34, 1985 WL 167240 (OALJ Sept. 6, 1985), at *2 (concluding that
companies whose contractual duties ``called for hauling away
material and not for its supply'' were subcontractors, not material
suppliers''), aff'd, Maryland Equipment, Inc., WAB No. 85-24, 1986
WL 193110 (June 13, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Davis-Bacon regulations have not previously included
definitions of ``contractor'' or ``subcontractor,'' this proposed rule,
as discussed above, would add such definitions into Sec. 5.2. The
Department therefore proposes to incorporate the material supplier
exception into the proposed new definition of ``contractor,'' which is
incorporated into the proposed definition of ``subcontractor.''
Specifically, the Department proposes to exclude material suppliers
from the regulatory definition of ``contractor,'' with the exception of
entities performing work under Related Acts that apply the Davis-Bacon
labor standards to all laborers and mechanics employed in a project's
development, given that, as explained, the application of such statutes
is not limited to ``contractors'' or ``subcontractors.''
d. Coverage of Time for Truck Drivers
Finally, the Department proposes to revise the regulations to
clarify coverage of truck drivers under the DBA. Since Midway, various
questions have arisen regarding the application of the DBA and the
Related Acts to truck drivers. While the Department's regulations
address this issue to a certain extent, the Department has expanded on
these issues in regulatory preambles and subregulatory guidance, which
differ depending on whether truck drivers are employed by material
suppliers or by contractors or subcontractors.
As noted above, the DBA does not apply to workers employed by bona
fide material suppliers. However, under current WHD policy, if a
material supplier, in addition to providing supplies, also performs
onsite construction, alteration, or repair work as a subcontractor--
such as a precast concrete item supplier that also repairs and cleans
such items at the worksite or an equipment rental dealer that also
repairs its leased equipment onsite--then its workers are covered for
any on-site time for such construction work that is ``more than . . .
incidental.'' FOH 15e16(c); PWRB, DBA/DBRA Compliance Principles at 7-
8. For enforcement purposes, if a material supplier's worker spends
more than 20 percent of the workweek performing such construction work
on-site, all of the employee's on-site time during that workweek is
covered.
For truck drivers employed by contractors or subcontractors, the
Department has explained that such drivers' time is covered under
certain circumstances. See FOH 15e22. First, ``truck drivers who haul
materials or supplies from one location on the site of the work to
another location on the site of the work'' are covered. 65 FR at 80275.
Such ``on-site hauling'' is unaffected by Midway, which concerned the
coverage of off-site hauling. Based on the same principle, any other
construction work that drivers perform on the site of the work that is
not related to off-site hauling is also covered. See FOH 15e22(a)(1)
(stating that drivers are covered ``for time spent working on the site
of the work''). Second, ``truck drivers who haul materials or supplies
from a dedicated facility that is adjacent or virtually adjacent to the
site of the work'' are covered for all of their time spent in those
activities. 65 FR at 80275-76; 29 CFR 5.2(j)(1)(iv)(A); FOH
15e22(a)(3). Such drivers are hauling materials or supplies between two
locations on the site of the work, and given the requirement of
adjacency or virtual adjacency, any intervening off-site time is likely
extremely minimal. Third, drivers are covered for time spent
transporting portion(s) of the building or work between a secondary
site, established specifically for contract or project performance and
where a ``significant portion'' of the work is constructed, and the
site where the building or work will remain. See 29 CFR
5.2(j)(1)(iv)(B); 65 FR at 80276; FOH 15e22(a)(4). As the Department
has explained, ``under these circumstances[,] the site of the work is
literally moving between the two work sites,'' 65 FR 57269, 57273, and
as such, ``workers who are engaged in transporting a significant
portion of the building or work between covered sites . . . are
`employed directly upon the site of the work[.]' '' 65 FR at 80276.
Fourth, drivers are covered for any time spent on the site of the work
that is related to hauling materials to or from the site, such as
loading or unloading materials, provided that such time is more than de
minimis--a standard that, as currently applied, excludes drivers ``who
come onto the site of the work for only a few minutes at a time merely
to drop off construction materials.'' 65 FR at 80276; FOH 15e22(a)(2);
PWRB, DBA/DBRA Compliance Principles, at 6-7.
Feedback from stakeholders, including contractors and contracting
agencies, indicates that there is significant uncertainty regarding
this topic. Such uncertainty includes the distinction between drivers
for material supply companies versus drivers for construction
contractors or subcontractors; what constitutes de minimis; whether the
de minimis determination is made on a per trip, per day, or per week
basis; and whether the 20 percent threshold for construction work
performed onsite by material supply drivers is also applicable to
delivery time spent on site by drivers employed by a contractor or
subcontractor. This lack of clarity has also led to divergent
interpretations by Department ALJs. Compare Rogers Group, ALJ No. 2012-
DBA-00005 (OALJ May 28, 2013) (concluding that a subcontractor was not
required to pay its drivers prevailing wages for sometimes-substantial
amounts of on-site time (as much as 7 hours 30 minutes in a day) making
deliveries of gravel, sand, and asphalt from offsite) with E.T. Simonds
Constr. Co., ALJ No. 2021-DBA-00001 (OALJ May 25, 2021), appeal
pending, ARB No. 21-054 (concluding that drivers employed by a
subcontractor who hauled materials from the site of the work and spent
at least 15 minutes per hour--25 percent of the workday--on site were
covered for their onsite time).
Taking the above into account, the Department proposes to revise
the regulations to clarify coverage of truck drivers in the following
manner:
First, as noted above, the Department has proposed to clarify that
employees of ``material suppliers'' are not covered by the DBRA, except
for those Related Acts to which the material supplier exception does
not apply. The proposed definition of a ``material supplier'' is
limited to companies whose only contractual responsibilities are
material supply and thus excludes companies that also perform any on-
site construction, alteration, or repair. The Department believes that
this proposed clarification will make the distinction between
contractors/subcontractors and material suppliers clear. It also
obviates the need for the 20 percent threshold for coverage of
construction work performed onsite by material supply drivers discussed
above, because, by definition, any drivers whose responsibilities
include performing onsite construction work in addition to material
supply are employed by subcontractors, not material suppliers. Thus,
under this proposed rule, any time that drivers spend performing such
construction work on the site of the work would be covered regardless
of amount, as is the case for other laborers and mechanics.
Second, the Department proposes to amend its regulations concerning
the coverage of transportation by truck drivers who are included within
the DBA's scope generally (i.e., truck drivers employed by contractors
and subcontractors, as well as any truck drivers employed in project
[[Page 15734]]
construction or development under certain Related Acts). Specifically,
the Department proposes to amend the definition of ``construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair'' in Sec. 5.2 to include
``transportation'' under five specific circumstances, which the
Department proposes to define, collectively, as ``covered
transportation'': (1) Transportation that takes place entirely within a
location meeting the definition of site of the work (for example,
hauling materials from one side of a construction site to the other
side of the same site); (2) transportation of portion(s) of the
building or work between a ``secondary construction site'' and a
``primary construction site''; (3) transportation between a ``nearby
dedicated support site'' and either a primary or secondary construction
site; (4) a driver or driver's assistant's ``onsite activities
essential or incidental to offsite transportation,'' discussed further
below, where the driver or driver's assistant's time spent on the site
of the work is not so insubstantial or insignificant that it cannot as
a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded; and (5) any
transportation and related activities, whether on or off the site of
the work, by laborers and mechanics under a statute that extends Davis-
Bacon coverage to all laborers and mechanics employed in the
construction or development of a project.
Items (1), (2), (3), and (5) set forth principles reflected in the
current regulations, but in a clearer and more transparent fashion.
Item (4) seeks to resolve the ambiguities discussed above regarding the
coverage of on-site time by delivery drivers. Specifically, the
Department proposes to explain that truck drivers and their assistants
are covered for their time engaged in ``onsite activities essential or
incidental to offsite transportation,'' defined as activities by a
truck driver or truck driver's assistant on the site of the work that
are essential or incidental to the transportation of materials or
supplies to or from the site of the work, such as unloading, loading,
and waiting time, where the driver or assistant's time is not ``so
insubstantial or insignificant that it cannot as a practical
administrative matter be precisely recorded.''
This proposed language is identical to the standard the Department
uses to describe the de minimis principle under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. See 29 CFR 785.47. Importantly, while the amount of time
is relevant to this principle, the key inquiry is not merely whether
the amount of time is small, but rather whether it is administratively
feasible to track it, as the FLSA de minimis rule ``applies only where
there are uncertain and indefinite periods of time involved of a few
seconds or minutes duration, and where the failure to count such time
is due to considerations justified by industrial realities.'' Id.
(emphasis added). Moreover, ``an employer may not arbitrarily fail to
count as hours worked any part, however small, of the employee's fixed
or regular working time or practically ascertainable period of time he
is regularly required to spend on duties assigned to him.'' Id. Thus,
under the proposed language, where a driver's duties include dropping
off and/or picking up materials on the site of the work, the driver
must be compensated under the DBRA for any ``practically
ascertainable'' time spent on the site of the work. The Department
anticipates that in the vast majority of cases, it will be feasible to
record the amount of time a truck driver or driver's assistant spends
on the site of the work, and, therefore, that the Davis-Bacon labor
standards will apply to any such time under the proposed rule. However,
under the narrow circumstances where it is infeasible or impractical to
measure a driver's very small amount of time spent on the site of the
work, such time need not be compensated under this proposed rule.
This proposal is also consistent with the statutory ``site of the
work'' restriction as interpreted in Midway. As the Department has
previously explained, given the small amount of time the Midway drivers
spent on-site, no party in the case had argued whether such on-site
time alone could be subject to coverage. See 65 FR at 80275-76. Given
that the court did not consider this issue, the Department does not
understand Midway as precluding coverage of any time that drivers spend
on the site of the work, ``no matter how brief.'' 65 FR at 80275-76.
However, as with the FLSA, the Department proposes to exclude such time
from DBRA coverage under the rare circumstances where it is very small
in duration and industrial realities make it impossible or impractical
to measure such time.
e. Non-Substantive Changes for Conformance and Clarity
In addition to the above changes, the Department proposes a number
of revisions to the regulatory definitions related to the ``site of the
work'' and ``material supplier'' principle to conform to the above
substantive revisions and for general clarity. The Department proposes
to delete, from the definition of ``building or work,'' the language
explaining that in general, ``[t]he manufacture or furnishing of
materials, articles, supplies or equipment . . . is not a building or
work.'' Instead, the Department proposes to clarify in the definition
of the term ``construction (or prosecution, completion, or repair)''
that ``construction, prosecution, completion, or repair'' only includes
``manufacturing or furnishing of materials, articles, supplies or
equipment'' under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, the
Department proposes to remove the citation to Midway from the
definition of the term ``construction (or prosecution, completion, or
repair)''; although, as discussed above, some of the regulatory changes
the Department has made reflect the holdings in the three appellate
cases noted above, the Department does not believe it is necessary to
cite the case in the regulation.
The Department also proposes defining the term ``development
statute'' to mean a statute that requires payment of prevailing wages
under the Davis-Bacon labor standards to all laborers and mechanics
employed in the development of a project. As noted above, some statutes
extend Davis-Bacon coverage to all laborers and mechanics employed in
the ``development'' of a project, regardless of whether they are
working on the site of the work or employed by ``contractors'' or
``subcontractors.'' The current regulations reference three specific
statutes--the United States Housing Act of 1937; the Housing Act of
1949; and the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996--that fit this description, but do not consistently
reference all three. Use of the defined term ``development statute''
would improve regulatory clarity and ensure that the regulations to not
become obsolete if existing statutes meeting this description are
revised or if new statutes meeting this description are added. The
Department proposes to make conforming changes in Sec. 5.5 to
incorporate this new term.
Finally, the Department proposes several linguistic changes to
defined terms in Sec. 5.2 to improve clarity and readability.
(H) Paragraph Designations
The Department is also proposing to amend Sec. 5.2 to remove
paragraph designations of defined terms and instead to list defined
terms in alphabetical order. The Department proposes to make conforming
edits throughout parts 1, 3, and 5 in any
[[Page 15735]]
provisions that currently reference lettered paragraphs of Sec. 5.2.
iii. Section 5.5 Contract Provisions and Related Matters
The Department proposes to remove the table at the end of Sec. 5.5
related to the display of OMB control numbers. This table aids in
fulfilling the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act; however,
the Department maintains an inventory of OMB control numbers on https://www.reginfo.gov under ``Information Collection Review.'' This website
is updated regularly and interested persons are encouraged to consult
this website for the most up-to-date information.
(A) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)
The Department proposes to add language to Sec. 5.5(a)(1) to state
that the conformance process may not be used to split or subdivide
classifications listed in the wage determination, and that conformance
is appropriate only where the work which a laborer or mechanic performs
under the contract is not within the scope of any classification listed
on the wage determination, regardless of job title. This language
reflects the principle that conformance is not appropriate when the
work of the proposed classification is already performed by a
classification on the wage determination. See 29 CFR
5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(1). Even if workers perform only some of the duties of
a classification, they are still performing work that is covered by the
classification, and conformance of a new classification thus would be
inappropriate. See, e.g., Fry Bros. Corp., 1977 WL 24823, at *6
(contractor could not divide carpentry work between carpenters and
carpenter tenders in order to pay a lower wage rate for a portion of
the work; under the DBA it is not permissible to divide the work of a
classification into several parts according to the contractor's
assessment of each worker's skill and to pay for such division of the
work at less than the specified rate for the classification). The
proposed regulatory language is also in line with the principle that
WHD must base its conformance decisions on the work to be performed by
the proposed classification, not on the contractor's own classification
or perception of the workers' skill. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i) (``Such
laborers and mechanics shall be paid the appropriate wage rate and
fringe benefits . . . for the classification of work actually
performed, without regard to skill . . . .''); see also, e.g., Tele-
Sentry Sec., Inc., WAB No. 87-43, 1987 WL 247062, at *7 (Sept. 11,
1987) (workers who performed duties falling within the electrician
classification must be paid the electrician rate regardless of the
employer's classification of workers as laborers). The Department
welcomes any comments on this proposal.
The Department also proposes to make non-substantive revisions to
current Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) to more clearly describe the
conformance request process, including by providing that contracting
officers should submit the required conformance request information to
WHD via email using a specified WHD email address.
The Department has also proposed changes relating to the
publication of rates for frequently conformed classifications. The
Department's proposed changes to this subsection are discussed above in
part III.B.1.xii (``Frequently conformed rates''), together with
proposed changes to Sec. 1.3.
The Department also proposes to add language to the contract
clauses at Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(vi), (a)(6), and (b)(4) requiring the
payment of interest on any underpayment of wages or monetary relief
required by the contract. This language is consistent with and would be
subject to the proposed discussion of interest in 29 CFR 5.10
(Restitution, criminal action), which requires that calculations of
interest be carried out at the rate specified by the Internal Revenue
Code for underpayment of taxes and compounded daily.
(B) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)
The Department proposes a number of revisions to Sec. 5.5(a)(3) to
better effectuate compliance and enforcement by clarifying and
supplementing existing recordkeeping requirements. Similar changes
proposed in Sec. 5.5(c) are discussed here.
As an initial matter, all references to employment (e.g., employee,
employed, employing, etc.) in Sec. 5.5(a)(3) and (c), as well as in
Sec. 5.6 and various other sections, have been revised to refer
instead to ``workers'' or ``laborers and mechanics.'' These changes are
discussed in greater detail below in section xxii, ``Employment
Relationship Not Required.''
(1) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(i)
The Department proposes to amend Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(i) to clarify its
longstanding interpretation and enforcement of this recordkeeping
regulation to require contractors to maintain and preserve basic
records and information, as well as certified payrolls. The required
basic records include but are not limited to regular payroll (sometimes
referred to as ``in-house'' payroll) and additional records relating to
fringe benefits and apprenticeship and training. The term regular
payroll refers to any written or electronic records that the contractor
uses to document workers' days and hours worked, rate and method of
payment, compensation, contact information, and other similar
information, which provide the basis for the contractor's subsequent
submission of certified payroll.
The Department also proposes to amend Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(i) to clarify
that regular payrolls and other basic records required by this section
must be preserved for a period of at least 3 years after all the work
on the prime contract is completed. In other words, even if a project
takes more than 3 years to complete, contractors and subcontractors
must keep payroll and basic records for at least 3 years after all the
work on the prime contract has been completed. This revision expressly
states the Department's longstanding interpretation and practice
concerning the period of time that contractors and subcontractors must
keep payroll and basic records required by Sec. 5.5(a)(3).
The Department also proposes a new requirement that records
required by Sec. 5.5(a)(3) and (c) must include last known worker
telephone numbers and email addresses. Updating the Davis-Bacon
regulations to require this additional worker contact information would
reflect more modern and efficient methods of communication between
workers and contractors, subcontractors, contracting agencies, and the
Department's authorized representatives.
Another proposed revision in this section, as well as in Sec.
5.5(c), clarifies the Department's longstanding interpretation of these
regulatory provisions that contractors and subcontractors must maintain
records of each worker's correct classification or classifications of
work actually performed and the hours worked in each classification.
See, e.g., Pythagoras Gen. Contracting Corp., ARB Nos. 08-107, 09-007,
2011 WL 1247207, at *7 (Mar. 1, 2011) (``If workers perform labor in
more than one job classification, they are entitled to compensation at
the appropriate wage rate for each classification according to the time
spent in that classification, which time the employer's payroll records
must accurately reflect.''), aff'd sub nom. Pythagoras Gen. Contracting
Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., 926 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Current regulations permit contractors and subcontractors to pay
``[l]aborers or mechanics performing work in more than one
classification . . . at the rate specified for each classification for
the
[[Page 15736]]
time actually worked therein,'' but only if ``the employer's payroll
records accurately set forth the time spent in each classification in
which work is performed.'' 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i). The proposed revisions
similarly recognize that laborers or mechanics may perform work in more
than one classification and more expressly provide that, in such cases,
it is the obligation of contractors and subcontractors to accurately
record information required by this section for each separate
classification of work performed.
By revising the language in Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(i) and (c) to require
records of the ``correct classification(s) of work actually
performed,'' the Department intends to clarify its longstanding
interpretation that contractors and subcontractors must keep records of
(and include on certified payrolls) hours worked segregated by each
separate classification of work performed. It would continue to be the
case that if a contractor or subcontractor fails to maintain such
records of actual daily and weekly hours worked and correct
classifications, then it must pay workers the rates of the
classification of work performed with the highest prevailing wage and
fringe benefits due.
It is implicit--and expressly stated in various parts of current
Sec. 5.5--that records that contractors and subcontractors are
required to maintain must be accurate and complete. See also 40 U.S.C.
3145(b). The Department proposes to put contractors and subcontractors
on further notice of their statutory, regulatory, and contractual
obligations to keep accurate, correct, and complete records by adding
the term ``actually'' in Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(i) and (c) to modify ``hours
worked'' and ``work performed.'' The current regulations require
maintenance of records containing ``correct classifications'' and
``actual wages paid,'' and this proposed revision is not intended to
make any substantive change to the longstanding requirement that
contractors and subcontractors keep accurate, correct, and complete
records of all the information required in these sections.
(2) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(ii)-(iii)
The Department proposes to revise the language in Sec.
5.5(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) to expressly apply to all entities that might
be responsible for maintaining the payrolls and basic records a
contractor is required to submit weekly when a Federal agency is not a
party to the contract. Currently, the specified records must be
submitted to the ``applicant, sponsor, or owner'' if a Federal agency
is not a party to the contract. The proposed revision would add the
language ``or other entity, as the case may be, that maintains such
records'' to clarify that this requirement applies regardless of the
role or title of the recipient of Federal assistance (through grants,
loans, loan guarantees or insurance, or otherwise) under any of the
statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1.
The Department proposes to revise Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(ii) by replacing
the phrase ``or audit of compliance with prevailing wage requirements''
with ``or other compliance action.'' This revision clarifies that
compliance actions may be accomplished by various means, not solely by
an investigation or audit of compliance. A similar change is proposed
in Sec. 5.6. Compliance actions include, without limitation, full
investigations, limited investigations, office audits, self-audits, and
conciliations. This proposed revision expressly sets forth the
Department's longstanding practice and interpretation of this current
regulatory language to encompass all types of Davis-Bacon compliance
actions currently used by the Department, as well as any additional
types that the Department may use in the future. This revision does not
impose any new or additional requirements upon Federal agencies,
applicants, sponsors, owners, or other entities, or on the Department,
contractors, or subcontractors.
The Department also proposes to add language to Sec.
5.5(a)(3)(ii)(A) to codify the Department's longstanding policy that
contracting agencies and prime contractors can permit or require
contractors to submit their certified payrolls through an electronic
system, provided that the electronic submission system requires a
legally valid electronic signature, as discussed below, and the
contracting agency or prime contractor permits other methods of payroll
submission in situations where the contractor is unable or limited in
its ability to use or access the electronic system. See generally PWRB,
DBA/DBRA Compliance Principles, at 26. The Department encourages all
contracting agencies to permit submission of certified payrolls
electronically, so long as all of the required information and
certification requirements are met. Nevertheless, contracting agencies
determine which, if any, electronic submissions systems they will use,
as certified payrolls are submitted directly to the contracting
agencies. Electronic submission systems can reduce the recordkeeping
burden and costs of record maintenance, and many such systems include
compliance monitoring tools that may streamline the review of such
payrolls.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ The Department does not endorse or approve the use of any
electronic submission system or monitoring tool(s). Although
electronic monitoring tools can be a useful aid to compliance,
successful submission of certified payrolls to an electronic
submission system with such tools does not guarantee that a
contractor is in compliance, particularly since not all violations
can be detected through electronic monitoring tools. Contractors
that use electronic submission systems remain responsible for
ensuring compliance with Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, under the proposal, agencies that require the use of an
electronic submission system would be required to allow contractors to
submit certified payrolls by alternative methods when contractors are
not able to use the agency's electronic submission system due to
limitations on the contractor's ability to access the system. For
example, if a contractor does not have internet access or is unable to
access the electronic submission system due to a disability, the
contracting agency would be required to allow such a contractor to
submit certified payrolls in a manner that accommodates these
circumstances.
The Department also proposes a new sub-paragraph, Sec.
5.5(a)(3)(ii)(D), to reiterate the Department's longstanding policy
that, to be valid, the contractor's signature on the certified payroll
must either be an original handwritten signature or a legally valid
electronic signature. Both of these methods are sufficient for
compliance with the Copeland Act. See WHD Ruling Letter (Nov. 12, 2004)
(``Current law establishes that the proper use of electronic signatures
on certified payrolls . . . satisfies the requirements of the Copeland
Act and its implementing regulations.'').\89\ Valid electronic
signatures include any electronic process that indicates acceptance of
the certified payroll record and includes an electronic method of
verifying the signer's identity. Valid electronic signatures do not
include a scan or photocopy of a written signature. The Department
recognizes that electronic submission of certified payroll expands the
ability of contractors and contracting agencies to comply with the
requirements of the Davis-Bacon and Copeland Acts. As a matter of
longstanding policy, the Department considers an original signature to
be legally binding evidence of the intention of a person with regard to
a document, record, or transaction. Modern technologies and evolving
business practices are rendering the
[[Page 15737]]
distinction between original paper and electronic signatures nearly
obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/111204dol.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposes to add paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to Sec. 5.5
to require all contractors, subcontractors, and recipients of Federal
assistance to maintain and preserve Davis-Bacon contracts,
subcontracts, and related documents for 3 years after all the work on
the prime contract is completed. These related documents include,
without limitation, contractors' and subcontractors' bids and
proposals, as well as amendments, modifications, and extensions to
contracts, subcontracts, or agreements.
WHD routinely requests these contract documents in its DBRA
investigations. In the Department's experience, contractors and
subcontractors that comply with the Davis-Bacon labor standards
requirements usually, as a good business practice, maintain these
contracts and related documents. It is also the Department's experience
that Davis-Bacon contractors and subcontractors that do not keep their
contracts, agreements, and related legally binding documents are more
likely to disregard their obligations to workers and subcontractors.
Adding an express regulatory requirement that contractors and
subcontractors maintain and provide these records to WHD would bolster
enforcement of the labor standards provisions of the statutes
referenced by Sec. 5.1. This requirement would not relieve contractors
or subcontractors from complying with any more stringent record
retention requirements (e.g., longer record retention periods).
This proposed revision also could help level the playing field for
contractors and subcontractors that comply with Davis-Bacon labor
standards. Like the current recordkeeping requirements, non-compliance
with this new proposed requirement may result in the suspension of any
further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds and may also be grounds
for debarment action pursuant to 29 CFR 5.12.
The Department proposes to renumber current Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iii) as
Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iv). In addition, the Department proposes to revise
this re-numbered paragraph to clarify the records contractors and
subcontractors are required to make available to the Federal agency (or
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be) or the
Department upon request. Specifically, the proposed revisions to Sec.
5.5(a)(3)(ii) and (iv), and the proposed new Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iii),
expand and clarify the records contractors and subcontractors are
required to make available for inspection, copying, or transcription by
authorized representatives specified in this section. The Department
also proposes adding a requirement that contractors and subcontractors
must make available any other documents deemed necessary to determine
compliance with the labor standards provisions of any of the statutes
referenced by Sec. 5.1.
Current Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iii) requires contractors and
subcontractors to make available the records set forth in Sec.
5.5(a)(3)(i) (Payrolls and basic records). The proposed revisions to
re-numbered Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iv) ensure that contractors and
subcontractors are aware that they are required to make available not
only payrolls and basic records, but also the payrolls actually
submitted to the contracting agency (or applicant, sponsor, owner, or
other entity, as the case may be) pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(ii),
including the Statement of Compliance, as well as any contracts and
related documents required by the proposed Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iii). These
records help WHD determine whether contractors are in compliance with
the labor standards provisions of any of the statutes referenced by
Sec. 5.1, and what the appropriate back wages and other remedies, if
any, should be. The Department believes that these clarifications will
remove doubt or uncertainty as to whether contractors are required to
make such records available to the Federal agency (or applicant,
sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be) or the Department
upon request. These revisions make explicit the Department's
longstanding practice and do not impose any new or additional
requirements upon a Federal agency (or applicant, sponsor, owner, or
other entity, as the case may be).
The new or additional recordkeeping requirements in the proposed
revisions to Sec. 5.5(a)(3) likely do not impose an undue burden on
contractors or subcontractors, as they likely already maintain worker
telephone numbers and email addresses and may already be required by
contracting agencies to keep contracts and related documents. These
revisions also enhance the Department's ability to provide education,
outreach and compliance assistance to contractors and subcontractors
awarded contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon labor standards
provisions.
Finally, the Department in re-numbered Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iv)(B)
proposes to add a sanction for contractors and other persons that fail
to submit the required records in Sec. 5.5(a)(3) or make those records
available to WHD within the time WHD requests that the records be
produced. Specifically, the Department proposes that contractors that
fail to comply with WHD record requests will be precluded from
introducing as evidence in an administrative proceeding under 29 CFR
part 6 any of the required records that were not provided or made
available to WHD. The Department proposes this sanction to enhance
enforcement of recordkeeping requirements and encourage cooperation
with its investigations and other compliance actions. The proposal
provides that WHD will take into consideration a reasonable request
from the contractor or person for an extension of the time for
submission of records. WHD will determine the reasonableness of the
request and may consider, among other things, the location of the
records and the volume of production.
(C) 29 CFR 5.5(a)(4) Apprentices
The Department proposes to reorganize Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(i) so that
each of the four apprentice-related topics it addresses--rate of pay,
fringe benefits, apprenticeship ratios, and reciprocity--are more
clearly and distinctly addressed. These proposed revisions are not
substantive. In addition, the Department proposes to revise the
subsection of Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(i) regarding reciprocity to better align
with the purpose of the DBA and the Department's Employment and
Training Administration (ETA) regulation at 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7)
regarding the applicable apprenticeship ratios and wage rates when work
is performed by apprentices in a different State than the State in
which the apprenticeship program was originally registered.
Section 5.5(a)(4)(i) provides that apprentices may be paid less
than the prevailing rate for the work they perform if they are employed
pursuant to, and individually registered in, a bona fide apprenticeship
program registered with ETA's Office of Apprenticeship (OA) or with a
State Apprenticeship Agency (SAA) recognized by the OA. In other words,
in order to employ apprentices on a Davis-Bacon project at lower rates
than the prevailing wage rates applicable to journeyworkers,
contractors must ensure that the apprentices are participants in a
federally registered apprenticeship program or a State apprenticeship
program registered by a recognized SAA. Any worker listed on a payroll
at an apprentice wage rate who is not employed pursuant to and
individually registered in such a bona fide apprenticeship program must
be paid the full prevailing wage listed on
[[Page 15738]]
the applicable wage determination for the classification of work
performed. Additionally, any apprentice performing work on the site of
the work in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program
must be paid not less than the full wage rate listed on the applicable
wage determination for the classification of work performed.
In its current form, Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(i) further provides that when
a contractor performs construction on a project in a locality other
than the one in which its program is registered, the ratios and wage
rates (expressed in percentages of the journeyworker's hourly rate)
specified in the contractor's or subcontractor's registered program
will be observed. Under this provision, the ratios and wage rates
specified in a contractor's or subcontractor's registered program are
``portable,'' such that they apply not only when the contractor
performs work in the locality in which it was originally registered
(sometimes referred to as the contractor's ``home State'') but also
when a contractor performs work on a project located in a different
State (sometimes referred to as the ``host State''). In contrast, as
part of a 1979 NPRM, the Department proposed essentially the opposite
approach, i.e., that apprentice ratios and wage rates would not be
portable and that, instead, when a contractor performs construction on
a project in a locality other than the one in which its program is
registered, ``the ratios and wage rates (expressed in percentages of
the journeyman's hourly rate) specified in plan(s) registered for that
locality shall be observed.'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Proposed Rule, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to
Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction, 44
FR 77080, 77085 (Dec. 28, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In adopting the current approach in a final rule issued in 1981,
the Department noted that several commenters had objected to the
proposal to apply the apprentice ratios and wage rates in the location
where construction is performed, rather than the ratios and wage rates
applicable in the location in which the program is registered.\91\ The
Department explained that, in light of these comments, ``[u]pon
reconsideration, we decided that to impose different plans on
contractors, many of which work in several locations where there could
be differing apprenticeship standards, would be adding needless burdens
to their business activities.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Final Rule, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to
Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction, 46
FR 4380, 4383 (Jan. 16, 1981).
\92\ Id. The 1981 final rule was suspended, but the
apprenticeship portability provision in Sec. 5.5 was ultimately
proposed and issued unchanged by a final rule issued in 1982. See
Final Rule, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts
Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction, 47 FR 23658,
23669 (May 28, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, ETA amended its apprenticeship regulations in a manner
that is seemingly in tension with the 1981 final rule's approach to
Davis-Bacon apprenticeship ``portability.'' Specifically, in December
2007, ETA issued an NPRM to revise the agency's labor standards for the
registration of apprenticeship programs regulations.\93\ One of the
NPRM proposals was to expand the provisions of then-existing 29 CFR
29.13(b)(8), which at that time provided that in order to be recognized
by ETA, an SAA must grant reciprocal recognition to apprenticeship
programs and standards registered in other States--except for
apprenticeship programs in the building and construction trades.\94\
ETA proposed to move the provision to 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7) and to remove
the exception for the building and construction trades.\95\ In the
preamble to the final rule issued on October 29, 2008, ETA noted that
several commenters had expressed concern that it was ``unfair and
economically disruptive to allow trades from one State to use the pay
scale from their own State to bid on work in other States, particularly
for apprentices employed on projects subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.''
\96\ The preamble explained that ETA ``agree[d] that the application of
a home State's wage and hour and apprentice ratios in a host State
could confer an unfair advantage to an out-of-state contractor bidding
on a Federal public works project.'' \97\ Further, the preamble noted
that, for this reason, ETA's negotiations of memoranda of understanding
with States to arrange for reciprocal approval of apprenticeship
programs in the building and construction trades have consistently
required application of the host State's wage and hour and
apprenticeship ratio requirements. Accordingly, the final rule added a
sentence to 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7) to clarify that the program sponsor
seeking reciprocal approval must comply with the host State's wage and
hour and apprentice ratio standards.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for
Registration, Amendment of Regulations Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 72 FR 71020 (Dec. 13, 2007).
\94\ Id. at 71026.
\95\ Id.
\96\ Final Rule, Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for
Registration, Amendment of Regulations, 73 FR 64402, 64419 (Oct. 29,
2008).
\97\ Id.
\98\ Id. at 64420. See 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to better harmonize the Davis-Bacon regulations and ETA's
apprenticeship regulations, the Department proposes to revise Sec.
5.5(a)(4)(i) to reflect that contractors employing apprentices to work
on a DBRA project in a locality other than the one in which the
apprenticeship program was originally registered must adhere to the
apprentice wage rate and ratio standards of the project locality. As
noted above, the general rule in Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(i) is that contractors
may pay less than the prevailing wage rate for the work performed by an
apprentice employed pursuant to and individually registered in a bona
fide apprenticeship program registered with ETA or an OA-recognized
SAA. Under ETA's regulation at 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7), if a contractor has
an apprenticeship program registered for one State but wishes to employ
apprentices to work on a project in a different State with an SAA, the
contractor must seek and obtain reciprocal approval from the project
State SAA and adhere to the wage rate and ratio standards approved by
the project State SAA. Accordingly, upon receiving reciprocal approval,
the apprentices in such a scenario would be considered to be employed
pursuant to and individually registered in the program in the project
State, and the terms of that reciprocal approval would apply for
purposes of the DBRA. The Department's proposed revision requiring
contractors to apply the ratio and wage rate requirements from the
relevant apprenticeship program for the locality where the laborers and
mechanics are working therefore better aligns with ETA's regulations on
recognition of SAAs and is meant to eliminate potential confusion that
could result for Davis-Bacon contractors subject to both ETA and WHD
rules regarding apprentices. The proposed revision also better comports
with the DBA's statutory purpose to eliminate the unfair competitive
advantage conferred on contractors from outside of a geographic area
bidding on a Federal construction contract based on lower wage rates
(and, in the case of apprentices, differing ratios of apprentices paid
a percentage of the journeyworker rate for the work performed) than
those that prevail in the location of the project.
The Department notes that multiple apprenticeship programs may be
registered in the same State, and that such programs may cover
different localities of that State and require
[[Page 15739]]
different apprenticeship wage rates and ratios within those separate
localities. If apprentices registered in a program covering one State
locality will be doing apprentice work in a different locality of the
same State, and different apprentice wage and ratio standards apply to
the two different localities, the proposed rule would require
compliance with the apprentice wage and ratio standards applicable to
the locality where the work will be performed. The Department welcomes
comments as to whether adoption of a consistent rule, applicable
regardless of whether the project work is performed in the same State
as the registered apprenticeship program, best aligns with the
statutory purpose of the DBA and would likely be less confusing to
apply.
Lastly, the Department proposes to remove the regulatory provisions
regarding trainees currently set out in Sec. Sec. 5.2(n)(2) and
5.5(a)(4)(ii), and to remove the references to trainees and training
programs throughout parts 1 and 5. Current Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(ii) permits
``trainees'' to work at less than the predetermined rate for the work
performed, and Sec. 5.2(n)(2) defines a trainee as a person registered
and receiving on-the-job training in a construction occupation under a
program approved and certified in advance by ETA as meeting its
standards for on-the-job training programs. Sections 5.2(n)(2) and
5.5(a)(4)(ii) were originally added to the regulations over 50 years
ago.\99\ However, ETA no longer reviews or approves on-the-job training
programs and, relatedly, WHD has found that Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(ii) is
seldom if ever applicable to DBRA contracts. The Department therefore
proposes to remove the language currently in Sec. Sec. 5.2(n)(2) and
5.5(a)(4)(ii), and to retitle Sec. 5.5(a)(4) ``Apprentices.'' The
Department also proposes a minor revision to proposed Sec.
5.5(a)(4)(ii) to align with the gender-neutral term of
``journeyworker'' used by ETA in its apprenticeship regulations. The
Department also proposes to rescind and reserve Sec. Sec. 5.16 and
5.17, as well as delete references to such trainees and training
programs in Sec. Sec. 1.7, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.15. The Department
encourages comments on this proposal, including any relevant
information about the use of training programs in the construction
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See Final Rule, Labor Standards Applicable to Contracts
Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction, 36 FR 19304
(Oct. 2, 1971) (defining trainees as individuals working under a
training program certified by ETA's predecessor agency, the Manpower
Administration's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) Flow-Down Requirements in Sec. Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and 5.5(b)(4)
The Department proposes to add clarifying language to the DBRA- and
CWHSSA-specific contract clause provisions at Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and
(b)(4), respectively. Currently, these contract clauses contain
explicit contractual requirements for prime contractors and upper-tier
subcontractors to flow-down the required contract clauses into their
contracts with lower-tier subcontractors. The clauses also explicitly
state that prime contractors are ``responsible for the compliance by
any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor.'' 29 CFR 5.5(a)(6) and
(b)(4). The Department's proposed rule would affect these contract
clauses in several ways.
(1) Flow-Down of Wage Determinations
The Department proposes adding clarifying language to Sec.
5.5(a)(6) that the flow-down requirement also requires the inclusion in
such subcontracts of the appropriate wage determination(s).
(2) Application of the Definition of ``Prime Contractor''
As noted above in the discussion of Sec. 5.2, the Department is
proposing to codify a definition of ``prime contractor'' in Sec. 5.2
that would include controlling shareholders or members, joint venturers
or partners, and general contractors or others to whom all or
substantially all of the construction or Davis-Bacon labor standards
compliance duties have been delegated under the prime contract. These
entities would therefore also be ``responsible'' under Sec. 5.5(a)(6)
and (b)(4) for the same violations as the legal entity that signed the
prime contract. The proposed change is intended to ensure that
contractors do not interpose single-purpose corporate entities as the
nominal ``prime contractor'' in order to escape liability or
responsibility for the contractors' Davis-Bacon labor standards
compliance duties.
(3) Responsibility for the Payment of Unpaid Wages
The proposal includes new language underscoring that being
``responsible for . . . compliance'' means the prime contractor has the
contractual obligation to cover any unpaid wages or other liability for
contractor or subcontractor violations of the contract clauses. This is
consistent with the Department's longstanding interpretation of this
provision. See M.A. Bongiovanni, Inc., WAB No. 91-08, 1991 WL 494751,
at *1 (Apr. 19, 1991); see also All Phase Elec. Co., WAB No. 85-18,
1986 WL 193105, at *1-2 (June 18, 1986) (withholding contract payments
from the prime contractor for subcontractor employees even though the
labor standards had not been flowed down into the subcontract).\100\
Because such liability for prime contractors is contractual, it
represents strict liability and does not require that the prime
contractor knew of or should have known of the subcontractors'
violations. Bongiovanni, 1991 WL 494751, at *1. As the WAB explained in
Bongiovanni, this rule ``serves two vital functions.'' Id. First, ``it
requires the general contractor to monitor the performance of the
subcontractor and thereby effectuates the Congressional intent embodied
in the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts to an extent unattainable by
Department of Labor compliance efforts.'' Id. Second, ``it requires the
general contractor to exercise a high level of care in the initial
selection of its business associates.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The new language also clarifies that, consistent with the
proposed language in Sec. 5.10, such responsibility also extends to
any interest assessed on backwages or other monetary relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Potential for Debarment for Disregard of Responsibility
The proposed new language clarifies that underpayments of a
subcontractor's workers may in certain circumstances subject the prime
contractor itself to debarment for violating the responsibility
provision. Under the existing regulations, there is no reference in the
Sec. 5.5(a)(6) or (b)(4) responsibility clauses to a potential for
debarment. However, the existing Sec. 5.5(a)(7) does currently explain
that ``[a] breach of the contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5''--which thus
includes the responsibility clause at Sec. 5.5(a)(6)--``may be grounds
. . . for debarment[.]'' 29 CFR 5.5(a)(7). The proposed new language
would provide more explicit notice (in Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4)
themselves) of this potential that a prime contractor may be debarred
where there are violations on the contract (including violations
perpetrated by a subcontractor) and the prime contractor has failed to
take responsibility for compliance.
In providing this additional notice of the potential for debarment,
the Department does not intend to change the core standard for when a
prime contractor or upper tier subcontractor may be debarred for the
violations of a lower tier subcontractor. The potential for debarment
for a violation of the responsibility requirement, unlike the
responsibility for back wages, is not currently subject to a strict
liability
[[Page 15740]]
standard. Rather, in the cases in which prime contractors have been
debarred for the underpayments of subcontractors' workers, they were
found to have some level of intent that reflected a disregard of their
own obligations. See, e.g., H.P. Connor & Co., WAB No. 88-12, 1991 WL
494691, at *2 (Feb. 26, 1991) (affirming ALJ's recommendation to debar
prime contractor for ``run[ning] afoul'' of 29 CFR 5.5(a)(6) because of
its ``knowing or grossly negligent participation in the underpayment''
of the workers of its subcontractors).\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See also Martell Constr. Co., ALJ No. 86-DBA-32, 1986 WL
193129, at *9 (DOL OALJ Aug. 7, 1986), aff'd, WAB No. 86-26, 1987 WL
247045 (July 10, 1987). In Martell, the prime contractor had failed
to flow down the required contract clauses and investigate or
question irregular payroll records submitted by subcontractors. The
ALJ explained that the responsibility clause in Sec. 5.5(a)(6)
places a burden on the prime contractor ``to act on or investigate
irregular or suspicious situations as necessary to assure that its
subcontractors are in compliance with the applicable sections of the
regulations.'' 1986 WL 193129, at *9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The Department Does Not Intend To Change This Standard.
Responsibility and Liability of Upper-Tier Subcontractors
The proposed language in Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4) would also
eliminate confusion regarding the responsibility and liability of
upper-tier subcontractors. The existing language in Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and
(b)(4) creates express contractual responsibility of upper-tier
subcontractors to flow down the required contract clauses to bind their
lower-tier subcontractors. See Sec. 5.5(a)(6) (stating that the prime
contractor ``or subcontractor'' must insert the required clauses in
``any subcontracts''); Sec. 5.5(b)(4) (stating that the flow-down
clause must ``requir[e] the subcontractors to include these clauses in
any lower tier subcontracts''). The Department has long recognized that
with this responsibility comes the potential for sanctions against
upper-tier subcontractors that fail to properly flow down the contract
clauses. See AAM 69 (DB-51), at 2 (July 29, 1966).\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ In AAM 69, the Department noted that ``the failure of the
prime contractor or a subcontractor to incorporate the labor
standards provisions in its subcontracts may, under certain
circumstances, be a serious violation of the contract requirements
which would warrant the imposition of sanctions under either the
Davis-Bacon Act or our Regulations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current contract clauses in Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4) do not
expressly identify further contractual responsibility or liability of
upper-tier subcontractors for violations that are committed against the
employees of their lower-tier subcontractors. However, although the
Department has not had written guidance to this effect, it has in many
circumstances held upper-tier subcontractors responsible for the
failure by their own lower-tier subcontractors to pay required
prevailing wages. See, e.g., Ray Wilson Co., ARB No. 02-086, 2004 WL
384729, at *6 (Feb. 27, 2004); Norsaire Sys., Inc., WAB No. 94-06, 1995
WL 90009, at *1 (Feb. 28, 1995)
In Ray Wilson Co., for example, the ARB upheld the debarment of an
upper-tier subcontractor because of its lower-tier subcontractor's
misclassification of workers. As the ARB held, the higher-tier
subcontractor had an ``obligation[ ] to be aware of DBA requirements
and to ensure that its lower-tier subcontractor . . . properly complied
with the wage payment and record keeping requirements on the project.''
2004 WL 384729, at *10. The Department sought debarment because the
upper-tier subcontractor had discussed the misclassification scheme
with the lower-tier subcontractor and thus ``knowingly countenanced''
the violations. Id. at *8.
The Department proposes in this rulemaking to clarify that upper-
tier subcontractors (in addition to prime contractors) may be
responsible for the violations committed against the employees of
lower-tier subcontractors. The proposal would clarify that this
responsibility would require upper-tier subcontractors to pay back
wages on behalf of their lower-tier subcontractors and subject upper-
tier subcontractors to debarment in appropriate circumstances (i.e.,
where the lower-tier subcontractor's violation reflects a disregard of
obligations by the upper-tier subcontractor to workers of their
subcontractors). The proposal would include, in the Sec. 5.5(a)(6) and
(b)(4) contract clauses, language adding that ``any subcontractor[ ]
responsible'' for the violations is also liable for back wages and
potentially subject to debarment. This language is intended to place
liability not only on the lower-tier subcontractor that is directly
employing the worker who does not receive required wages, but also on
the upper-tier subcontractors that may also have disregarded their
obligations to be responsible for compliance.
With this proposal, the Department does not intend to place the
same strict liability responsibility on all upper-tier subcontractors
as, discussed above, the existing language already places on prime
contractors for lower-tier subcontractors' back wages. Rather, the new
proposed language is intended to clarify that, in appropriate
circumstances, as in Ray Wilson Co., upper-tier subcontractors may be
held responsible--both subjecting them to possible debarment and
requiring them to pay back wages jointly and severally with the prime
contractor and the lower-tier subcontractor that directly failed to pay
the prevailing wages.
A key principle in enacting regulatory requirements is that
liability should, to the extent possible, be placed on the entity that
best can control whether or not a violation occurs. See Bongiovanni,
1991 WL 494751, at *1.\103\ For this reason, the Department proposes
language assigning liability to upper-tier subcontractors, who have the
ability to choose the lower-tier subcontractors they hire, notify
lower-tier subcontractors of the prevailing wage requirements of the
contract, and take action if they have any reason to believe there may
be compliance issues. By clarifying that upper-tier subcontractors may
be liable under appropriate circumstances--but are not strictly liable
as are prime contractors--the Department believes that it has struck an
appropriate balance that is consistent with historical interpretation,
the statutory language of the DBA, and the feasibility and efficiency
of future enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Cf. Am. Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.,
456 U.S. 556, 572-73 (1982) (``[A] rule that imposes liability on
the standard-setting organization--which is best situated to prevent
antitrust violations through the abuse of its reputation--is most
faithful to the congressional intent that the private right of
action deter antitrust violations.''). The same principle supports
the Department's proposed codification of the definition of ``prime
contractor.'' Where the nominal prime contractor is a single-purpose
entity with few actual workers, and it contracts with a general
contractor for all relevant aspects of construction and monitoring
of subcontractors, the most reasonable enforcement structure would
place liability on both the nominal prime contractor and the general
contractor that actually has the staffing, experience, and mandate
to assure compliance on the job site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E) 29 CFR 5.5(d)--Incorporation by Reference
Proposed new section 5.5(d) clarifies that, notwithstanding the
continued requirement that agencies incorporate contract clauses and
wage determinations ``in full'' into a covered contract, the clauses
and wage determinations are equally effective if they are incorporated
by reference. The Department's proposal for this subsection is
discussed further below in part III.B.3.xx (``Post-award determinations
and operation-of-law''), together with proposed changes to Sec. Sec.
1.6(f), 5.5(e), and 5.6.
(F) 29 CFR 5.5(e)--Operation of Law
In a new section at Sec. 5.5(e), the Department proposes language
making effective by operation of law a contract
[[Page 15741]]
clause or wage determination that was wrongly omitted from the
contract. The Department's proposal for this subsection is discussed
below in part III.B.3.xx (``Post-award determinations and operation-of-
law''), together with proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 1.6(f), 5.5(d),
and 5.6.
iv. Section 5.6 Enforcement
(A) 29 CFR 5.6(a)(1)
The Department proposes to revise Sec. 5.6(a)(1) by renumbering
the existing regulatory text Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(i), and adding an
additional sub-section, Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(ii), to include a provision
clarifying that where a contract is awarded without the incorporation
of the required Davis-Bacon labor standards clauses required by Sec.
5.5, the Federal agency must incorporate the clauses or require their
incorporation. The Department's proposal for this subsection is
discussed further below in part III.B.3.xx (``Post-award determinations
and operation-of-law''), together with proposed changes to Sec. Sec.
1.6(f) and 5.5(e).
(B) 29 CFR 5.6(a)(2)
The Department proposes to amend Sec. 5.6(a)(2) to reflect the
Department's longstanding practice and interpretation that certified
payrolls required pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(ii) may be requested--and
Federal agencies must produce such certified payrolls--regardless of
whether the Department has initiated an investigation or other
compliance action. The term ``compliance action'' includes, without
limitation, full investigations, limited investigations, office audits,
self-audits, and conciliations.\104\ The Department further proposes
revising this paragraph to clarify that, in those instances in which a
Federal agency does not itself maintain such certified payrolls, it is
the responsibility of the Federal agency to ensure that those records
are provided to the Department upon request, either by obtaining and
providing the certified payrolls to the Department, or by requiring the
entity maintaining those certified payrolls to provide the records
directly to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See 2020 GAO Report, note 12, supra, at 6 tbl.1, for
descriptions of WHD Compliance Actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also proposes to replace the phrase ``payrolls and
statements of compliance'' with ``certified payrolls'' to continue to
more clearly distinguish between certified payrolls and regular payroll
and other basic records and information that the contractor is also
required to maintain under Sec. 5.5(a)(3), as discussed above.
First, the proposed revisions are intended to clarify that an
investigation or other compliance action is not a prerequisite to the
Department's ability to obtain from the Federal agency certified
payrolls submitted pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(ii). Second, the
proposed revisions are intended to remove any doubt or uncertainty that
the Federal agency has an obligation to produce such certified
payrolls, even in those circumstances in which it may not be the entity
actually maintaining the requested certified payrolls. These revisions
would make explicit the Department's longstanding practice and
interpretation of this provision.
These proposed revisions would not place any new or additional
requirements or recordkeeping burdens on contracting agencies, as they
are already required to maintain these certified payrolls and provide
them to the Department upon request.
These proposed revisions enhance the Department's ability to
provide compliance assistance to various stakeholders, including
Federal agencies, contractors, subcontractors, sponsors, applicants,
owners, or other entities awarded contracts subject to the provisions
of the DBRA. Specifically, these proposed revisions would facilitate
the Department's review of certified payrolls on covered contracts
where the Department has not initiated any specific compliance action.
Conducting such reviews promotes the proper administration of the DBRA
because, in the Department's experience, such reviews often enable the
Department to identify compliance issues and circumstances in which
additional outreach and education would be beneficial.
(C) 29 CFR 5.6(a)(3)-(5), 5.6(b)
The Department proposes revisions to Sec. 5.6(a)(3) and (5) and
(b), similar to the above-mentioned proposed changes to Sec.
5.6(a)(2), to clarify that an investigation is only one method of
assuring compliance with the labor standards clauses required by Sec.
5.5 and the applicable statutes referenced in Sec. 5.1. The Department
proposes to supplement the term ``investigation,'' where appropriate,
with the phrase ``or other compliance actions.'' The proposed revisions
align with all the types of compliance actions currently used by the
Department, as well as any additional categories that the Department
may use in the future. These revisions make explicit the Department's
longstanding practice and interpretation of these provisions and do not
impose any new or additional requirements upon a Federal agency.
Proposed revisions to Sec. 5.6(a)(3) clarify the records and
information that contracting agencies should include in their DBRA
investigations. These proposed changes conform to proposed changes in
Sec. 5.5(a)(3).
The Department also proposes updating current Sec. 5.6(a)(5) to
reflect its practice of redacting portions of confidential statements
of workers or other informants that would tend to reveal those
informants' identities. Finally, the Department proposes renumbering
current Sec. 5.6(a)(5) as a stand-alone new paragraph Sec. 5.6(c).
This proposed change is made to emphasize--without making substantive
changes--that this regulatory provision mandating protection of
information that identifies or would tend to identity confidential
sources, or constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
applies to both the Department's and other agencies' confidential
statements and other related documents.
v. Section 5.10 Restitution, Criminal Action
To correspond with proposed language in the underlying contract
clauses, the Department proposes to add references to monetary relief
and interest to the description of restitution in Sec. 5.10, as well
as an explanation of the method of computation of interest applicable
generally to any circumstance in which there has been an underpayment
of wages under a covered contract.
The Department has proposed new anti-retaliation contract clauses
at Sec. 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5), along with a related section of the
regulations at Sec. 5.18. Those clauses and section provide for the
provision of monetary relief that would include, but not be limited to,
back wages. Reference to this relief in Sec. 5.10 is proposed to
correspond to those proposed new clauses and section. For further
discussion of those proposals, see part III.B.3.xix (``Anti-
Retaliation'').
The reference to interest in Sec. 5.10 is similarly intended to
correspond to proposed new language requiring the payment of interest
on any underpayment of wages in the contract clauses at Sec.
5.5(a)(1)(vi), (a)(2) and (6), and (b)(2) through (4), and on any other
monetary relief for violations of the proposed anti-retaliation
clauses. The existing Davis-Bacon regulations and contract clauses do
not specifically provide for the payment of interest on back wages. The
ARB and the Department's administrative law judges, however, have held
that interest calculated to the date of the underpayment or loss is
generally appropriate where back wages are due
[[Page 15742]]
under other similar remedial employee protection statutes enforced by
the Department. See, e.g., Lawn Restoration Serv. Corp., No. 2002-SCA-
00006, slip op. at 74 (OALJ Dec. 2, 2003) (awarding prejudgment
interest under the SCA).\105\ Under the DBRA, as in the INA and SCA and
other similar statutes, an assessment of interest on back wages and
other monetary relief will ensure that the workers Congress intended to
protect from substandard wages will receive the full compensation that
they were owed under the contract.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See also Greater Mo. Med. Pro-care Providers, Inc., ARB
No. 12-015, 2014 WL 469269, at *18 (Jan. 29, 2014) (approving of
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on back pay award for H-1B
visa cases under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)), aff'd
sub nom. Greater Mo. Med. Pro-care Providers, Inc. v. Perez, No.
3:14-CV-05028, 2014 WL 5438293 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 24, 2014), rev`d on
other grounds, 812 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2015).
\106\ The Department does not propose any requirement of
interest on assessments of liquidated damages under the CWHSSA
clause at Sec. 5.5(b)(2). Under CHWSSA, unlike the FLSA, there is
no requirement that liquidated damages be provided to affected
workers. Contracting agencies can provide liquidated damages that
they recover to employees, but they are also allowed to retain
liquidated damages to compensate themselves for the costs of
enforcement or otherwise for their own benefit. See 40 U.S.C.
3702(b)(2)(B), 3703(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed language establishes that interest will be calculated
from the date of the underpayment or loss, using the interest rate
applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621, and will be
compounded daily. Various OSHA whistleblower regulations use the tax
underpayment rate and daily compounding because that accounting best
achieves the make-whole purpose of a back-pay award. See Procedures for
the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 806 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as Amended, Final Rule, 80 FR 11865, 11872
(Mar. 5, 2015).
vi. Section 5.11 Disputes Concerning Payment of Wages
The Department proposes minor revisions to Sec. 5.11(b)(1) and
(c)(1), to clarify that where there is a dispute of fact or law
concerning payment of prevailing wage rates, overtime pay, or proper
classification, the Administrator may notify the affected contractors
and subcontractors, if any, of the investigation findings by means
other than registered or certified mail, so long as those other means
would normally assure delivery. Examples of such other means include,
but are not limited to, email to the last known email address, delivery
to the last known address by commercial courier and express delivery
services, or by personal service to the last known address. As has been
recently highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, while registered or
certified mail may generally be a reliable means of delivery, in some
circumstances other delivery methods may be just as reliable or even
more successful at assuring delivery. These revisions allow the
Department to choose methods to ensure that the necessary notifications
are delivered to the affected contractors and subcontractors.
In addition, the Department proposes similar changes to allow
contractors and subcontractors to also provide their response, if any,
to the Administrator's notification of the investigative findings by
any means that would normally assure delivery. The Department also
proposes replacing the term ``letter'' with the term ``notification''
in this section, since the notification of investigation findings may
be delivered by letter or other means, such as email. Similarly, the
Department proposes to replace the term ``postmarked'' with ``sent'' to
reflect that other methods of delivery may be confirmed by other means,
such as by the date stamp on an email or the delivery confirmation
provided by a commercial delivery service.
For additional discussion related to Sec. 5.11, see part
III.B.3.xxi (``Debarment'').
vii. Section 5.12. Debarment Proceedings
The Department proposes minor revisions to Sec. 5.12(b)(1) and
(d)(2)(iv)(A), to clarify that the Administrator may notify the
affected contractors and subcontractors, if any, of the investigation
findings by means other than registered or certified mail, so long as
those other means would normally assure delivery. As discussed above in
reference to identical changes proposed to Sec. 5.11, these proposed
revisions will allow the Department to choose the most appropriate
method to confirm that the necessary notifications reach their
recipients. The Department proposes similar changes to allow the
affected contractors or subcontractors to use any means that would
normally assure delivery when making their response, if any, to the
Administrator's notification.
The Department also proposes a slight change to Sec. 5.12(b)(2),
to state that the Administrator's findings will be final if no hearing
is requested within 30 days of the date of the Administrator's
notification, as opposed to the current language, which states that the
Administrator's findings shall be final if no hearing is requested
within 30 days of receipt of the Administrator's notification. This
proposed change would align the time period available for requesting a
hearing in Sec. 5.12(b)(2) with similar requirements in Sec. 5.11 and
other paragraphs in Sec. 5.12, which state that such requests must be
made within 30 days of the date of the Administrator's notification.
For additional discussion related to Sec. 5.12, see part
III.B.3.xxi (``Debarment'').
viii. Section 5.16 Training Plans Approved or Recognized by the
Department of Labor Prior to August 20, 1975
As noted above (see part III.B.3.iii(C) ``29 CFR 5.5(a)(4)
Apprentices.''), the Department proposes to rescind and reserve Sec.
5.16. Originally published along with Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(ii) in a 1975
final rule, Sec. 5.16 is essentially a grandfather clause permitting
contractors, in connection with certain training programs established
prior to August 20, 1975, to continue using trainees on Federal and
federally assisted construction projects without having to seek
additional approval from the Department pursuant to Sec.
5.5(a)(4)(ii). See 40 FR 30480. Since Sec. 5.16 appears to be obsolete
more than four decades after its issuance, the Department proposes to
rescind and reserve the section. The Department also proposes several
technical edits to Sec. 5.5(a)(4)(ii) to remove references to Sec.
5.16.
ix. Section 5.17 Withdrawal of Approval of a Training Program
As discussed in detail above, the Department proposes to remove
references to trainees and training programs throughout parts 1 and 5
(see section iii(C) ``29 CFR 5.5(a)(4) Apprentices.'') as well as
rescind and reserve Sec. 5.16 (see section viii ``Section 5.16
Training plans approved or recognized by the Department of Labor prior
to August 20, 1975.''). Accordingly, the Department also proposes to
rescind and reserve Sec. 5.17.
x. Section 5.20 Scope and Significance of This Subpart
The Department proposes two technical corrections to Sec. 5.20.
First, the Department proposes to correct a typographical error in the
citation to the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 to reflect that the
relevant section of the Portal-to-Portal Act is codified at 29 U.S.C.
259, not 29 U.S.C. 359. Second, the last sentence of Sec. 5.20
currently states, ``Questions on matters not fully covered by this
subpart may be referred to the Secretary for interpretation as provided
in Sec. 5.12.'' However, the regulatory provision titled ``Rulings and
Interpretations,'' which this section is
[[Page 15743]]
meant to reference, is currently located at Sec. 5.13. The Department
therefore proposes to replace the incorrect reference to Sec. 5.12
with the correct reference to Sec. 5.13.
xi. Section 5.23 The Statutory Provisions
The Department proposes to make technical, non-substantive changes
to Sec. 5.23. The existing text of Sec. 5.23 primarily consists of a
lengthy quotation of a particular fringe benefit provision of the 1964
amendments to the DBA. The Department proposes to replace this text
with a summary of the statutory provision at issue for two reasons.
First, due to a statutory amendment, the quotation set forth in
existing Sec. 5.23 no longer accurately reflects the statutory
language. Specifically, on August 21, 2002, Congress enacted
legislation which made several non-substantive revisions to the
relevant 1964 DBA amendment provisions and recodified those provisions
from 40 U.S.C. 276a(b) to 40 U.S.C. 3141.\107\ The Department proposes
to update Sec. 5.23 to include a citation to 40 U.S.C. 3141(2).
Second, the Office of the Federal Register disfavors lengthy block
quotations of statutory text.\108\ In light of this drafting
convention, and because the existing quotation in Sec. 5.23 no longer
accurately reflects the statutory language, the Department is proposing
to revise Sec. 5.23 so that it paraphrases the statutory language set
forth at 40 U.S.C. 3141(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See Revision of Title 40, U.S.C., ``Public Buildings,
Property, and Works,'' Public Law 107-217, 3141, 116 Stat. 1062,
1150 (Aug. 21, 2002).
\108\ See Office of the Federal Register, Document Drafting
Handbook Sec. 3.6 (Aug. 2018 ed., rev. Mar. 24, 2021), available at
https://www.archives.gov/files/Federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xii. Section 5.25 Rate of Contribution or Cost for Fringe Benefits
The Department proposes to add new paragraph (c) to existing Sec.
5.25 to codify the principle of annualization used to calculate the
amount of Davis-Bacon credit that a contractor may receive for
contributions to a fringe benefit plan when the contractor's workers
also work on private projects. While existing guidance generally
requires the use of annualization to compute the hourly equivalent of
fringe benefits, annualization is not currently addressed in the
regulations. The Department's proposal would require annualization of
fringe benefits unless a contractor is approved for an exception and
provide guidance on how to properly annualize fringe benefits. The
proposed revision also creates a new administrative process that
contractors must follow to obtain approval by the Administrator for an
exception from the annualization requirement.
Consistent with the Secretary's authority to set the prevailing
wage, WHD has long concluded that a contractor generally may not
calculate Davis-Bacon credit for all its contributions to a fringe
benefit plan in a given time period based solely upon the workers'
hours on a Davis-Bacon project when the contractor's workers also work
on private projects for the contractor in that same time period. See,
e.g., Miree Constr. Corp. v. Dole, 930 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.
1991); see also, e.g., WHD Opinion Letter DBRA-72 (June 5, 1978); WHD
Opinion Letter DBRA-134 (June 6, 1985); WHD Opinion Letter DBRA-68 (May
22, 1984); FOH 15f11(b). WHD's guidance explains that contributions
made to a fringe benefit plan for government work generally may not be
used to fund the plan for periods of non-government work, and a
contractor typically must convert its total annual contributions to the
fringe benefit plan to an hourly cash equivalent by dividing the cost
of the fringe benefit by the total number of working hours (DBRA and
non-covered) to determine the amount creditable towards meeting its
obligation to pay the prevailing wage under the DBRA. See FOH 15f11(b),
15f12(b).
This principle, which is referred to as ``annualization,'' thus
generally compels a contractor performing work on a Davis-Bacon covered
project to divide its contributions to a fringe benefit plan for a
worker by that worker's total hours of work on both Davis-Bacon and
private projects for the employer in that year, rather than attribute
those contributions solely to the worker's work on Davis-Bacon covered
projects. Annualization effectively prohibits contractors from using
fringe benefit plan contributions attributable to work on private jobs
to meet their prevailing wage obligation for DBRA-covered work. See,
e.g., Miree Constr., 930 F.2d at 1545 (annualization ensures receipt of
the prevailing wage by ``prevent[ing] employers from receiving Davis-
Bacon credit for fringe benefits actually paid to employees during non-
Davis-Bacon work''). Annualization is intended to prevent the use of
DBRA work as the disproportionate or exclusive source of funding for
benefits that are continuous in nature and that constitute compensation
for all the worker's work, both Davis-Bacon covered and private.
Despite the longstanding nature of this policy, however, the concept of
annualization is not expressly referred to in the Davis-Bacon
regulations.
For many years, WHD has required contractors to annualize
contributions for most types of fringe benefit plans, including health
insurance plans, apprenticeship training plans, vacation plans, and
sick leave plans. WHD's rationale for requiring annualization is that
such contributions finance benefits that: (1) Are continuous in nature,
and (2) reflect compensation for all of the work performed by a laborer
or mechanic, including work on both DBA-covered and private projects.
One notable exception to this general rule compelling the annualization
of fringe benefit plan contributions, however, is that WHD has not
required annualization for defined contribution pension plans (DCPPs)
that provide for immediate participation and essentially immediate
vesting (e.g., 100 percent vesting after a worker works 500 or fewer
hours). See WHD Opinion Letter DBRA-134 (June 6, 1985); see also FOH
15f14(f)(1). The rationale for such exclusion is that DCPPs are not
continuous in nature, as the benefits are not available until a
worker's retirement, and that they ensure that the vast majority of
workers will receive the full amount of contributions made on their
behalf. However, WHD does not currently have any public guidance
explaining the extent to which other plans may also share those
characteristics and warrant an exception from the annualization
principle.
To clarify when an exception to the general annualization principle
may be appropriate, the Department proposes language stating that a
fringe benefit plan may only qualify for such an exception when three
criteria are satisfied: (1) The benefit provided is not continuous in
nature; (2) the benefit does not provide compensation for both public
and private work; and (3) the plan provides for immediate participation
and essentially immediate vesting. In accordance with the Department's
longstanding guidance, a plan will generally be considered to have
essentially immediate vesting if the benefits vest after a worker works
500 or fewer hours. These criteria are not necessarily limited to
DCPPs. However, to ensure that the criteria are applied correctly and
that workers' Davis-Bacon wages are not disproportionately used to fund
benefits during periods of private work, such an exception can only
apply when the plan in question has been submitted to the Department
for review and approval. Such requests may be submitted by plan
administrators, contractors, or their representatives. However, to
avoid any disruption to the provision of worker benefits, the
Department also proposes that any plan that does not require
[[Page 15744]]
annualization under the Department's existing guidance, such as DCPPs,
may continue to use such an exception until the plan has either
requested and received a review of its exception status under this
process, or until 18 months have passed from the effective date of this
rule, whichever comes first.
By requiring annualization, the proposed paragraph (c) furthers the
above policy goal of protecting workers' fringe benefits from dilution
by preventing contractors from taking credit for fringe benefits
attributable to work on non-governmental projects against fringe
benefits required on DBA-covered work. The proposed exception also
provides the flexibility for plans that do not dilute workers' fringe
benefits to avoid the annualization requirement if they meet the
proposed criteria, which are based on the Department's existing
guidance with which stakeholders are already familiar. In this way, the
Department hopes to strike a balance between protecting workers and
preserving access to the types of plans that have traditionally been
considered exempt from the annualization requirement.
xiii. Section 5.26 `` * * * Contribution Irrevocably Made * * * to a
Trustee or to a Third Person''
The Department proposes several non-substantive technical
corrections to Sec. 5.26 to improve clarity and readability.
xiv. Section 5.28 Unfunded Plans
The Department proposes several revisions to this section. First,
the Department proposes a technical correction to the citation to the
DBA to reflect the codification of the relevant provision at 40 U.S.C.
3141(2)(B)(ii), as well as a number of non-substantive revisions.
Additionally, the Department proposes adding a new paragraph (b)(5)
to this section, explicitly stating that unfunded benefit plans or
programs must be approved by the Secretary in order to qualify as bona
fide fringe benefits, and a new paragraph (c) explaining the process
contractors and subcontractors must use to request such approval. To
accommodate these proposed additions, the text currently located in
paragraph (c) of this section would be moved to new paragraph (d).
As other regulatory sections make clear, if a contractor provides
its workers with fringe benefits through an unfunded plan instead of by
making irrevocable payments to a trustee or other third person, the
contractor may only take credit for any costs reasonably anticipated in
providing such fringe benefits if it has submitted a request in writing
to the Department and the Secretary has determined that the applicable
standards of the DBA have been met. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(iv), 5.29(e).
However, Sec. 5.28 does not mention this approval requirement, even
though it is the section that most specifically discusses requirements
for unfunded plans. Incorporating this requirement and a description of
the approval process into Sec. 5.28 would therefore help improve
regulatory clarity. Accordingly, the Department proposes to revise
Sec. 5.28 to clarify that, for payments under an unfunded plan or
program to be credited as fringe benefits, contractors and
subcontractors must submit a written request, including sufficient
documentation, for the Secretary to consider in determining whether the
plan or program, and the benefits proposed to be provided thereunder,
are ``bona fide,'' meet the factors set forth in Sec. 5.28(b)(1)-(4),
and are otherwise consistent with the Act. The Department also proposes
to add language to explain that such requests must be submitted by mail
to WHD's Division of Government Contracts Enforcement, via email to
[email protected] or any successor address, or via any other means
directed by the Administrator.
The proposed revised regulation provides that a request for
approval of an unfunded plan must include sufficient documentation to
enable the Department to evaluate whether the plan satisfies the
regulatory criteria. To provide flexibility, the proposed revised
regulation does not itself specify the documentation that must be
submitted with the request. However, current paragraph (c) of this
section, and proposed paragraph (d), explain that the words
``reasonably anticipated'' contemplate a plan that can ``withstand a
test'' of ``actuarial soundness.'' While WHD's determination whether or
not an unfunded plan meets the statutory and regulatory requirements
will be based on the totality of the circumstances, the type of
information WHD will require from contractors or subcontractors in
order to make such a determination will typically include: (1)
Identification of the benefit(s) to be provided; (2) an explanation of
the funding/contribution formula; (3) an explanation of the financial
analysis methodology used to estimate the costs of the plan or program
benefits and how the contractor has budgeted for those costs; (4) a
specification of how frequently the contractor either sets aside funds
in accordance with the cost calculations to meet claims as they arise,
or otherwise budgets, allocates, or tracks such funds to ensure that
they will be available to meet claims; (5) an explanation of whether
employer contribution amounts are different for Davis-Bacon and non-
prevailing wage work; (6) identification of the administrator of the
plan or program and the source of the funds the administrator uses to
pay the benefits provided by the plan or program; (7) specification of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) status of
the plan or program; and (8) an explanation of how the plan or program
is communicated to laborers or mechanics.
xv. Section 5.29 Specific Fringe Benefits
The Department proposes to revise Sec. 5.29 to add a new paragraph
(g) that addresses how contractors may claim a fringe benefit credit
for the costs of an apprenticeship program. While Sec. 5.29(a) states
that fringe benefits may be used for the defrayment of the costs of
apprenticeship programs, the regulations do not presently address how
to properly credit such contributions against a contractor's fringe
benefit obligations. The proposed revision would codify the
Department's longstanding practice and interpretation. See WHD Opinion
Letters DBRA-116 (May 17, 1978), DBRA-18 (Sept. 7, 1983), DBRA-16 (July
28, 1987), DBRA-160 (March 10, 1990); see also FOH 15f17. The proposed
revision also reflects relevant case law. See Miree Constr. Corp., WAB
No. 87-13, 1989 WL 407466 (Feb. 17, 1989); Miree Constr. Corp. v. Dole,
730 F. Supp. 385 (N.D. Ala. 1990); Miree Constr. Corp. v. Dole, 930
F.2d at 1537.
Proposed paragraph (g) clarifies when a contractor may take credit
for contributions made to an apprenticeship program and how to
calculate the credit a contractor may take against its fringe benefit
obligation. First, the proposed paragraph states that for a contractor
or subcontractor to take credit for the costs of an apprenticeship
program, the program, in addition to meeting all other requirements for
fringe benefits, must be registered with the Department of Labor's
Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship (OA),
or with a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the OA.
Additionally, the proposed paragraph explains that contractors may take
credit for the actual costs of the apprenticeship program, such as
tuition, books, and materials, but may not take credit for additional
contributions that are beyond the costs actually incurred for the
apprenticeship program. It also reiterates the Department's position
that the contractor may only claim credit
[[Page 15745]]
towards its prevailing wage obligations for the classification of
laborer or mechanic that is the subject of the apprenticeship program.
For example, if a contractor has apprentices registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship program for carpenters, the contractor could claim a
credit for the costs of the apprenticeship program towards the
prevailing wages due to the carpenters on a Davis-Bacon project, but
could not apply that credit towards the prevailing wages due to the
electricians or laborers on the project. Likewise, the proposed
paragraph explains that, when applying the annualization principle
discussed above, the workers whose total working hours are used to
calculate the hourly contribution amount are limited to those workers
in the same classification as the apprentice, and that this hourly
amount may only be applied toward the wage obligations for such
workers.
The Department also proposes a minor technical revision to
subsection (e) to include a citation to Sec. 5.28, which provides
additional guidance on unfunded plans.
xvi. Section 5.30 Types of Wage Determinations
The Department proposes several non-substantive revisions to Sec.
5.30. In particular, the Department proposes to update the
illustrations in Sec. 5.30(c) to more closely resemble the current
format of wage determinations issued under the DBA. The current
illustrations in Sec. 5.30(c) list separate rates for various
categories of fringe benefits, including ``Health and welfare,''
``Pensions,'' ``Vacations,'' ``Apprenticeship program,'' and
``Others.'' However, current Davis-Bacon wage determinations typically
contain a single combined fringe benefit rate per classification,
rather than separately listing rates for different categories of fringe
benefits. To avoid confusion, the Department proposes to update the
illustrations to reflect the way in which fringe benefits are typically
listed on wage determinations. The Department has also proposed several
non-substantive revisions to Sec. 5.30(a) and (b), including revisions
pertaining to the updated illustrations in Sec. 5.30(c).
xvii. Section 5.31 Meeting Wage Determination Obligations
The Department has proposed to update the illustrations in Sec.
5.30(c) to more closely resemble the current format of wage
determinations under the DBRA. The Department therefore proposes to
make technical, non-substantive changes to Sec. 5.31 to reflect the
updated illustration in Sec. 5.30(c).
xviii. Section 5.33 Administrative Expense of a Contractor or
Subcontractor
The Department proposes to add a new Sec. 5.33 to codify existing
WHD policy under which a contractor or subcontractor may not take
Davis-Bacon credit for its own administrative expenses incurred in
connection with the administration of a fringe benefit plan. See WHD
Opinion Letter DBRA-72 (June 5, 1978); see also FOH 15f18. This is
consistent with Department case law under the DBA, under which such
payments are viewed as ``part of [an employer's] general overhead
expenses of doing business and should not serve to decrease the direct
benefit going to the employee.'' Collinson Constr. Co., WAB No. 76-09,
1977 WL 24826, at *2 (Apr. 20, 1977) (also noting that the DBA's
inclusion of ``costs'' in the provision currently codified at 40 U.S.C.
3141(2)(B)(ii) refers to ``the costs of benefits under an unfunded
plan'') (emphasis in original); see also Cody-Zeigler, Inc., ARB Nos.
01-014, 01-015, 2003 WL 23114278, at *20 (Dec. 19, 2003) (applying
Collinson and concluding that a contractor improperly claimed its
administrative costs for ``bank fees, payments to clerical workers for
preparing paper work and dealing with insurance companies'' as a fringe
benefit). This is also consistent with the Department's regulations and
guidance under the SCA. See 29 CFR 4.172; FOH 14j00(a)(1).
The Department also seeks public comment regarding whether it
should clarify this principle further with respect to third-party
administrative costs. Under both the DBA and SCA, fringe benefits
include items such as health insurance, which necessarily involves both
the payment of benefits and administration of benefit claims. 40 U.S.C.
3141(2)(B); 41 U.S.C. 6703(2). Accordingly, reasonable costs incurred
by a third-party fiduciary in its administration and delivery of fringe
benefits to employees are creditable under the SCA. See WHD Opinion
Letter SCA-93 (Jan. 27, 1994) (noting, in a circumstance in which an
SCA contractor contributed to a pension plan on behalf of its
employees, that ``the plan itself may recoup [its] administrative
costs''). For example, a contractor may take credit for the premiums it
pays to a health insurance carrier, and the insurance carrier may use
those premium payments both to pay for workers' medical expenses and to
pay the reasonable costs of tasks related to the administration and
delivery of benefits, such as evaluating benefit claims, deciding
whether they should be paid, and approving referrals to specialists.
See FOH 14j00(a)(2). The Department applies a similar standard under
the DBA.
However, whether fees charged by a third party are creditable
depends on the facts and circumstances. As noted above, a contractor's
own administrative costs incurred in connection with the provision of
fringe benefits are not creditable, as they are considered the
contractor's business expenses. See Collinson, 1977 WL 24826, at *2; 29
CFR 4.172. As such, WHD has previously advised that if a third party is
merely performing on the contractor's behalf administrative functions
associated with providing fringe benefits to employees, rather than
actually administering claims and paying benefits, the contractor's
payments to such a third party are not creditable because they
substitute for the contractor's own administrative costs. Such
functions include, for example, tracking the amount of the contractor's
fringe benefit contributions, making sure those contributions cover the
fringe benefit credit claimed by the contractor, tracking and paying
invoices from third-party administrators, and sending lists of new
hires to the plan administrators. Essentially, the principle explained
in 29 CFR 4.172, FOH 14j00(a)(1), FOH 15f18, and proposed Sec. 5.33
that a contractor may not take credit for its own administrative
expenses applies regardless of whether a contractor uses its own
employees to perform this sort of administrative work or engages
another company to handle these tasks.
The Department has received an increasing number of inquiries in
recent years regarding the extent to which fees charged by third
parties for performing such administrative tasks are or are not
creditable. As such, while not proposing specific regulatory text, the
Department proposes to clarify this matter in a final rule. The
Department seeks comment on whether it should incorporate the above-
described policies, or other policies regarding third-party entities,
into its regulations. In addition, the Department seeks comment on
examples of the administrative duties performed by third parties that
do not themselves pay benefits or administer benefit claims.
The Department also seeks comment on the extent to which third-
party entities both (1) perform administrative functions associated
with providing fringe benefits to employees, such as tracking a
contractor's fringe benefit contributions, and (2) actually administer
and deliver benefits, such as evaluating and paying out medical
[[Page 15746]]
claims, and on how the Department should treat payments to any such
entities. For instance, should the Department consider the cost of the
administrative functions in (1) non-creditable business expenses, and
the cost of actual benefits administration and payment in (2) to be
creditable as fringe benefit contributions? Alternatively, should the
creditability of payments to such an entity depend on what the third-
party entity's primary function is? Should the answer to these
questions depend on whether the third-party entity is an employee
welfare plan within the meaning of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1002(1)?
xix. Anti-Retaliation
The Department proposes to add anti-retaliation provisions to
enhance enforcement of the DBRA, and their implementing regulations in
29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5. The proposed new anti-retaliation provisions
are intended to discourage contractors, responsible officers, and any
other persons from engaging in--or causing others to engage in--
unscrupulous business practices that may chill worker participation in
WHD investigations or other compliance actions and enable prevailing
wage violations to go undetected. The proposed anti-retaliation
regulations are also intended to provide make-whole relief for any
worker who has been discriminated against in any manner for taking, or
being perceived to have taken, certain actions concerning the labor
standards provisions of the DBA, CWHSSA and other Related Acts, and the
regulations in parts 1, 3, and 5.
In most WHD DBRA investigations or other compliance actions,
effective enforcement requires worker cooperation. Information from
workers about their actual hours worked and their pay is often
essential to uncover violations such as falsification of certified
payrolls or wage underpayments by contractors or subcontractors who
fail to keep any pay or time records, or whose records are inaccurate
or incomplete. Workers are often reluctant to come forward with
information about potential violations of the laws WHD enforces because
they fear losing their jobs or suffering other adverse consequences.
Workers are similarly reluctant to raise these issues with their
supervisors. Such reluctance to inquire or complain internally may
result in lost opportunities for early correction of violations by
contractors.
The current Davis-Bacon regulations protect the identity of
confidential worker-informants in large part to prevent retribution by
contractors for whom they work. See 29 CFR 5.6(a)(5), 6.5. This
protection helps combat the ``possibility of reprisals'' by
``vindictive employers'' against workers who speak out about wage and
hour violations, but does not eliminate it. Cosmic Constr. Co., WAB No.
79-19, 1980 WL 95656, at *5 (Sept. 2, 1980).
When contractors retaliate against workers who cooperate or are
suspected of cooperating with WHD or who make internal complaints,
neither worker confidentiality nor the Davis-Bacon remedial measures of
back wages or debarment can make workers whole. The Department's
proposed anti-retaliation provisions aim to remedy such situations by
providing make-whole relief to workers who are retaliated against, as
well as by deterring or correcting interference with Davis-Bacon worker
protections.
The Department's authority to promulgate the anti-retaliation
provisions stems from 40 U.S.C. 3145 and Reorganization Plan No. 14 of
1950. In transmitting the Reorganization Plan to Congress, President
Truman noted that ``the principal objective of the plan is more
effective enforcement of labor standards,'' and that the plan ``will
provide more uniform and more adequate protection for workers through
the expenditures made for the enforcement of the existing
legislation.'' Special Message to the Congress Transmitting
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. 1 (Mar.
13, 1950) (1950 Special Message to Congress).
It is well settled that the Department has regulatory authority to
debar Related Act contractors even though the Related Acts do not
expressly provide for debarment. See Janik Paving & Constr., Inc. v.
Brock, 828 F.2d 84, 90, 91 (2d Cir. 1987) (upholding debarment for
CWHSSA violations even though that statute ``specifically provided
civil and criminal sanctions for violations of overtime work
requirements but failed to mention debarment''). In 1951 the Department
added a new part 5 to the DBRA regulations, including the Related Act
debarment regulation. See 16 FR 4430. The Department explained it was
doing so in compliance with the directive of Reorganization Plan No. 14
of 1950 to ``assure coordination of administration and consistency of
enforcement of the labor standards provisions'' of the DBRA. Id. Just
as regulatory debarment is a permissible exercise of the Department's
``implied powers of administrative enforcement,'' Janik, 828 F.2d at
91, so too are the proposed anti-retaliation provisions--as well as the
revised Related Act debarment provisions discussed below in part
III.B.3.xxi (``Debarment''). The Department believes that it would be
both efficient and consistent with the remedial purpose of the DBRA to
investigate and adjudicate complaints of retaliation as part of WHD's
enforcement of the DBRA. These proposed measures will help achieve more
effective enforcement of the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
Currently, debarment is the primary mechanism under the DBRA civil
enforcement scheme for remedying retribution against workers who assert
their right to prevailing wages. Debarment is also the main tool for
addressing less tangible discrimination such as interfering with
investigations by intimidating or threatening workers. Such
unscrupulous behavior may be both a ``disregard of obligations'' to
workers under the DBA and ``aggravated or willful'' violations under
the current Related Act regulations that warrant debarment. See 40
U.S.C. 3144(b)(1); 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1).
Both the ARB and ALJs have debarred contractors in part because of
their retaliatory conduct or interference with WHD investigations. See,
e.g., Pythagoras Gen. Contracting Corp., 2011 WL 1247207, at *13
(affirming debarment of contractor and its principal in a DBRA case in
part because of the ``attempt [by principal and other officials of the
contractor] at witness coercion or intimidation'' when they visited
former employees to talk about their upcoming hearing testimony); R.J.
Sanders, Inc., WAB No. 90-25, 1991 WL 494734, at *1-2 (Jan. 31, 1991)
(affirming ALJ's finding that employer's retaliatory firing of an
employee who reported to a Navy inspector being paid less than the
prevailing wage was ``persuasive evidence of a willful violation of the
[DBA]''); Early & Sons, Inc., ALJ No. 85-DBA-140, 1986 WL 193128, at *8
(OALJ Aug. 5, 1986) (willful and aggravated DBRA violations evidenced
in part where worker who ``insisted on [receiving the mandated wage] .
. . was told, in effect, to be quiet or risk losing his job''), rev'd
on other grounds, WAB No. 86-25, 1987 WL 247044, at *2 (Jan. 29, 1987);
Enviro & Demo Masters, Inc., ALJ No. 2011-DBA-00002, Decision and
Order, slip op. at 9-10, 15, 59, 62-64 (OALJ Apr. 23, 2014) (Enviro
D&O) (debarring subcontractor, its owner, and a supervisor because of
``aggravated and willful avoidance of paying the required prevailing
wages'' which included firing an employee who refused to sign a
declaration repudiating his DBRA rights, and instructing workers to lie
about their pay and underreport their hours if questioned by
investigators).
[[Page 15747]]
There are also criminal sanctions for certain coercive conduct by
DBRA contractors. The Copeland Anti-Kickback Act makes it a crime to
induce DBRA-covered construction workers to give up any part of
compensation due ``by force, intimidation, or threat of procuring
dismissal from employment, or by any other manner whatsoever.'' 18
U.S.C. 874; cf. 29 CFR 5.10(b) (discussing criminal referrals for DBRA
violations). Such prevailing wage kickback schemes are also willful or
aggravated violations of the civil Copeland Act (a Related Act) that
warrant debarment. See 40 U.S.C. 3145; see, e.g., Killeen Elec. Co.,
WAB No. 87-49, 1991 WL 494685, at *5 (Mar. 21, 1991).
Interference with WHD investigations or other compliance actions
may also warrant criminal prosecution. For example, in addition to
owing 37 workers $656,646 in back wages in the DBRA civil
administrative proceeding, see Enviro D&O at 66, both the owner of
Enviro & Demo Masters and his father, the supervisor, were convicted of
Federal crimes including witness tampering and conspiracy to commit
witness tampering. These officials instructed workers at the jobsite to
hide from and ``lie to investigators about their working hours and
wages,'' and they fired workers who spoke to investigators or refused
to sign false documents. Naranjo v. United States, No. 17-CV-9573, 2021
WL 1063442, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2021), report and recommendation
adopted by 2021 WL 1317232 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2021); see also Naranjo,
Sr. v. United States, No. 16 Civ. 7386, 2019 WL 7568186, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019), report and recommendation adopted by 2020 WL
174072, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020).
Though contractors, subcontractors, and their responsible officers
may be debarred--and even criminally prosecuted--for retaliatory
conduct, laborers and mechanics who have been discriminated against for
speaking up, or for having been perceived as speaking up, currently
have no redress under the Department's regulations implementing the DBA
or Related Acts to the extent that back wages do not make them whole.
For example, WHD currently may not order reinstatement of workers fired
for their cooperation with investigators or as a result of an internal
complaint to their supervisor. Nor may the Department award back pay
for the period after a worker is fired. Similarly, WHD cannot require
contractors to compensate workers for the difference in pay resulting
from retaliatory demotions or reductions in hours. The addition of
anti-retaliation provisions is a logical extension of the DBA and
Related Acts debarment remedial measure. It would supplement debarment
as an enforcement tool to more effectively prevent retaliation and
interference or any other such discriminatory behavior. An anti-
retaliation mechanism would also build on existing back-wage remedies
by extending compensation to a fuller range of harms.
The Department therefore proposes to add two new regulatory
provisions concerning anti-retaliation, as well as to update several
other regulations to reflect the new anti-retaliation provisions.
(A) Proposed New Sec. 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5)
The Department proposes to implement anti-retaliation in part by
adding a new anti-retaliation provision to all contracts subject to the
DBA or Related Acts. Proposed contract clauses provided for in Sec.
5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5) state that it is unlawful for any person to
discharge, demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
harass, or in any other manner discriminate, or to cause any person to
do the same, against any worker for engaging in a number of protected
activities. The protected activities include notifying any contractor
of any conduct which the worker reasonably believes constitutes a
violation; filing any complaints, initiating or causing to be initiated
any proceeding, or otherwise asserting any right or protection;
cooperating in an investigation or other compliance action, or
testifying in any proceeding; or informing any other person about their
rights under the DBA, Related Acts, or the regulations in 29 CFR parts
1, 3, or 5, for proposed Sec. 5.5(a)(11), or the CWHSSA or its
implementing regulations in 29 CFR part 5, for proposed Sec.
5.5(b)(5).
The scope of these anti-retaliation provisions is intended to be
broad in order to better effectuate the remedial purpose of the DBRA to
protect workers and ensure that they are not paid substandard wages.
Workers must feel free to speak openly--with contractors for whom they
work and contractors' responsible officers and agents, with the
Department, and with co-workers--about conduct that they reasonably
believe to be a violation of the prevailing wage requirements or other
Davis-Bacon labor standards. These proposed anti-retaliation provisions
recognize that worker cooperation is critical to enforcement of the
DBRA. They also incentivize compliance and seek to eliminate any
competitive disadvantage borne by government contractors and
subcontractors that follow the rules.
In line with those remedial goals, the Department intends the
proposed anti-retaliation provisions to protect internal complaints, or
other assertions of workers' Davis-Bacon or CWHSSA labor standards
protections set forth in Sec. 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5), as well as
interference that may not have an adverse monetary impact on the
affected workers. Similarly, the Department intends the anti-
retaliation provisions to also apply in situations where there is no
current work or employment relationship between the parties; for
example, it would prohibit retaliation by a prospective or former
employer or contractor (or both). Finally, the Department's proposed
rule seeks to protect workers who make oral as well as written
complaints, notifications, or other assertions of their rights
protected under Sec. 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5).
(B) Proposed New Sec. 5.18
The Department proposes remedies to assist in enforcement of the
DBRA labor standards provisions. Section 5.18 sets forth the proposed
remedies for violations of the new anti-retaliation provisions. This
proposed section also includes the process for notifying contractors
and other persons found to have violated the anti-retaliation
provisions of the Administrator's investigative findings, as well as
for Administrator directives to remedy such violations and provide
make-whole relief.
Make-whole relief and remedial actions under this provision are
intended to restore the worker subjected to the violation to the
position, both economically and in terms of work or employment status
(e.g., seniority, leave balances, health insurance coverage, 401(k)
contributions, etc.), that the worker would have occupied had the
violation never taken place. Available remedies include, but are not
limited to, any back pay and benefits denied or lost by reason of the
violation; other actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of
the violation; interest on back pay or other monetary relief from the
date of the loss; and appropriate equitable or other relief such as
reinstatement or promotion; expungement of warnings, reprimands, or
derogatory references; the provision of a neutral employment reference;
and posting of notices that the contractor or subcontractor agrees to
comply with the DBRA anti-retaliation requirements.
In addition, proposed Sec. 5.18 specifies that when contractors,
subcontractors, responsible officers, or other persons dispute findings
of violations of
[[Page 15748]]
Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the procedures in 29 CFR 5.11 or 5.12 will
apply.
Conforming revisions are being proposed to the withholding
provisions at Sec. Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 5.9 to indicate that
withholding includes monetary relief for violations of the anti-
retaliation provisions, Sec. 5.5(a)(11) and (b)(5), in addition to
withholding of back wages for DBRA prevailing wage violations and
CWHSSA overtime violations.
Similarly, conforming changes are being proposed to Sec. Sec.
5.6(a)(4) and 5.10(a). Computations of monetary relief for violations
of the anti-retaliation provisions have been added to the limited
investigatory material that may be disclosed without the permission and
views of the Department under Sec. 5.6(a)(4). In proposed Sec.
5.10(a), monetary violations of anti-retaliation provisions have been
added as a type of restitution.
As explained above, contractors, subcontractors, and their
responsible officers have long been subject to debarment for their
retaliatory actions. This rulemaking updates DBRA enforcement
mechanisms by ensuring that workers may cooperate with WHD or complain
internally about perceived prevailing wage violations without fear of
reprisal. This proposed rule is a reasonable extension of the
Department's broad regulatory authority to enforce and administer the
DBRA. Further, adding anti-retaliation would amplify existing back wage
and debarment remedies by making workers whole who suffer the effects
of retaliatory firings, demotions, and other actions that reduce their
earnings. This important new tool will help carry out the DBRA's
remedial purposes by bolstering WHD's enforcement.
xx. Post-Award Determinations and Operation-of-Law
The Department proposes several revisions throughout parts 1 and 5
to update and codify the administrative procedure for enforcing Davis-
Bacon labor standards requirements when the contract clauses and/or
appropriate wage determination(s) have been wrongly omitted from a
covered contract.
(A) Current Regulations
The current regulations require the insertion of the relevant
contract clauses and wage determination(s) in covered contracts. 29 CFR
5.5. Section 5.5(a) requires that the appropriate contract clauses are
inserted ``in full'' into any covered contracts, and the contract
clause language at Sec. 5.5(a)(1) states that the wage
determination(s) are ``attached'' to the contract.
The existing regulations at Sec. 1.6(f) provide instruction for
how the Department and contracting agencies must act when a wage
determination has been wrongly omitted from a contract. Those
regulations provide a procedure through which the Administrator makes a
finding that a wage determination should have been included in the
contract. After the finding by the Administrator, the contracting
agency must either terminate and resolicit the contract with the valid
wage determination, or incorporate the wage determination retroactively
by supplemental agreement or change order. The same procedure applies
where the Administrator finds that the wrong wage determination was
incorporated into the contract. The existing regulations at Sec.
1.6(f) specify that the contractor must be compensated for any
increases in wages resulting from any supplemental agreement or change
order issued in accordance with the procedure.
Under the current regulations, WHD has faced multiple longstanding
enforcement challenges. First, the language of Sec. 1.6(f) explicitly
refers only to omitted wage determinations and does not expressly
address the situation where a contracting agency has mistakenly omitted
the contract clauses from the contract. Although WHD has historically
relied on Sec. 1.6(f) to address this situation, the ambiguity in the
regulations has caused confusion in communications between WHD and
contracting agencies and delay in resolving conflicts. See, e.g., WHD
Opinion Letters DBRA-167 (Aug. 29, 1990); DBRA-131 (Apr. 18, 1985).
Second, under the existing regulations, affected workers have
suffered from significant delays while contracting agencies determine
the appropriate course of action. At a minimum, such delays cause
problems for workers who must endure long waits to receive their back
wages. At worst, the delay can result in no back wages recovered at all
where witnesses are lost or there are no longer any contract payments
to withhold when a contract is finally modified or terminated. In all
cases, the identification of the appropriate mechanism for contract
termination or modification can be difficult and burdensome on Federal
agencies--in particular during later stages of a contract or after a
contract has ended.
The process provided in the current Sec. 1.6(f) is particularly
problematic where a contracting agency has questions about whether an
existing contract can be modified without violating another non-DBRA
statute or regulation. This problem has arisen in particular in the
context of multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts, blanket purchase
agreements (BPAs), and other similar schedule contracts negotiated by
GSA.\109\ Contracting agencies that have issued task orders under GSA
schedule contracts have been reluctant to modify those task orders to
include labor standards provisions where the governing Federal schedule
contract does not contain the provisions. Under those circumstances,
contracting agencies have argued that such a modification could render
that task order ``out of scope'' and therefore arguably unlawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Sales on the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS), for
example, have increased dramatically in recent decades--from $4
billion in 1992 to $36.6 billion in 2020. Gov't Accountability
Office, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Jan. 2005), at 25
(Figure 1) (noting these types of contracting vehicles ``contribute
to a much more complex environment in which accountability has not
always been clearly established''), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-05-207.pdf; Gen. Servs. Admin., GSA FY 2020
Annual Performance Report, at 11, available at: https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/GSA%20FY%202020%20Annual%20Performance%20Report%20v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Department believes it is incorrect that a contract
modification to incorporate required labor standards clauses or wage
determinations could render a contract or task order out of scope,\110\
concerns about this issue have interfered with the Department's
enforcement of the labor standards. If a contracting agency believes it
cannot modify a contract consistent with applicable procurement law, it
may instead decide to terminate the contract without retroactively
including the required clauses or wage determinations. In those
circumstances, the regulations currently provide no clear mechanism
that would allow the Department or contracting agencies to seek to
recover the back wages that the workers should have been paid on the
terminated contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ This argument tends to conflate the change associated with
incorporating a missing contract clause or wage determination with
any unexpected changes by the contracting agency to the actual work
to be performed under the task order or contract. As a general
matter, a Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) challenge based
solely on the incorporation of missing labor standards clauses or
appropriate wage determinations is without merit. See Booz Allen
Hamilton Eng'g Servs., LLC, B-411065 (May 1, 2015), available at
https://www.gao.gov/products/b-411065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Proposed Regulatory Revisions
To address these longstanding enforcement challenges, the
Department proposes to exercise its authority under Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950 and
[[Page 15749]]
40 U.S.C. 3145 to adopt several changes to Sec. Sec. 1.6, 5.5, and
5.6.
(1) Sec. 5.5(e) Proposed Operation-of-Law Language
The Department proposes to include language in a new paragraph at
Sec. 5.5(e) to provide that the labor standards contract clauses and
appropriate wage determinations are effective ``by operation of law''
in circumstances where they have been wrongly omitted from a covered
contract. This proposed language would assure that, in all cases, a
mechanism exists to enforce Congress's mandate that workers on covered
contracts receive prevailing wages--notwithstanding any mistake by an
executive branch official in an initial coverage decision or in an
accidental omission of the labor standards contract clauses. It would
also ensure that workers receive the correct prevailing wages if the
correct wage determination was not attached to the original contract or
was not incorporated during the exercise of an option. In addition, as
discussed below, the Department is proposing language in other
regulatory provisions to reflect this change and to provide safeguards
for both contractors and contracting agencies.
Under the proposed language in Sec. 5.5(e), erroneously omitted
contract clauses and appropriate wage determinations would be effective
by operation of law and therefore enforceable retroactive to the
beginning of the contract or construction. The proposed language
provides that all of the contract clauses set forth in Sec. 5.5--the
contract clauses at Sec. 5.5(a) and the CWHSSA contract clauses at
Sec. 5.5(b)--are considered to be a part of every covered contract,
whether or not they are physically incorporated into the contract. This
includes the contract clauses requiring the payment of prevailing wages
and overtime at Sec. 5.5(a)(1) and (b)(1), respectively; the
withholding clauses at Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3); and the labor-
standards disputes clause at Sec. 5.5(a)(9).
The operation-of-law proposal is intended to complement the
existing requirements in Sec. 1.6(f) and would not entirely replace
them. Thus, the contracting agency would still be required to take
action as appropriate to terminate or modify the contract. Under the
new proposed procedure, however, the Administrator would not need to
await a contract modification to assess back wages and seek
withholding, because the wage requirements and withholding clauses
would be read into the contract as a matter of law.\111\ The
application of the clauses and the correct wage determination as a
matter of law would also provide the Administrator with a tool to
enforce the labor standards on any contract that a contracting agency
decides it must terminate instead of modify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The Department proposes parallel language in 29 CFR 5.9
(Suspension of funds) to clarify that funds may be withheld under
the contract clauses and appropriate wage determinations whether
they have been incorporated into the contract physically, by
reference, or by operation of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposal, when the contract clause or wage determination
is incorporated into the prime contract by operation of law, prime
contractors would be responsible for the payment of applicable
prevailing wages to all workers under the contract--including the
workers of their subcontractors-- retroactive to the contract award or
beginning of construction, whichever occurs first. This is consistent
with the current Davis-Bacon regulations and case law. See 29 CFR
5.5(a)(6); All Phase Elec. Co., WAB No. 85-18 (June 18, 1986)
(withholding contract payments from the prime for subcontractor
employees even though the labor standards had not been flowed down into
the subcontract). This responsibility, however, would be offset by
proposed language in Sec. 5.5(e) adding a compensation provision that
would require that the prime contractor be compensated for any
increases in wages resulting from a post-award incorporation of a
contract clause or wage determination by operation of law under Sec.
5.5(e). This proposed language is modeled after similar language that
has been included in Sec. 1.6(f) since 1983.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 46 FR 4306, 4313 (Jan. 16, 1981); 47 FR 23644, 23654
(May 28, 1982) (implemented by 48 FR 19532 (Apr. 29, 1983)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department recognizes that post-award coverage or correction
determinations can cause difficulty for contracting agencies.
Contracting agencies avoid such difficulty by proactively incorporating
the Davis-Bacon labor standards clauses and applicable wage
determinations into contracts or using the existing process for
requesting a coverage ruling or interpretation from the Administrator
prior to contract award. See 29 CFR 5.13.\113\ In addition, the new
language provides that a contracting agency will continue to be able to
request that the Administrator grant an exemption from retroactive
enforcement of wage determinations and contract clauses (or, where
permissible, an exemption from prospective application) under the same
conditions currently applicable to post-award determinations. See 29
CFR 1.6(f); 29 CFR 5.14; City of Ellsworth, ARB No. 14-042, 2016 WL
4238460, at *6-*8 (June 6, 2016).\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ A ruling of the Administrator under Sec. 5.13 that Davis-
Bacon labor standards do not apply to the contract is authoritative
and prevents a different post-award determination unless the
Administrator determines that the pre-award ruling was based on a
factual description provided by the contracting agency that was
incomplete or inaccurate at the time, or that no longer is accurate
after unanticipated changes were made to the scope of the
contractor's work.
\114\ Factors that the Administrator considers in making a
determination regarding retroactive application are discussed in the
ARB's ruling in City of Ellsworth, ARB No. 14-042, at *6-*10. Among
the non-exclusive list of potential factors are ``the reasonableness
or good faith of the contracting agency's coverage decision'' and
``the status of the procurement (i.e. to what extent the
construction work has been completed).'' Id. at *10. In considering
the status of the procurement, the Administrator will consider the
status of construction at the time that the coverage or correction
issue is first raised with the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operation-of-law provision in proposed Sec. 5.5(e) is similar
to the Department's existing regulations enacting Executive Order
11246--Equal Employment Opportunity. See 41 CFR 60-1.4(e); United
States v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 638 F.2d 899, 905-06 (5th Cir. 1981)
(finding 41 CFR 60-1.4(e) to be valid and have force of law). The
operation-of-law provision at 41 CFR 60-1.4(e), like the proposed
language in Sec. 5.5(e), operates in addition to and complements the
other provisions in the Executive Order's regulations that require the
equal opportunity contract clause to be inserted in full into the
contract. See 41 CFR 60-1.4(a).
Unlike 41 CFR 60-1.4(e), the Department's proposed language in the
new Sec. 5.5(e) would apply the ``operation of law'' provision only to
prime contracts and not to subcontracts. The reason for this difference
is that, as noted above, the Davis-Bacon regulations and case law
provide that the prime contractor is responsible for the payment of
applicable wages on all subcontracts. If the prime contract contains
the labor standards as a matter of law, then the prime contractor is
required to ensure that all employees on the contract--including
subcontractors' employees--receive all applicable prevailing wages.
Accordingly, the Department does not believe that extending the
operation-of-law provision itself to subcontracts is necessary to
enforce the Congressional mandate that all covered workers under the
contract are paid the applicable prevailing wages.
The proposed operation-of-law provision is also similar in many,
but not all, respects to the judicially-
[[Page 15750]]
developed Christian doctrine, named for the 1963 Court of Claims
decision, G.L. Christian & Assocs. v. United States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct.
Cl.), reh'g denied, 320 F.2d 345 (Ct. Cl. 1963). Under the doctrine,
courts and administrative tribunals have held that required contractual
provisions may be effective by operation of law in Federal government
contracts, even if they were not in fact included in the contract. The
doctrine applies even when there is no specific ``operation of law''
regulation as proposed here.
The Christian doctrine flows from the basic concept in all contract
law that ``the parties to a contract . . . are presumed or deemed to
have contracted with reference to existing principles of law.'' 11
Williston on Contracts Sec. 30:19 (4th ed. 2021); see Ogden v.
Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827). Thus, those who contract with the
government are charged with having ``knowledge of published
regulations.'' PCA Health Plans of Texas, Inc. v. LaChance, 191 F.3d
1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
Under the Christian doctrine, a court can find a contract clause
effective by operation of law if that clause ``is required under
applicable [F]ederal administrative regulations'' and ``it expresses a
significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy.''
K-Con, Inc. v. Sec'y of Army, 908 F.3d 719, 724 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Where
these prerequisites are satisfied, it does not matter if the contract
clause at issue was wrongly omitted from a contract. A court will find
that a Federal contractor had constructive knowledge of the regulation
and that the required contract clause applies regardless of whether it
was included in the contract.
The recent decision of the Federal Circuit in K-Con is helpful to
understanding why it is appropriate to provide that the DBA labor
standards clauses are effective by operation of law. In K-Con, the
Federal Circuit held that the Christian doctrine applies to the 1935
Miller Act. 908 F.3d at 724-26. The Miller Act contains mandatory
coverage provisions that are similar to those in the DBA, though with
different threshold contract amounts. The Miller Act requires that
contractors furnish payment and performance bonds before a contract is
awarded for ``the construction, alteration, or repair of any public
building or public work.'' 40 U.S.C. 3131(b). The DBA, as amended,
requires that the prevailing wage stipulations be included in bid
specifications ``for construction, alteration, or repair, including
painting and decorating, of public buildings and public works.'' 40
U.S.C. 3142(a).
Like the Miller Act, the 90-year old Davis-Bacon Act also expresses
a significant and deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy.
The Miller Act and the Davis-Bacon Act are of similar vintage. The DBA
was enacted in 1931. The DBA amendments were enacted in 1935, almost
simultaneously with the Miller Act. Through both statutes, Congress
aimed to protect participants on government contracts from nonpayment
by prime contractors and subcontractors. Thus, the same factors that
the Federal Circuit found sufficient to apply the Christian doctrine to
the Miller Act also apply to the DBA and suggest that the proposed
operation-of-law regulation would be appropriate.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The Federal Circuit has also noted that the Christian
doctrine applies to the SCA, which has a similar purpose as the DBA
and dates only to 1965. See Call Henry, Inc. v. United States, 855
F.3d 1348, 1351 & n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Because the Davis-Bacon Act
and Service Contract Act are similar statutes with the same basic
purpose, the Department has long noted that court decisions relating
to one of these acts have a direct bearing on the other. See WHD
Opinion Letter SCA-3 (Dec. 7, 1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's proposal, however, differs from the Christian
doctrine in two critical respects. First, as noted above, the proposed
language at Sec. 5.5(e) would be paired with a contractor compensation
provision similar to the existing provision in Sec. 1.6(f). The
Christian doctrine does not incorporate such protection for
contractors, and as a result, can have the effect of shifting cost
burdens from the government to the contractor. In K-Con, for example,
the doctrine supported the government's defense against a claim for
equitable adjustment by the contractor. 908 F.3d at 724-28.
Second, the Christian doctrine is effectively self-executing and
renders contract clauses applicable by operation of law solely on the
basis of the underlying requirement that they be inserted into covered
contracts. The doctrine contains no specific mechanism through which
the government can limit its application to avoid any unexpected or
unjust results--other than simply deciding not to raise it as a defense
or affirmative argument in litigation. The proposed provision here at
Sec. 5.5(e), on the other hand, would pair the enactment of the
operation-of-law language with the traditional authority of the
Administrator to waive retroactive enforcement or grant a variance,
tolerance, or exemption from the regulatory requirement under 29 CFR
1.6(f) and 5.14, which the Department believes will foster a more
orderly and predictable process and reduce the likelihood of any
unintended consequences.
In proposing this new regulatory provision, the Department has
considered the implications of Universities Research Ass'n, Inc. v.
Coutu. In that case, the Supreme Court held that there was no implied
private right of action for workers to sue under the Davis-Bacon Act--
at least when the contract clauses were not included in the contract.
Coutu, 450 U.S. at 768-69 & nn.17, 19. The Court also stated that the
workers could not rely on the Christian doctrine to read the missing
DBA contract clause into the contract. Id. at 784 & n.38. The
Department has carefully considered the Coutu decision, and for the
reasons discussed below, has determined that the proposed regulation is
consistent with Coutu and that the distinctions between the proposed
regulation and the Christian doctrine address the concerns that
animated the Coutu Court in that case.
One of the Court's fundamental concerns in Coutu was that an
implied private right of action could allow parties to evade the
Department of Labor's review of whether a contract should be covered by
the Act. The Court noted that there was at the time ``no administrative
procedure that expressly provides review of a coverage determination
after the contract has been let.'' 450 U.S. at 761 n.9.\116\ If an
implied private right of action existed under those circumstances,
private parties could effectively avoid raising any questions about
coverage with the Department or with the contracting agency--and
instead bring them directly to a Federal court to second-guess the
administrative determinations. Id. at 783-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Subsection 1.6(f) did not go into effect until April 29,
1983, nearly 2 years after the Coutu decision. See 48 FR 19532.
Moreover, although the Department has used Sec. 1.6(f) to address
post-award coverage determinations, as discussed above, the language
of that subsection references wage determinations and does not
explicitly address the omission of required contract clauses. The
Department now seeks to remedy that ambiguity in Sec. 1.6(f) by
adding similar language to Sec. 5.6, as discussed below, in
addition to the proposed operation-of-law language at Sec. 5.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another of the Court's concerns was that such an implied private
right of action would undermine Federal contractors' reliance on the
wage determinations that the Federal government had (or had not)
incorporated into bid specifications. The Supreme Court noted that one
of the purposes of the 1935 amendments to the DBA was to ensure that
contractors could rely on the predetermination of wage rates that apply
to each contract. 450 U.S. at 776. If, after a contract had
[[Page 15751]]
already been awarded, a court could find that a higher prevailing wage
applied to that contract than had been previously determined, the
contractor could lose money because of its mistaken reliance on the
prior rates--all of which would undermine Congress's intent. Id. at
776-77.
The Department's current proposed procedure would alleviate both of
these concerns. As described above, the procedure differs from the
Christian doctrine because--as under the existing regulation at Sec.
1.6(f)--contractors will be compensated for any increase in costs
caused by the government's failure to properly incorporate the clauses
or wage determinations. The proposed procedure therefore will not
undermine contractors' reliance on an initial determination by the
contracting agency that the DBRA did not apply or that a wage
determination with lower rates applied.
Nor does the proposal risk creating an end-run around the
administrative procedures set up by contracting agencies and the
Department pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 14. Instead, the
operation-of-law provision would function as part of an administrative
structure implemented by the Administrator and subject to the
Administrator's decision to grant a variance, tolerance, or exemption.
Its enactment should not affect one way or another whether any implied
private right of action exists under the statute. Executive Order 11246
provides a helpful comparator. In 1968, the Department promulgated the
regulation clarifying that the Executive Order's equal opportunity
contract clause would be effective by ``operation of the Order''
regardless of whether it is physically incorporated into the contract.
41 CFR 60-1.4(e). That regulation was upheld, and the Christian
doctrine was also found to apply to the required equal opportunity
contract clause. See Miss. Power & Light, 638 F.2d at 905-06.
Nonetheless, courts have widely held that E.O. 11246 does not convey an
implied private right of action. See, e.g., Utley v. Varian Assocs.,
Inc., 811 F.2d 1279, 1288 (9th Cir. 1987).
The Department has also considered whether the proposal would lead
to an increase in bid protest litigation or expand the authority of the
Court of Federal Claims or other contracting appeal tribunals to
develop their own case law on the application of the DBRA without the
input of the Department. In exploring this question, the Department
considered proposing an alternative procedure in which the operation-
of-law rule would only become effective after a determination by the
Administrator or a contracting agency that a contract was in fact
covered. The Department, however, does not believe that such an
approach is necessary because both the GAO and the Federal Circuit
maintain strict waiver rules that prohibit post-award bid protests
based on errors or ambiguities in the solicitation. See NCS/EML JV,
LLC, B-412277, 2016 WL 335854, at *8 n.10 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 14, 2016)
(citing GAO decisions); Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492
F.3d 1308, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2007).\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ In Blue & Gold, the National Park Service failed to
include the SCA contract clauses in a contract that the Department
of Labor later concluded was covered by the Act. The Federal Circuit
denied the bid protest from a the losing bidder because ``a party
who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government
solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to
the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the
same objection subsequently in a bid protest action in the Court of
Federal Claims.'' 492 F.3d at 1313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal as currently drafted also would not affect the well-
settled case law--developed after the Coutu decision--that only the
Department of Labor has jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising out of
the labor standards provisions of the contract. As part of the post-
Coutu 1982 final rule, the Department enacted a provision at 29 CFR
5.5(a)(9) that requires a disputes clause with that jurisdictional
limitation to be included in all DBRA-covered contracts. See 47 FR
23660-61 (final rule addressing comments received on the proposal). The
labor standards disputes clause creates an exception to the Contract
Disputes Act of 1974 and effectively bars the Court of Federal Claims
from deciding substantive matters related to the Davis-Bacon Act and
Related Acts. See, e.g., Emerald Maint., Inc. v. United States, 925
F.2d 1425, 1428-29 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Under the Department's current
operation-of-law proposal, the disputes clause at Sec. 5.5(a)(9) would
continue to be effective even when it has been omitted from a contract
because the Department's proposal applies the operation-of-law
principle to all of the required contract clauses in Sec. 5.5(a)--
including Sec. 5.5(a)(9). As a result, under the proposal, disputes
regarding DBRA coverage or other related matters would continue to be
heard only through the Department's administrative process prior to any
judicial review, and there is no reason to believe that the
implementation of the operation-of-law provision would lead to a
parallel body of case law in the Court of Federal Claims.
Given all of these continued safeguards, the Department believes it
is not necessary to expressly limit the proposed operation-of-law
provision to be effective only after an administrative determination.
However, in addition to input on the proposed regulatory text at Sec.
5.5(e), the Department also seeks input from commenters regarding the
alternative proposal to require such a determination. Under that
alternative, the operation-of-law provision would only become effective
after a determination by the Administrator or a contracting agency that
the contract clauses or wage determination was wrongly omitted.
Regardless of whether the proposed operation-of-law language will
be subject to a threshold requirement of an administrative
determination, the provision would operate in tandem with the continued
requirements that contracting agencies must insert the contract clause
in full into any new contracts and into existing contracts by
modification where the clause had been wrongly omitted. The Department
proposes language to clarify that these parallel provisions are both
effective, with proposed language in Sec. Sec. 1.6(f), 5.5(a)(1)(i),
and 5.6(a)(1)(ii) that explains that contracting agencies continue to
be required to insert the relevant clauses and wage determinations in
full notwithstanding that the clauses and wage determinations are also
effective by operation of law. As the clauses and applicable wage
determination(s) will still be effective as a matter of law even if
omitted from the contract, it will be advisable for contractors to
promptly raise any such errors of omission with their contracting
agencies. A contractor's failure to raise such issues will not relieve
the contractor from any of their obligations under the Davis-Bacon
labor standards. See, e.g., Coleman Construction Co., ARB No. 15-002,
2016 WL 4238468, at *6 & n.40 (June 8, 2016) (holding that ``[t]he law
is clear that, if a contract subject to Davis-Bacon lacks the wage
determination, it is the employer's obligation . . . to get it''); 48
CFR 52.222-52(c).
Similarly, proposed Sec. 5.5(d) also includes a parallel provision
that clarifies that the clauses and wage determinations are equally
effective if they are incorporated by reference, as a contract that
contains a provision expressly incorporating the clauses and the
applicable wage determination by reference may be tantamount to
insertion in full under the FAR. See 48 CFR 52.107, 52.252-2. In
addition, independent of the FAR, the terms of a document appropriately
incorporated by reference into a contract effectively bind the parties
to that contract. See 11 Williston on Contracts section 30:25
[[Page 15752]]
(4th ed.) (``Interpretation of several connected writings'').
These various proposed parallel regulatory provisions are
consistent and work together. They require the best practice of
physical insertion or modification of contract documents (or, where
warranted, incorporation by reference), so as to provide effective
notice to all interested parties, such as contract assignees,
subcontractors, sureties, and employees and their representatives. At
the same time, they create a safety net to ensure that where any
mistakes are made in initial determinations, the prevailing wage
required by statute will still be paid to the laborers and mechanics on
covered projects.
(2) Sec. 1.6(f) Post-Award Correction of Wage Determinations
In addition to the operation-of-law language at Sec. 5.5(e), the
Department proposes to make several changes to the current regulation
at Sec. 1.6(f) that contains the post-award procedure requiring
contracting agencies to incorporate an omitted wage determination.
First, as discussed above in section III.B.1.vi. of this NPRM (Section
1.6 Use and effectiveness of wage determinations), the Department
proposes adding titles for each subsection in Sec. 1.6 in order to
improve readability of the section as a whole. The proposed title for
Sec. 1.6(f) is ``Post-award determinations and procedures.'' The
Department also proposes dividing Sec. 1.6(f) into multiple
subsections to improve the organization and readability of the
important rules it articulates.
At the beginning of the section, the Department proposes a new
Sec. 1.6(f)(1), which explains generally that if a contract subject to
the labor standards provisions of the Acts referenced by Sec. 5.1 is
entered into without the correct wage determination(s), the relevant
agency must incorporate the correct wage determination into the
contract or require its incorporation. The Department proposes to add
language to Sec. 1.6(f)(1) expressly providing for an agency to
incorporate the correct wage determination post-award ``upon its own
initiative'' as well as upon the request of the Administrator. The
current version of Sec. 1.6(f) explicitly provides only for a
determination by the Administrator that a correction must be made. Some
contracting agencies had interpreted the existing language as
precluding an action by a contracting agency alone--without action by
the Administrator--to modify an existing contract to incorporate a
correct wage determination. The Department now proposes the new
language to clarify that the contracting agency can take such action
alone. Where a contracting agency does intend to take such an action,
proposed language at Sec. 1.6(f)(3)(iii) would require it to notify
the Administrator of the proposed action.
In the proposed reorganization of Sec. 1.6(f), the Department
would locate the discussion of the Administrator's determination that a
correction is necessary in a new Sec. 1.6(f)(2). The only change to
the language of that subsection is not substantive. The current text of
Sec. 1.6(f) refers to the action that the Administrator may take as an
action to ``issue a wage determination.'' However, in the majority of
cases, where a wage determination was not included in the contract, the
proper action by the Administrator will not be to issue a new or
updated wage determination, as that term is used in Sec. 1.6(c), but
to identify the appropriate existing wage determination that applies to
the contract. Thus, to eliminate any confusion, the Department proposes
to amend the language in this subsection to describe the
Administrator's action as ``requir[ing] the agency to incorporate'' the
appropriate wage determination. To the extent that, in an exceptional
case, the Department would need to ``issue'' a new project wage
determination to be incorporated into the contract, the proposed new
language would require the contracting agency to incorporate or require
the incorporation of that newly issued wage determination.
The Department also proposes to amend the language in Sec. 1.6(f)
that describes the potential corrective actions that an agency may
take. In a nonsubstantive change, the Department proposes to refer to
the wage determinations that must be newly incorporated as ``correct''
wage determinations instead of ``valid'' wage determinations. This is
because the major problem addressed in Sec. 1.6(f)--in addition to the
failure to include any wage determination at all--is the use of the
wrong wage determinations. Even while wrong for one contract, a wage
determination may be valid if used on a different contract to which it
properly applies. It is therefore more precise to describe a misused
wage determination as incorrect rather than invalid. The proposed
amendment would also add to the reference in the current regulation at
Sec. 1.6(f) to ``supplemental agreements'' or ``change orders'' as the
methods for modifying contracts post-award to incorporate valid wage
determinations. The Department, in a new Sec. 1.6(f)(3), would
instruct that agencies make such modifications additionally through the
exercise of ``any other authority that may be needed.'' This language
parallels the Department's regulation at 29 CFR 4.5 for similar
circumstances under the SCA.
The Department also proposes to make several changes to Sec.
1.6(f) to clarify that the requirements apply equally to projects
carried out with Federal financial assistance as they do to DBA
projects. The proposed initial paragraph at Sec. 1.6(f)(1) contains
new language that states expressly that where an agency is providing
Federal financial assistance, ``the agency must ensure that the
recipient or sub-recipient of the Federal assistance similarly
incorporates the correct wage determination(s) into its contracts.''
Similarly, the reference to agencies' responsibilities in proposed new
Sec. 1.6(f)(3) requires an agency to terminate and resolicit the
contract or to ``ensure'' the incorporation (in the alternative to
``incorporating'' the correct wage determination itself)--in
recognition that this language applies equally to direct procurement
where the agency is a party to a DBA-covered contract and Related Acts
where the agency must ensure that the relevant State or local agency
incorporates the corrected wage determination into the covered
contract. Finally, the Department also proposes to amend the
requirement that the incorporation should be ``in accordance with
applicable procurement law'' to instead reference ``applicable law.''
This change is intended to recognize that the requirements in Sec. 1.6
apply also to projects executed with Federal financial assistance under
the Related Acts, for which the Federal or State agency's authority may
not be subject to Federal procurement law. None of these proposed
changes represent substantive changes, as the Department has
historically applied Sec. 1.6(f) equally to both DBA and Related Act
projects. See, e.g., City of Ellsworth, ARB No. 14-042, at *6-8.
In the new Sec. 1.6(f)(3)(iv), the Department proposes to include
the requirements from the existing regulations that contractors must be
compensated for any change and that the incorporation must be
retroactive to the beginning of the construction. That retroactivity
requirement, however, is amended to include the qualification that the
Administrator may direct otherwise. As noted above, the Administrator
may make determinations of non-retroactivity on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, consistent with the SCA regulation on post-award
incorporation of wage determinations at
[[Page 15753]]
29 CFR 4.5(c), the Department proposes including language in a new
Sec. 1.6(f)(3)(ii) to require that incorporation of the correct wage
determination be accomplished within 30 days of the Administrator's
request, unless the agency has obtained an extension.
The Department also proposes to include new language at Sec.
1.6(f)(3)(v), applying to Related Acts, instructing that the agency
must suspend further payments or guarantees if the recipient refuses to
incorporate the specified wage determination and that the agency must
promptly refer the dispute to the Administrator for further proceedings
under Sec. 5.13. This language is a clarification and restatement of
the existing enforcement regulation at Sec. 5.6(a)(1), which provides
that no such payment or guarantee shall be made ``unless [the agency]
ensures that the clauses required by Sec. 5.5 and the appropriate wage
determination(s) are incorporated into such contracts.''
In proposed new language at Sec. 1.6(f)(3)(vi), the Department
includes additional safeguards for the circumstances in which an agency
does not retroactively incorporate the missing clauses or wage
determinations and instead seeks to terminate the contract. The
proposed language provides that before termination, the agency must
withhold or cross-withhold sufficient funds to remedy any back wage
liability or otherwise identify and obligate sufficient funds through a
termination settlement agreement, bond, or other satisfactory
mechanism. This language is consistent with the existing FAR provision
at 48 CFR 49.112-2(c) that requires contracting officers to ascertain
whether there are any outstanding labor violations and withhold
sufficient funds if possible before forwarding the final payment
voucher. It is also consistent with the language of the template
termination settlement agreements at 48 CFR 49.602-1 and 49.603-3 that
seek to assure that any termination settlement agreement does not
undermine the government's ability to fully satisfy any outstanding
contractor liabilities under the DBRA or other labor clauses.
Finally, the Department includes a proposed provision at Sec.
1.6(f)(4) that clarifies that the specific requirements of Sec. 1.6(f)
to physically incorporate the correct wage determination operate in
addition to the proposed requirement in Sec. 5.5(e) that makes the
correct wage determination applicable by operation of law. As discussed
above, such amendment and physical incorporation (including
incorporation by reference) is necessary in order to provide notice to
all interested parties, such as contract assignees, subcontractors,
sureties, and employees and their representatives.
(3) Sec. 5.6(a)(1) Post-Award Incorporation of Contract Clauses
The Department proposes to revise Sec. 5.6(a)(1) to include
language expressly providing a procedure for determining that the
required contract clauses were wrongly omitted from a contract. As
noted above, the Department has historically sought the retroactive
incorporation of missing contract clauses by reference to the language
regarding wage determinations in Sec. 1.6(f). The Department now
proposes to eliminate any confusion by creating a separate procedure at
Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(ii) that applies specifically to missing contract
clauses in a similar manner as Sec. 1.6(f) continues to apply to
missing or incorrect wage determinations.
The Department proposes to revise Sec. 5.6(a)(1) by renumbering
the existing regulatory text Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(i), and adding an
additional paragraph, (a)(1)(ii), to include the provision clarifying
that where a contract is awarded without the incorporation of the
required Davis-Bacon labor standards clauses required by Sec. 5.5, the
agency must incorporate the clauses--or require their incorporation.
This includes circumstances where the agency does not award a contract
directly but instead provides funding assistance for such a contract;
in such instances, the Federal agency, or other agency where
appropriate, must ensure that the recipient or sub-recipient of the
Federal assistance incorporates the required labor standards clauses
retroactive to the date of contract award, or the start of construction
if there is no award. The paragraph contains a similar set of
provisions as Sec. 1.6(f), with its proposed amendments--including
that the incorporation must be retroactive unless the Administrator
directs otherwise; that retroactive incorporation is required by the
request of the Administrator or upon the agency's own initiative; that
incorporation must take place within 30 days of a request by the
Administrator, unless an extension is granted; that the agency must
withhold or otherwise obligate sufficient funds to satisfy back wages
before any contract termination; and that the contractor should be
compensated for any increase in costs resulting from any change
required by the paragraph.
The Department also proposes to clarify the application of the
current regulation at Sec. 5.6(a)(1), which states that no payment,
advance, grant, loan, or guarantee of funds will be approved unless the
Federal agency ensures that the funding recipient or sub-recipient has
incorporated the required clauses into any contract receiving the
funding. Similar to the proposed provision in Sec. 1.6(f)(3)(v), a new
proposed provision at Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(ii)(C) would explain that such a
required suspension also applies if the funding recipient refuses to
retroactively incorporate the required clauses. In such circumstances,
the issue must be referred promptly to the Administrator for
resolution.
Similar to the proposed provision at Sec. 1.6(f)(4), the
Department also proposes a provision at Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(ii)(E) that
explains that the physical-incorporation requirements of Sec.
5.6(a)(1)(ii) would operate in tandem with the proposed language at
Sec. 5.5(e) making the contract clauses and wage determinations
effective by operation of law.
The proposed changes to Sec. 5.6 do not impose any additional
requirements on Federal agencies, as the existing regulation at Sec.
5.6 clearly states that the Federal agency is responsible for
incorporating the required clauses into its own contracts subject to
the Davis-Bacon labor standards and for ensuring the incorporation of
the required clauses into contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards entered into by the Federal agency's funding recipients.
Moreover, as noted above, this additional language is analogous to the
existing language at 29 CFR 1.6(f) under which the Department
historically has requested the incorporation of missing contract
clauses.
The proposed changes clarify that the requirement to incorporate
the Davis-Bacon labor standards clauses is an ongoing responsibility
that does not end upon contract award, and the changes expressly state
the Department's longstanding practice of requiring the relevant agency
to retroactively incorporate, or ensure retroactive incorporation of,
the required clauses in such circumstances. As discussed above, such
clarification is warranted because agencies occasionally have expressed
confusion about--and even questioned whether they possess--the
authority to incorporate, or ensure the incorporation of, the required
contract clauses after a contract has been awarded or construction has
started.
The Department's proposal similarly makes clear that while agencies
must retroactively incorporate the required clauses upon the request of
the Administrator, agencies also have the authority to make such
changes on their own initiative when they discover that an error has
been made. The proposed changes also eliminate any confusion of the
recipients of Federal funding as to the extent of the Federal funding
agency's authority to require such
[[Page 15754]]
retroactive incorporation in federally funded contracts subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards. Finally, the proposed changes do not alter
the provisions of 29 CFR 1.6(g), including its provisos.
Retroactive incorporation of the required contract clauses ensures
that agencies take every available step to ensure that workers on
covered contracts are paid the prevailing wages that Congress intended.
The Department welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposal.
xxi. Debarment
In accordance with the Department's goal of updating and
modernizing the DBA and Related Act regulations, as well as enhancing
the implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, the
Department proposes a number of revisions to the debarment regulations
that are intended both to promote consistent enforcement of the Davis-
Bacon labor standards provisions and to clarify the debarment standards
and procedures for the regulated community, adjudicators,
investigators, and other stakeholders.
The regulations implementing the DBA and the Related Acts currently
reflect different standards for debarment. Since 1935, the DBA has
mandated 3-year debarment ``of persons . . . found to have disregarded
their obligations to employees and subcontractors.'' 40 U.S.C.
3144(b)(1) and (b)(2) (emphasis added); see also 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1) and
(2) (setting forth the DBA's ``disregard of obligations'' standard).
Although the Related Acts themselves do not contain debarment
provisions, since 1951, their implementing regulations have imposed a
heightened standard for debarment for violations under the Related
Acts, providing that ``any contractor or subcontractor . . . found . .
. to be in aggravated or willful violation of the labor standards
provisions'' of any DBRA will be debarred ``for a period not to exceed
3 years.'' 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Department proposes
to harmonize the DBA and the Related Act debarment-related regulations
by applying the longstanding DBA debarment standard and related
provisions to the Related Acts as well. Specifically, in order to
create a uniform set of substantive and procedural requirements for
debarment under the DBA and the Related Acts, the Department proposes
five changes to the Related Act debarment regulations so that they
mirror the provisions governing DBA debarment.
First, the Department proposes to adopt the DBA statutory debarment
standard--disregard of obligations to employees or subcontractors--for
all debarment cases and to eliminate the Related Acts' regulatory
``aggravated or willful'' debarment standard. Second, the Department
proposes to adopt the DBA's mandatory 3-year debarment period for
Related Act cases and to eliminate the process under the Related Acts
regulations for early removal from the ineligible list (also known as
the debarment list \118\). Third, the Department proposes to expressly
permit debarment of ``responsible officers'' under the Related Acts.
Fourth, the Department proposes to clarify that under the Related Acts
as under the DBA, entities in which debarred entities or individuals
have an ``interest'' may be debarred. Related Acts regulations
currently require a ``substantial interest.'' Finally, the Department
proposes to make the scope of debarment under the Related Acts
consistent with the scope of debarment under the DBA by providing, in
accordance with the current scope of debarment under the DBA, that
Related Acts debarred persons and firms may not receive ``any contract
or subcontract of the United States or the District of Columbia,'' as
well as ``any contract or subcontract subject to the labor standards
provisions of the statutes listed in Sec. 5.1.'' See 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1)
and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ There are several terms referring to the same list (e.g.,
ineligible list, debarment list, debarred bidders list) and the
terms for this list may continue to change over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Relevant Legal Authority
The 1935 amendments to the DBA gave the Secretary authority to
enforce--not just set--prevailing wages, including through the remedy
of debarment. See Coutu, 450 U.S. at 758 & n.3, 759, 776; see also S.
Rep. No. 74-332, pt. 3, at 11, 14-15 (1935). Since then, the DBA has
required 3-year debarment of persons or firms that have been found to
``have disregarded their obligations to employees and subcontractors.''
40 U.S.C. 3144(b) (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a-2 and known as section 3(a)
of the DBA). The DBA also mandates debarment of entities in which
debarred persons or firms have an ``interest.'' 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(2).
Approximately 15 years later, the Truman Administration developed
and Congress accepted Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, a
comprehensive plan to improve Davis-Bacon enforcement and
administration. The Reorganization Plan provided that ``[i]n order to
assure coordination of administration and consistency of enforcement''
of the DBRA by the agencies who are responsible for administering them,
the Secretary of Labor was empowered to ``prescribe appropriate
standards, regulations, and procedures, which shall be observed by
these agencies.'' Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. app. 1.
In transmitting the Reorganization Plan to Congress, President Truman
observed that ``the principal objective of the plan is more effective
enforcement of labor standards'' with ``more uniform and more adequate
protection for workers through the expenditures made for the
enforcement of the existing legislation.'' Id. (1950 Special Message to
Congress).
Shortly after Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 was adopted, the
Department promulgated regulations adding ``a new Part 5,'' effective
July 1, 1951. 16 FR 4430, 4430. These regulations added the
``aggravated or willful'' debarment standard for the Related Acts. Id.
at 4431. The preamble to that final rule explained that adding the new
part 5 was to comply with Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950's
directive to prescribe standards, regulations, and procedures ``to
assure coordination of administration and consistency of enforcement.''
Id. at 4430. Since then, the two debarment standards--disregard of
obligations in DBA cases and willful or aggravated violations in
Related Acts cases--have co-existed, but with challenges along the way
that the Department seeks to resolve through this proposal.
(B) Proposed Regulatory Revisions
(1) Debarment Standard
a. Proposed Change to Debarment Standard
As noted previously, the DBA generally requires the payment of
prevailing wages to laborers and mechanics working on contracts with
the Federal Government or the District of Columbia for the construction
of public buildings and public works. 40 U.S.C. 3142(a). In addition,
Congress has included DBA prevailing wage provisions in numerous
Related Acts under which Federal agencies assist construction projects
through grants, loans, guarantees, insurance, and other methods. The
same contract clauses are incorporated into DBA--and Related Act--
covered contracts, and the laws apply the same labor standards
protections (including the obligation to pay prevailing wages) to
laborers and mechanics without regard to whether they are performing
work on a project subject to the DBA or one of the Related Acts.
Indeed, not only are some projects subject to the requirements of both
the
[[Page 15755]]
DBA and one of the Related Acts due to the nature and source of Federal
funding, but also the great majority of DBA-covered projects are also
subject to CWHSSA, one of the Related Acts.
Against this backdrop, there is no apparent need for a different
level of culpability for Related Acts debarment than for DBA debarment.
The sanction for failing to compensate covered workers in accordance
with applicable prevailing wage requirements should not turn on the
source or form of Federal funding. Nor is there any principled reason
that it should be easier for prime contractors, subcontractors, and
their responsible officials to avoid debarment in Related Acts cases.
Accordingly, the Department proposes to revise the governing
regulations so that conduct that warrants debarment on DBA construction
projects would also warrant debarment on Related Acts projects. This
proposal fits within the Department's well-established authority to
adopt regulations governing debarment of Related Acts contractors. See,
e.g., Janik Paving & Constr., 828 F.2d at 91; Copper Plumbing & Heating
Co. v. Campbell, 290 F.2d 368, 372-73 (D.C. Cir. 1961).
The potential benefits of adopting a single, uniform debarment
standard outweigh any benefits of retaining the existing dual-standard
framework. Other than debarment, contractors who violate the DBA and
Related Acts run the risk only of having to pay back wages, often long
after violations occurred. Even if these violations are discovered or
disclosed through an investigation or other compliance action,
contractors that violate the DBA or Related Acts can benefit from the
use of workers' wages, an advantage which can allow such contractors to
underbid more law-abiding contractors. If the violations never come to
light, such contractors pocket wages that belong to workers.
Strengthening the remedy of debarment encourages such unprincipled
contractors to comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements by
expanding the reach of this remedy when they do not. Facchiano Constr.
Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 987 F.2d 206, 214 (3d Cir. 1993) (observing
that debarment ``may in fact `be the only realistic means of deterring
contractors from engaging in willful [labor] violations based on a cold
weighing of the costs and benefits of noncompliance' '' (quoting Janik
Paving & Constr., 828 F.2d at 91)).
In proposing a unitary debarment standard, the Department intends
that well-established case law applying the DBA ``disregard of
obligations'' debarment standard would now also apply to Related Acts
debarment determinations. Under this standard, as a 2016 ARB decision
explained, ``DBA violations do not, by themselves, constitute a
disregard of an employer's obligations,'' and, to support debarment,
``evidence must establish a level of culpability beyond negligence''
and involve some degree of intent. Interstate Rock Prods., Inc., ARB
No. 15-024, 2016 WL 5868562, at *4 (Sept. 27, 2016) (footnotes
omitted). For example, the underpayment of prevailing wages, coupled
with the falsification of certified payrolls, constitute a disregard of
a contractor's obligations sufficient to establish the requisite level
of ``intent'' under the DBA debarment provisions. See id. Bad faith and
gross negligence regarding compliance have also been found to
constitute a disregard of DBA obligations. See id.\119\ The
Department's proposal to apply the DBA ``disregard of obligations''
standard as the sole debarment standard would maintain safeguards for
law-abiding contractors and responsible officers by retaining the
bedrock principle that DBA violations, by themselves, generally do not
constitute a sufficient predicate for debarment. Moreover, the
determination of whether debarment is warranted will continue to be
based on a consideration of the particular facts found in each
investigation and to include the same procedures and review process
that are currently in place to determine whether debarment is to be
pursued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ For the same reason, except in unusual circumstances, it
would generally not be appropriate to debar a contractor for
violations in circumstances where the contracting agency omitted the
contract clause and the clause was subsequently incorporated
retroactively or found to be effective by operation of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons and those discussed in more detail below, the
Department proposes to harmonize debarment standards by reorganizing
Sec. 5.12. As proposed, paragraph (a)(1) sets forth the disregard of
obligations debarment standard, which would apply to both DBA and
Related Acts violations. The proposed changes accordingly remove the
``willful or aggravated'' language from Sec. 5.12, with conforming
changes proposed in 29 CFR 5.6(b) and 5.7(a). Proposed paragraph (a)(2)
combines the parts of current Sec. Sec. 5.12(a)(1) and (a)(2)
concerning the different procedures for effectuating debarment under
the DBA and Related Acts.
b. Impacts of Proposed Debarment Standard Change
Because behavior that is willful or aggravated is also a disregard
of obligations, in many instances the proposed harmonization of the
debarment standards would apply to conduct that under the current
regulations would already be debarrable under both the DBA and Related
Acts. For example, falsification of certified payrolls to simulate
compliance with Davis-Bacon labor standards has long warranted
debarment under both the DBA and Related Acts. See, e.g., R.J. Sanders,
Inc., WAB No. 90-25, 1991 WL 494734, at *1-2 (Jan. 31, 1991) (DBA);
Coleman Constr. Co., ARB No. 15-002, 2016 WL 4238468, at *11 (Related
Acts). Kickbacks also warrant debarment under the DBA and Related Acts.
See, e.g., Killeen Elec. Co., Inc., WAB No. 87-49, 1991 WL 494685, at
*5-6 (DBA and Related Act). In fact, any violation that meets the
``willful or aggravated'' standard would necessarily also be a
disregard of obligations.
Under the proposed revisions, the subset of violations that would
only have been debarrable under the DBA disregard of obligations
standard now will be potentially subject to debarment under both the
DBA and Related Acts. The ARB recently discussed one example of this
type of violation, stating that intentional disregard of obligations
``may . . . include acts that are not willful attempts to avoid the
requirements of the DBA'' since contractors may not avoid debarment
``by asserting that they did not intentionally violate the DBA because
they were unaware of the Act's requirements.'' Interstate Rock Prods.,
ARB No. 15-024, 2016 WL 5868562, at *4 (citations omitted). Similarly,
``failures to set up adequate procedures to ensure that their
employees' labor was properly classified,'' which might not have been
found to be willful or aggravated Related Act violations, were
debarrable under the DBA disregard of obligations standard. Id. at *8.
Under the Department's proposed revisions to Sec. 5.12, these types of
violations could now result in debarment in Related Acts as well as DBA
cases. Additionally, under the disregard of obligations standard, prime
contractors and upper-tier subcontractors may be debarred if they fail
to flow down the required contract clauses into their lower-tier
subcontracts as required by Sec. 5.5(a)(6), or if they otherwise fail
to ensure that their subcontractors are in compliance with the Davis-
Bacon labor standards provisions. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(6)-(a)(7). See Ray
Wilson Co., ARB No. 02-086, 2004 WL 384729, at *10 (affirming debarment
under DBA of upper-tier subcontractor and its principals because of
subcontractor's ``abdication from--and, thus, its disregard of--its
[[Page 15756]]
obligations to employees of . . . its own lower-tier subcontractor'').
c. Benefits of Proposed Debarment Standard Change
i. Improved Compliance and Enforcement
Applying the DBA's disregard of obligations debarment standard in a
uniform, consistent manner would advance the purpose of the DBA, `` `a
minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers.' ''
Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
(quoting Binghamton Const. Co., 347 U.S. at 178). Both the DBA
statutory and the Related Acts regulatory debarment sanctions are
intended to foster compliance with labor standards. Interstate Rock
Products, ARB No. 15-024, 2016 WL 5868562, at *8 (``Debarment has
consistently been found to be a remedial rather than punitive measure
so as to encourage compliance and discourage employers from adopting
business practices designed to maximize profits by underpaying
employees in violation of the Act.'' (citations omitted)); Howell
Constr., Inc., WAB No. 93-12, 1994 WL 269361, at *7 (May 31, 1994).
Using the disregard of obligations debarment standard for all DBA and
DBRA work would enhance enforcement of and compliance with Davis-Bacon
labor standards in multiple ways.
First, it would better enlist the regulated community in Davis-
Bacon enforcement by increasing their incentive to comply with DBA
standards. See, e.g., Facchiano Constr., 987 F.2d at 214 (``Both Sec.
5.12(a)(1) and Sec. 5.12(a)(2) are designed to ensure the cooperation
of the employer, largely through self-enforcement.''); Brite Maint.
Corp., WAB No. 87-07, 1989 WL 407462, at *2 (May 12, 1989) (debarment
is a ``preventive tool to discourage violation[s]'').
Second, applying the disregard of obligations standard to Related
Act cases will serve the important public policy of holding
contractors' responsible officials accountable for non-compliance in a
more consistent manner, regardless of whether they are performing on a
Federal or federally funded project. Responsible officials currently
may be debarred under both the DBA and the Related Acts. See, e.g.,
P.B.M.C., Inc., WAB No. 87-57, 1991 WL 494688, at *7 (Feb. 8, 1991)
(stating that ``Board precedent does not permit a responsible official
to avoid debarment by claiming that the labor standards violations were
committed by agents or employees of the firm'' in Related Act case);
P.J. Stella Constr. Corp., WAB No. 80-13, 1984 WL 161738, at *3 (Mar.
1, 1984) (affirming DBA debarment recommendation because ``an employer
cannot take cover behind actions of his inexperienced agents or
representatives or the employer's own inexperience in fulfilling the
requirements of government construction contracts''); see also Howell
Constr., Inc., WAB No. 93-12, 1994 WL 269361, at *7 (DBA case)
(debarment could not foster compliance if ``corporate officials . . .
are permitted to delegate . . . responsibilities . . . , [and] to
delegate away any and all accountability for any wrong doing'').
Applying a unitary debarment standard would further incentivize
compliance by all contractors and responsible officers.
ii. Greater Consistency and Clarity
The Department also believes that applying the DBA debarment and
debarment-related standards to all Related Act prevailing wage cases
would eliminate confusion, and attendant litigation, that have resulted
from erroneous and inconsistent application of the two different
standards. The incorrect debarment standard has been applied in various
cases over the years, continuing to the present, notwithstanding the
ARB's repeated clarification. See, e.g., J.D. Eckman, Inc., ARB No.
2017-0023, 2019 WL 3780904, at *3 (July 9, 2019) (ALJ applied
inapplicable DBA standard rather than applicable aggravated or willful
standard; legal error of ALJ required remand for consideration of
debarment under the correct standard); Coleman Constr. Co., ARB No. 15-
002, 2016 WL 4238468, at *9-11 (noting that the ALJ had applied the
wrong debarment standard but concluding that the ALJ's ``conflat[ion of
the] two different legal standards'' was harmless error under the
circumstances). Most recently, the ARB vacated and remanded an ALJ's
decision to debar a subcontractor and its principal under the DBA,
noting that, even though the Department had not argued that the DBA
applied, the ALJ had applied the incorrect standard because ``the
contract was for a construction project of a non-[F]ederal building
that was funded by the U.S. Government but did not include the United
States as a party.'' Jamek Eng'g Servs., Inc., ARB No. 2020-0043, 2021
WL 2935807, at *8 (June 23, 2021).
Additionally, the ``aggravated or willful'' Related Acts standard
has been interpreted inconsistently over the past decades. In some
cases, the ARB has required actual knowledge of violations, while in
others it has applied (or at least recited with approval) a less
stringent standard that encompasses intentional disregard or plain
indifference to the statutory requirements but does not require actual
knowledge of the violations. Compare J.D. Eckman, Inc., ARB No. 2017-
0023, 2019 WL 3780904, at *3 (requiring actual knowledge or awareness
of the violation) and A. Vento Constr., WAB No. 87-51, 1990 WL 484312,
at *3 (Oct. 17, 1990) (aggravated or willful violations are
``intentional, deliberate, knowing violations of the [Related Acts']
labor standards provisions'') with Fontaine Bros., Inc., ARB No. 96-
162, 1997 WL 578333, at *3 (Sept. 16, 1997) (stating in Related Act
case that ``mere inadvertent or negligent conduct would not warrant
debarment, [but] conduct which evidences an intent to evade or a
purposeful lack of attention to, a statutory responsibility does'' and
that ``[b]lissful ignorance is no defense to debarment''); see also
Pythagoras Gen. Cont. Corp., ARB Nos. 08-107, 09-007, 2011 WL 1247207,
at *12 (``[A] `willful' violation encompasses intentional disregard or
plain indifference to the statutory requirements.''), aff'd sub. nom.
on other grounds Pythagoras Gen. Cont. Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor,
926 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
The Department believes that a single debarment standard would
provide consistency for the regulated community. Under the proposed
single ``disregard of obligations'' debarment standard, purposeful
inattention and gross negligence with regard to Davis-Bacon labor
standards obligations--as well as actual knowledge of or participation
in violations--could warrant debarment. The Department would continue
to carefully consider all of the facts involved in determining whether
a particular contractor's actions meet the proposed single standard.
(2) Length of Debarment Period
The Department also proposes to revise Sec. 5.12 (see proposed
Sec. 5.12(a)(1) and (2)) to make 3-year debarment mandatory under both
the DBA and Related Acts and to eliminate the regulatory provision
permitting early removal from the debarment list under the Related
Acts.
As noted above, since 1935, the DBA has mandated a 3-year debarment
of contractors whose conduct has met the relevant standard. In 1964,
the Department added two regulatory provisions that permit Related Acts
debarment for less than 3 years as well as early removal from the
debarment list. According to the final rule preamble, the Department
added these provisions ``to improve the debarment
[[Page 15757]]
provisions under Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 by providing for a
flexible period of debarment up to three years and by providing for
removal from the debarred bidders list upon a demonstration of current
responsibility.'' 29 FR 95.
The Department's experience over the nearly 60 years since then has
shown that those Related Act regulatory provisions that differ from the
DBA standard have not improved the debarment process for any of its
participants. Rather, they have added another element of confusion and
inconsistency to the administration and enforcement of the DBA and
Related Acts. For example, contractors and subcontractors have been
confused about which provision applies. See, e.g., Bob's Constr. Co.,
Inc., WAB No. 87-25, 1989 WL 407467, at *1 (May 11, 1989) (stating that
``[t]he [DBA] does not provide for less than a 3-year debarment'' in
response to contractor's argument that ``if the Board cannot reverse
the [ALJ's DBA] debarment order, it should consider reducing the 3-year
debarment.'').
Requiring a uniform 3-year debarment period would reduce confusion.
Although the regulations currently provide for an exception to 3-year
debarment, debarment in Related Acts cases is usually, but not always,
for 3 years. At times, the WAB has treated a 3-year debarment period as
presumptive and therefore has reversed ALJ decisions imposing debarment
for fewer than 3 years. See, e.g., Brite Maint. Corp., WAB No. 87-07,
at *1, *3 (imposing a 3-year debarment instead of the 2-year debarment
ordered by the ALJ); Early & Sons, Inc., WAB No. 86-25, at *1-2 (same);
Warren E. Manter Co., Inc., WAB No. 84-20, 1985 WL 167228, at *2-3
(June 21, 1985) (same). Under current case law, ``aggravated or
willful'' violations of the Related Acts labor standards provisions
warrant a three-year debarment period ``absent extraordinary
circumstances.'' A. Vento Constr., WAB No. 87-51, 1990 WL 484312, at *6
(emphasis added). ALJs have grappled with what constitutes
``extraordinary circumstances,'' and when to consider the factors
outlined in the DBRA early removal process. Id.; see also current 29
CFR 5.12(a)(1) and (c).\120\ The Department believes that setting a
uniform 3-year debarment period would provide clarity and promote
consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1) (``shall be ineligible for a period
not to exceed 3 years (from the date of publication by the
Comptroller General of the name or names of said contractor or
subcontractor on the ineligible list'' (emphasis added)); 29 CFR
5.12(c) (``Any person or firm debarred under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section may in writing request removal from the debarment list
after six months from the date of publication by the Comptroller
General of such person or firm's name on the ineligible list.''
(emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Department has concluded that in instances--usually
decades ago--when debarment for a period of less than 3 years was
warranted, it has not improved the debarment process or compliance.
See, e.g., Rust Constr. Co., Inc., WAB No. 87-15, 1987 WL 247054, at *2
(Oct. 2, 1987) (1-year debarment), aff'd sub nom. Rust Constr. Co.,
Inc. v. Martin, 779 F. Supp. 1030, 1031-32 (E.D. Mo. 1992) (affirming
WAB's imposition of 1-year debarment instead of no debarment, noting
``plaintiffs could have easily been debarred for three years.'');
Progressive Design & Build Inc., WAB No. 87-31, 1990 WL 484308, at *3
(Feb. 21, 1990) (18-month debarment); Morris Excavating Co., Inc., WAB
No. 86-27, 1987 WL 247046, at *1 (Feb. 4, 1987) (6-month, instead of
no, debarment).
For the above reasons, the Department proposes to modify the period
of Related Acts debarment to mirror the DBA's mandatory 3-year
debarment when contractors are found to have disregarded their
obligations to workers or subcontractors.
The Department also proposes to eliminate the provision at 29 CFR
5.12(c) that allows for Related Acts contractors and subcontractors the
possibility of early removal from the debarment list. Just as Related
Acts debarment for fewer than 3 years has rarely been permitted, early
removal from the debarment list has seldom been requested, and has been
granted even less often. The Department's experience has shown that the
possibility of early removal from the debarment list has not improved
the debarment process. Likewise, the ARB and WAB do not appear to have
addressed early removal for decades. At that time, the ARB and WAB
affirmed denials of early removal requests. See Atlantic Elec. Servs.,
AES, Inc., ARB No. 96-191, 1997 WL 303981, at *1-2 (May 28, 1997); Fred
A. Nemann, WAB No. 94-08, 1994 WL 574114, at *1, 3 (June 27, 1994).
Around the same time, early removal was affirmed on the merits in only
one case. See IBEW Loc. No. 103, ARB No. 96-123, 1996 WL 663205, at *4-
6 (Nov. 12, 1996). Additionally, the early-removal provision has caused
confusion among judges and the regulated community concerning the
proper debarment standard. For example, an ALJ erroneously relied on
the regulation for early relief from Related Acts debarment in
recommending that a DBA contractor not be debarred. Jen-Beck Assocs.,
Inc., WAB No. 87-02, 1987 WL 247051, at *1-2 (July 20, 1987) (remanding
case to ALJ for a decision ``in accordance with the proper standard for
debarment for violations of the [DBA]''). Accordingly, the Department
proposes to amend Sec. 5.12 by deleting paragraph (c) and renumbering
the remaining paragraph to accommodate this revision.
(3) Debarment of Responsible Officers
The Department also proposes to revise 29 CFR 5.12 to expressly
state that responsible officers of both DBA and Related Acts
contractors and subcontractors may be debarred if they disregard
obligations to workers or subcontractors. The purpose of debarring
individuals along with the entities in which they are, for example,
owners, officers, or managers is to close a loophole where such
individuals could otherwise continue to receive Davis-Bacon contracts
by forming or controlling another entity that was not debarred. The
current regulations mention debarment of responsible officers only in
the paragraph addressing the DBA debarment standard. See 29 CFR
5.12(a)(2). But it is well-settled that they can be debarred under both
the DBA and Related Acts. See Facchiano Constr. Co., 987 F.2d at 213-14
(noting that debarment of responsible officers is ``reasonable in
furthering the remedial goals of the Davis-Bacon Act and Related Acts''
and that there is ``no rational reason for including debarment of
responsible officers in one regulation, but not the other''); Hugo
Reforestation, Inc., ARB No. 99-003, 2001 WL 487727, at *12 (Apr. 30,
2001) (CWHSSA; citing Related Acts cases); see also Coleman Constr.
Co., ARB No. 15-002, 2016 WL 4238468, at *12. Thus, by expressly
stating that responsible officers may be debarred under both the DBA
and Related Acts, this proposed revision is consistent with current
law. The Department intends that Related Acts debarment of individuals
will continue to be interpreted in the same way as debarment of DBA
responsible officers has been interpreted.
(4) Debarment of Other Entities
The Department proposes another revision so that the Related Acts
regulations mirror the DBA regulations not only in practice, but also
in letter. Specifically, the Department proposes to revise 29 CFR
5.12(a)(1) (with conforming changes in 5.12 and elsewhere in part 5) to
state that ``any firm, corporation, partnership, or association in
which such contractor, subcontractor, or responsible officer has
[[Page 15758]]
an interest'' must be debarred under the Related Acts, as well as the
DBA. The DBA states that ``No contract shall be awarded to persons
appearing on the list or to any firm, corporation, partnership, or
association in which the persons have an interest . . .'' 40 U.S.C.
3144(b)(2) (emphasis added); see also 29 CFR 5.12(a)(2). In contrast,
the current regulations for Related Acts require debarment of ``any
firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such contractor
or subcontractor has a substantial interest.'' 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1)
(emphasis added); see also 29 CFR 5.12(b)(1), (d).
The 1982 final rule preamble for these provisions indicates that
the determination of ``interest'' (DBA) and ``substantial interest''
(Related Acts) are intended to be the same: ``In both cases, the intent
is to prohibit debarred persons or firms from evading the ineligibility
sanctions by using another legal entity to obtain Government
contracts.'' 47 FR 23658, 23661, implemented by 48 FR 19540. It is
``not intended to prohibit bidding by a potential contractor where a
debarred person or firm holds only a nominal interest in the potential
contractor's firm'' and ``[d]ecisions as to whether `an interest'
exists will be made on a case-by-case basis considering all relevant
factors.'' 47 FR 23658, 23661. The Department now proposes to eliminate
any confusion by requiring the DBA ``interest'' standard to be the
standard for both DBA and Related Acts debarment.
(5) Debarment Scope
The Department proposes to revise the scope of Related Acts
debarment so that it mirrors the scope of DBA debarment set out in
current 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1). Currently, under the Related Acts,
contractors are not generally debarred from being awarded any contracts
or subcontracts of the United States or the District of Columbia, but
rather are only barred from being awarded contracts subject to Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage standards. As proposed in revised Sec.
5.12(a)(1), in Related Acts as well as DBA cases, any debarred
contractor, subcontractor, or responsible officer would be barred for 3
years from ``[being] awarded any contract or subcontract of the United
States or the District of Columbia and any contract or subcontract
subject to the labor standards provisions of any of the statutes
referenced by Sec. 5.1.''
The Department believes that there is no reasoned basis to prohibit
debarred contractors or subcontractors whose violations have warranted
debarment for Related Acts violations from receiving Related Acts
contracts or subcontracts, but to permit them to continue to be awarded
direct DBA contracts during the Related Acts debarment period. The
proposed changes to Sec. 5.12(a)(1) would eliminate this anomalous
situation, and apply debarment consistently to contractors,
subcontractors, and their responsible officers who have disregarded
their obligations to workers or subcontractors, regardless of the
source of Federal funding or assistance for the work.
xxii. Employment Relationship Not Required
The Department proposes a few changes to reinforce the well-
established principle that Davis-Bacon labor standards requirements
apply even when there is no employment relationship between a
contractor and worker.
The DBA states that ``the contractor or subcontractor shall pay all
mechanics and laborers employed directly on the site of the work,
unconditionally and at least once a week, and without subsequent
deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts accrued at time of
payment, computed at wage rates not less than those stated in the
advertised specifications, regardless of any contractual relationship
which may be alleged to exist between the contractor or subcontractor
and the laborers and mechanics.'' 40 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1). The Department
has interpreted this coverage to include ``[a]ll laborers and mechanics
employed or working upon the site of the work,'' Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(i),
and the definitions of ``employed'' in parts 3 and 5 similarly make it
clear that the term includes all workers on the project and extends
beyond the traditional common-law employment relationship. See
Sec. Sec. 3.2(e) (``Every person paid by a contractor or subcontractor
in any manner for his labor . . . is employed and receiving wages,
regardless of any contractual relationship alleged to exist between him
and the real employer.'' (emphasis in original)); 5.2(o) (``Every
person performing the duties of a laborer or mechanic [on DBRA work] is
employed regardless of any contractual relationship alleged to exist
between the contractor and such person.'' (emphasis in original)); cf.
41 U.S.C. 6701(3)(B) (defining ``service employee'' under the Service
Contract Act to ``include[ ] an individual without regard to any
contractual relationship alleged to exist between the individual and a
contractor or subcontractor''); 29 CFR 4.155 (providing that whether a
person is a ``service employee'' does not depend on any alleged
contractual relationship).
The ARB and its predecessors have reached similar conclusions. See
Star Brite Constr. Co., Inc., ARB No. 98-113, 2000 WL 960260, at *5
(June 30, 2000) (``the fact that the workers [of a subcontractor] were
engaged in construction of the . . . project triggered their coverage
under the prevailing wage provisions of the [DBA]; lack of a
traditional employee/employer relationship between [the prime
contractor] and these workers did not absolve [the prime contractor]
from the responsibility to insure that they were compensated in
accordance with the requirements of the [DBA].''); Labor Servs., Inc.,
WAB No. 90-14, 1991 WL 494728, at *2 (May 24, 1991) (stating that the
predecessor to section 3142(c) `` `applies a functional rather than a
formalistic test to determine coverage: If someone works on a project
covered by the Act and performs tasks contemplated by the Act, that
person is covered by the Act, regardless of any label or lack thereof,'
'' and requiring a contractor to pay DBA prevailing wages to workers
labeled as ``subcontractors''). This broad scope of covered workers
also extends to CWHSSA, the Copeland Act, and other Related Acts. See
40 U.S.C. 3703(e) (Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 and 40 U.S.C.
3145--the authority for the 29 CFR parts 3 and 5 regulations-- apply to
CWHSSA); 29 CFR 3.2(e); see also, e.g., Ray Wilson Co., ARB No. 02-086,
2004 WL 384729, at *6 (finding workers met the DBA's ``functional
[rather than formalistic] test of employment'' and affirming ALJ's
order of prevailing wages and overtime due workers of second-tier
subcontractor); Joseph Morton Co., WAB No. 80-15, 1984 WL 161739, at
*2-3 (July 23, 1984) (rejecting contractor's argument that workers were
subcontractors not subject to DBA requirements and affirming ALJ
finding that contractor owed prevailing wage and overtime back wages on
contract subject to DBA and CWHSSA); cf. Charles Igwe, ARB No. 07-120,
2009 WL 4324725, at *3-5 (Nov. 25, 2009) (rejecting contractors' claim
that workers were independent contractors not subject to SCA wage
requirements, and affirming finding that contractors ``violated both
the SCA and the CWHSSA by failing to pay required wages, overtime,
fringe benefits, and holiday pay, and failing to keep proper
records'').
The Department proposes a few specific changes to the regulations
in recognition of this principle. First, the Department proposes to
amend Sec. Sec. 1.2 and 3.2 to include a definition of ``employed''
that is substantively
[[Page 15759]]
identical to the definition in Sec. 5.2. This change would clarify
that the DBA's expansive scope of ``employment'' also applies in the
context of wage surveys and determinations under part 1 and certified
payrolls under part 3. Second, references to employment (e.g.,
employee, employed, employing, etc.) in Sec. 5.5(a)(3) and (c), as
well as elsewhere in the regulations, have been revised to refer
instead to ``workers,'' ``laborers and mechanics,'' or ``work.''
Notwithstanding the broad scope of employment reflected in the existing
and proposed definitions and in case law, the Department believes that
this language, particularly in the contract clauses themselves, will
clarify this principle and eliminate ambiguity. Consistent with the
above, however, to the extent that the words ``employee,''
``employed,'' or ``employment'' are used in this preamble or in the
regulations, the Department intends that those words be interpreted
expansively to not limit coverage to workers in an employment
relationship. Finally, the Department proposes to clarify in the
definitions of ``employed'' in parts 1, 3, and 5 that the broad
definition applies equally to ``public building[s] or public work[s]''
and to ``building[s] or work[s] financed in whole or in part by
assistance from the United States through loan, grant, loan guarantee
or insurance, or otherwise.''
xxiii. Withholding
The DBA, CWHSSA, and the regulations at 29 CFR part 5 authorize
withholding from the contractor accrued payments or advances equal to
the amount of unpaid wages due laborers and mechanics under the DBRA.
See 40 U.S.C. 3142(c)(3), 3144(a)(1) (DBA withholding), 3702(d),
3703(b)(2) (CWHSSA withholding); 29 CFR 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 5.9.
Withholding helps to realize the goal of protecting workers by ensuring
that money is available to pay them for the work they performed but for
which they were undercompensated. Withholding plays an important role
in the statutory schemes to ensure payment of prevailing wages and
overtime to laborers and mechanics on Federal and federally assisted
construction projects. The regulations currently require, among other
things, that upon a request from the Department, contracting agencies
must withhold so much of the contract funds as may be considered
necessary to pay the full amount of wages required by the contract, and
in the case of CWHSSA, liquidated damages. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(2) and
(b)(3) and 5.9. The Department proposes a number of regulatory
revisions to reinforce the current withholding provisions.
(A) Cross-Withholding
Cross-withholding is currently permitted and is a procedure through
which agencies withhold contract monies due a contractor from contracts
other than those on which the alleged violations occurred. Prior to the
1981-1982 rulemaking, Federal agencies generally refrained from cross-
withholding for DBRA liabilities because neither the DBA nor the CWHSSA
regulations specifically provided for it. In 1982, however, the
Department amended the contract clauses to specifically provide for
cross-withholding. See 47 FR 23658, 23659-60 \121\ (cross-withholding
permitted as stated in Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3)); Group Dir., Claims
Grp./GGD, B-225091 et al., 1987 WL 101454, at *2 (Comp. Gen. Feb. 20,
1987) (the Department's 1983 Davis-Bacon regulatory revisions, e.g.,
Sec. 5.5(a)(2), ``now provide that the contractor must consent to
cross-withholding by an explicit clause in the contract'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The May 28, 1982 final rule was implemented in part,
including Sec. Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and 5.5(b)(3), in 1983. 48 FR 19540,
19540, 19545-47 (Apr. 29, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposes additional amendments to the cross-
withholding contract clause language at Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) to
strengthen the Department's ability to cross-withhold when contractors
use single-purpose entities, joint ventures or partnerships, or other
similar vehicles to bid on and enter into DBRA-covered contracts. As
noted above with reference to the proposed definition of prime
contractor, the interposition of another entity between the agency and
the general contractor is not a new phenomenon. In general, however,
the use of single-purpose limited liability company (LLC) entities and
similar joint ventures and teaming agreements in government contracting
has been increasing in recent decades. See, e.g., John W. Chierichella
& Anne Bluth Perry, Fed. Publ'ns LLC, Teaming Agreements and Advanced
Subcontracting Issues, TAASI GLASS-CLE A at *1-6 (2007); A. Paul
Ingrao, Joint Ventures: Their Use in Federal Government Contracting, 20
Pub. Cont. L.J. 399 (1991).
In response to this increase in the use of such single-purpose
legal entities or arrangements, Federal agencies have often required
special provisions to assure that liability among joint venturers will
be joint and several. See, e.g., Ingrao, supra, at 402-03 (``Joint and
several liability special provisions vary with each procuring agency
and range from a single statement to complex provisions regarding joint
and several liability to the government or third parties.''). While the
corporate form may be a way for joint venturers to attempt to insulate
themselves from liability, commentators have noted that this
``advantage will rarely be available in a Government contracts context,
because the Government will customarily demand financial and
performance guarantees from the parent companies as a condition of its
`responsibility' determination.'' Chierichella & Perry, supra, at *15-
16.
Without amendment to the existing regulations, however, the
Government is not able to effectively demand similar guarantees to
secure performance of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Unless
the cross-withholding regulations are amended, the core DBRA remedy of
cross-withholding may be of limited effectiveness as to joint ventures
and other similar contracting vehicles such as single-purpose LLCs.
This enforcement gap exists because, as a general matter, cross-
withholding (referred to as ``offset'' under the common law) is not
available unless there is a ``mutuality of debts'' in that the creditor
and debtor involved are exactly the same person or legal entity. See
R.P. Newsom, 39 Comp. Gen. 438, 439 (1959). That general rule, however,
can be waived by agreement of the parties. See Lila Hannebrink, 48
Comp. Gen. 365, 365 (1968) (allowing cross-withholding against a joint
venture for debt of an individual joint venturer on a prior contract,
where all parties agreed).
The structure of the Davis-Bacon Act, with its implementation in
part through the mechanism of contract clauses, provides both the
opportunity and the responsibility of the Government to ensure--by
contract--that the use of the corporate form does not interfere with
Congress's mandate that workers be paid the required prevailing wage
and that withholding ensures the payment of any back wages owed. It is
a cardinal rule of law that ``the interposition of a corporation will
not be allowed to defeat a legislative policy, whether that was the aim
or only the result of the arrangement.'' Anderson v. Abbott, 321 U.S.
349, 363 (1944). This principle is generally applied to allow, in
appropriate circumstances, for corporate forms to be disregarded by
``piercing of corporate veil.'' \122\ However, where a
[[Page 15760]]
policy is enacted by contract, it is inefficient and unnecessary to
rely on post hoc veil-piercing to assure that the legislative policy is
enacted. The Government can instead, by contract, assure that the use
of single-purpose entities, subsidiaries, or joint ventures interposed
as nominal ``prime contractors'' does not inhibit the application of
the Congressional mandate to assure back wages are recovered through
withholding.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ The Department has long applied corporate veil-piercing
principles under the DBRA. See, e.g., Thomas J. Clements, Inc., ALJ
No. 82-DBA-27, 1984 WL 161753, at *9 (June 14, 1984) (recognizing,
in the context of a Davis-Bacon Act enforcement action, that a court
may ``pierce the corporation veil where failure to do so will
produce an unjust result''), aff'd, WAB No. 84-12, 1985 WL 167223,
at *1 (Jan. 25, 1985) (adopting ALJ's decision as the Wage Appeals
Board's own decision); Griffin v. Sec'y of Labor, ARB Nos. 00-032,
00-033, 2003 WL 21269140, at *8, n.2 (May 30, 2003) (various
contractors and their common owner, who ``made all decisions
regarding operations of all of the companies,'' were one another's
``alter egos'' in Act debarment action).
\123\ Cf. Robert W. Hamilton, The Corporate Entity, 49 Tex. L.
Rev. 979, 984 (1971) (noting the difference in application of
``piercing the veil'' concepts in contract law because ``the
creditor more or less assumed the risk of loss when he dealt with a
`shell'; if he was concerned, he should have insisted that some
solvent third person guarantee the performance by the
corporation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Department proposes amending the withholding
contract clauses at Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) to ensure that any
entity that directly enters into a contract covered by the DBRA must
agree to cross-withholding against it to cover any violations of
specified affiliates under other covered contracts entered into by
those affiliates. The covered affiliates are those entities included
within the proposed definition of prime contractor in Sec. 5.2:
Controlling shareholders or members, joint venturers or partners, and
contractors (e.g., general contractors) that have been delegated
significant construction and/or compliance responsibilities. Thus, for
example, if a general contractor secures two prime contracts for two
Related Act-covered housing projects through separate single-purpose
entities that it controls, the new cross-withholding language would
allow the Department to seek cross-withholding on either contract even
though the contracts are nominally with separate legal entities. Or, if
a general contractor is delegated all of the construction and
compliance duties on a first contract held by an unrelated developer-
owner, but the general contractor itself holds a prime contract on a
separate second contract, the Department could seek cross-withholding
from the general contractor on the second contract, which it holds
directly, to remedy violations on the first contract.
The Department also proposes to add language to Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and
(b)(3) to clarify that the Government may pursue cross-withholding
regardless of whether the contract on which withholding is sought was
awarded by, or received Federal assistance from, the same agency that
awarded or assisted the prime contract on which the violations
necessitating the withholding occurred. This revision is in accordance
with the Department's longstanding policy, the current language of the
withholding clauses, and case law on the use of setoff procedures in
other contexts dating to 1946. See, e.g., United States v. Maxwell, 157
F.3d 1099, 1102 (7th Cir. 1998) (``[T]he [F]ederal [G]overnment is
considered to be a single-entity that is entitled to set off one
agency's debt to a party against that party's debt to another
agency.''); Cherry Cotton Mills v. United States, 327 U.S. 536, 539
(1946) (same). However, because the current Davis-Bacon regulatory
language does not explicitly state that funds may be withheld from
contracts awarded by other agencies, some agencies have questioned
whether cross-withholding is appropriate in such circumstances. This
proposed addition would expressly dispel any such uncertainty or
confusion. Conforming edits have also been proposed for Sec. 5.9.
The Department also proposes certain non-substantive changes to
streamline the withholding clauses. The Department proposes to include
in the withholding clause at Sec. 5.5(a)(2)(i) similar language as in
the CWHSSA withholding clause at Sec. 5.5(b)(3) authorizing
withholding necessary ``to satisfy the liabilities . . . for the full
amount of wages . . .and monetary relief'' of the contractor or
subcontractor under the contract--instead of the specific language
currently in Sec. 5.5(a)(2) that re-states the lists of the types of
covered employees already listed in Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(i). The Department
also proposes using the same term ``so much of the accrued payments or
advances'' in both Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3), instead of simply
``sums'' as currently written in Sec. 5.5(b)(3). Finally, the
Department also proposes to adopt in Sec. 5.5(b)(3) the use of the
term ``considered,'' as used in Sec. 5.5(a)(2), instead of
``determined'' as currently used in Sec. 5.5(b)(3), to refer to the
determination of the amount of funds to withhold, as this mechanism
applies in the same manner under both clauses.
Conforming edits for each of the above changes to the withholding
clauses at Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) have also been proposed for the
explanatory section at Sec. 5.9. In addition, the Department proposes
clarifying in a new paragraph (c) of Sec. 5.9 that cross-withholding
from a contract held by a different legal entity is not appropriate
unless the withholding provisions in that entity's contract were
incorporated in full or by reference. Absent exceptional circumstances,
cross-withholding would not be permitted from a contract held by a
different legal entity where the labor standards were incorporated only
by operation of law into that contract.
(B) Suspension of Funds for Recordkeeping Violations
The Department also proposes to add language clarifying that, as
proposed in Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(iv), funds may be suspended when a
contractor has refused to submit certified payroll or provide the
required records as set forth at Sec. 5.5(a)(3).
(C) The Department's Priority To Withheld Funds
The Department proposes revising Sec. Sec. 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3)
and 5.9 to codify the Department's longstanding position that,
consistent with the DBRA's remedial purpose to ensure that prevailing
wages are fully paid to covered workers, the Department has priority to
funds withheld (including funds that have been cross-withheld) for
violations of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements and CWHSSA
overtime requirements. See also PWRB,\124\ DBA/DBRA/CWHSSA Withholding
and Disbursement, at 4. In order to ensure that underpaid workers
receive the monies to which they are entitled, contract funds that are
withheld to reimburse workers owed Davis-Bacon or CWHSSA wages, or
both, must be reserved for that purpose and may not be used or set
aside for other purposes until such time as the prevailing wage and
overtime issues are resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affording the Department first priority to withheld funds, above
competing claims, ``effectuate[s] the plain purpose of these Federal
labor standards laws . . . [to] insure that every laborer and mechanic
is paid the wages and fringe benefits to which [the DBA and DBRA]
entitle them.'' Quincy Hous. Auth. LaClair Corp., WAB No. 87-32, 1989
WL 407468, at *3 (Feb. 17, 1989) (holding that ``the Department of
Labor has priority rights to all funds remaining to be paid on a
[F]ederal or federally assisted contract, to the extent necessary to
pay laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors
under such contract the full amount of wages required by [F]ederal
labor standards laws and the contract . . .''). The proposed
withholding priority serves an
[[Page 15761]]
important public policy of providing restitution for work that laborers
and mechanics have already performed, but for which they were not paid
the full DBA or DBRA wages they were owed in the first place.
Specifically, the Department proposes to set forth expressly that
it has priority to funds withheld for DBA, CWHSSA, and other Related
Act wage underpayments over competing claims to such withheld funds by:
(1) A contractor's surety(ies), including without limitation
performance bond sureties, and payment bond sureties;
(2) A contracting agency for its reprocurement costs;
(3) A trustee(s) (either a court-appointed trustee or a U.S.
trustee, or both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or a contractor's
bankruptcy estate;
(4) A contractor's assignee(s);
(5) A contractor's successor(s); or
(6) A claim asserted under the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901-
3907.
To the extent that a contractor did not have rights to funds
withheld for Davis-Bacon wage underpayments, nor do their sureties,
assignees, successors, creditors (e.g., the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service), or bankruptcy estates have greater rights than the
contractor. See, e.g., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., ARB No. 00-018, 2003 WL
21499861, at *7-9 (DOL priority to DBA withheld funds where surety
``ha[d] not satisfied all of the bonded [and defaulted prime]
contractor's obligations, including the obligation to ensure the
payment of prevailing wages''); Unity Bank & Trust Co. v. United
States, 5 Cl. Ct. 380, 384 (1984) (assignees acquire no greater rights
than their assignors); Richard T. D'Ambrosia, 55 Comp. Gen. 744, 746
(1976) (IRS tax levy cannot attach to money withheld for DBA
underpayments in which contractor has no interest).
Withheld funds always should, for example, be used to satisfy DBA
and DBRA wage claims before any reprocurement costs (e.g., following a
contractor's default or termination from all or part of the covered
work) are collected by the Government. See WHD Opinion Letter DBRA-132
(May 8, 1985). The Department has explained that ``[t]o hold otherwise
. . . would be inequitable and contrary to public policy since the
affected employees already have performed work from which the
Government has received the benefit and that to give contracting agency
reprocurement claims priority in such instances would essentially
require the employees to unfairly pay for the breach of contract
between their employer and the Government.'' Id.; see also PWRB, DBA/
DBRA/CWHSSA Withholding and Disbursement, at 4.\125\ This rationale
applies with equal force in support of the Department's priority to
withheld funds over the other types of competing claims listed in this
proposed regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's rights to withheld funds for unpaid earnings also
are superior to performance and payment bond sureties of a DBA or DBRA
contractor. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl.
567, 581-82 (2002) (surety did not acquire rights that contractor
itself did not have); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., ARB No. 00-018, 2003 WL
21499861 at *7-9 (ARB found that Administrator's claim to withheld
contract funds for DBA wages took priority over performance (and
payment) bond surety's claim); see also Quincy Hous. Auth. LaClair
Corp., WAB No. 87-32, 1989 WL 407468, at *3. The Department can
withhold unaccrued funds such as advances until ``sufficient funds are
withheld to compensate employees for the wages to which they are
entitled'' under the DBA. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., ARB No. 00-018, 2003
WL 21499861, at *6; see also 29 CFR 5.9.
Similarly, the Department has priority over assignees (e.g.,
assignees under the Assignment Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. 3727, 41
U.S.C. 6305) to DBRA withheld funds. For example, in Unity Bank & Trust
Co., 5 Cl. Ct. at 383, the employees' claim to withheld funds for a
subcontractor's DBA wage underpayments had priority over a claim to
those funds by the assignee--a bank that had lent money to the
subcontractor to finance the work.
Nor are funds withheld pursuant to the DBRA for prevailing wage
underpayments property of a contractor's (debtor's) bankruptcy estate.
See In re Quinta Contractors, Inc., 34 B.R. 129 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1983);
cf. Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 135-36 (1962)
(concluding, in a case under the Miller Act, that ``the Bankruptcy Act
simply does not authorize a trustee to distribute other people's
property among a bankrupt's creditors''). When a contractor has
violated its contract with the government--as well as the DBA or DBRA--
by failing to pay required wages and fringe benefits, it has not earned
its contractual payment. Therefore, withheld funds are not property of
the contractor-debtor's bankruptcy estate. Cf. Professional Tech.
Servs., Inc. v. IRS, No. 87-780C(2), 1987 WL 47833, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
Oct. 15, 1987) (when DOL finds [an SCA] violation and issues a
withholding letter, that act ``extinguishe[s]'' whatever property right
the debtor (contractor) might otherwise have had to the withheld funds,
subject to administrative review if the contractor chooses to pursue
it); In re Frank Mossa Trucking, Inc., 65 B.R. 715, 7-18 (Bankr. D.
Mass. 1985) (pre-petition and post-petition SCA withholding was not
property of the contractor-debtor's bankruptcy estate).
Various Comptroller General decisions further underscore these
principles. See, e.g., Carlson Plumbing & Heating, B-216549, 1984 WL
47039 (Comp. Gen. Dec. 5, 1984) (DBA and CWHSSA withholding has first
priority over IRS tax levy, payment bond surety, and trustee in
bankruptcy); Watervliet Arsenal, B-214905, 1984 WL 44226, at *2 (Comp.
Gen. May 15, 1984) (DBA and CWHSSA wage claims for the benefit of
unpaid workers had first priority to retained contract funds, over IRS
tax claim and claim of payment bond surety), aff'd sub nom on
reconsideration Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., B-214905, 1984 WL 46318 (Comp.
Gen. July 10, 1984); Forest Serv. Request for Advance Decision, B-
211539, 1983 WL 27408, at *1 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 26, 1983) (DOL's
withholding claim for unpaid DBA wages prevailed over claims of payment
bond surety and trustee in bankruptcy).
The Department proposes codifying its position that DBRA
withholding has priority over claims under the Prompt Payment Act, 31
U.S.C. 3901-3907. The basis for this proposed provision is that a
contractor's right to prompt payment does not have priority over
legitimate claims--such as withholding--arising from the contractor's
failure to fully satisfy its obligations under the contract. See, e.g.,
31 U.S.C. 3905(a) (concerning requirement that payments to prime
contractors be for performance by such contractor that conforms to the
specifications, terms, and conditions of its contract).
The Department welcomes comments on whether the listed priorities
should be effectuated by different language in the contract clause,
such as an agreement between the parties that a contractor forfeits any
legal or equitable interest in withheld payments once it commits
violations, subject to procedural requirements that allow the
contractor to contest the violations.
xxiv. Subpart C--Severability
The Department proposes to add a new subpart C, titled
``Severability'', which would contain a new Sec. 5.40, also titled
``Severability.'' The proposed severability provision explains that
each provision is capable of operating independently from one another,
and
[[Page 15762]]
that if any provision of part 5 is held to be invalid or unenforceable
by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, or stayed
pending further agency action, the Department intends that the
remaining provisions remain in effect.
4. Non-Substantive Changes
xxv. Plain Language
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner.
The Department has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885). The Department requests comment on the proposed rule with
respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
xxvi. Other Changes
The Department proposes to make non-substantive revisions
throughout the regulations to address typographical and grammatical
errors and to remove or update outdated or incorrect regulatory and
statutory cross-references. The Department also proposes to adopt more
inclusive language, including terminology that is gender-neutral, in
the proposed regulations. These changes are consistent with general
practice for Federal government publications; for example, guidance
from the Office of the Federal Register advises agencies to avoid using
gender-specific job titles (e.g., ``foremen'').\126\ These non-
substantive revisions do not alter the substantive requirements of the
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See Office of the Federal Register, Drafting Legal
Documents: Principles of Clear Writing Sec. 18, available at
https://www.archives.gov/Federal-register/write/legal-docs/clear-writing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and its attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require the Department
to consider the agency's need for its information collections, their
practical utility, as well as the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public, and how to
minimize those burdens. The PRA typically requires an agency to provide
notice and seek public comments on any proposed collection of
information contained in a proposed rule. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B);
5 CFR 1320.8.
This rulemaking would affect existing information collection
requirements previously approved under OMB control number 1235-0008
(Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll) and OMB control number 1235-0023
(Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional
Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts/Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act). As required by the PRA, the
Department has submitted information collection revisions to OMB for
review to reflect changes that will result from the proposed rule.
Summary: This rulemaking proposes to amend regulations issued under
the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts that set forth rules for the
administration and enforcement of the Davis-Bacon labor standards that
apply to Federal and federally assisted construction projects. The
Department proposes to add two new recordkeeping requirements
(telephone number and email address) to the collection under 1235-0008;
however, it does not propose that such data be added to the certified
weekly payroll submission. The Department proposes to add paragraph
(a)(3)(iii) to 29 CFR 5.5, which will require all contractors,
subcontractors, and recipients of Federal assistance to maintain and
preserve Davis-Bacon contracts, subcontracts, and related documents for
3 years after all the work on the prime contract is completed. These
related documents include contractor and subcontractor bids and
proposals, amendments, modifications, and extensions to contracts,
subcontracts, and agreements. The Department notes that it is a normal
business practice to keep such documents and does not expect an
increase in burden associated with this requirement. The Department
requests public comment on its assumption that contractors and
subcontractors already maintain these records as a matter of good
business practice. Further, the Department adds proposed regulatory
citations to the collection under 1235-0023, however there is no change
in burden.
Purpose and use: This proposed rule continues the already existing
requirements that contractors and subcontractors must certify their
payrolls by attesting that persons performing work on DBRA covered
contracts have received the proper payment of wages and fringe
benefits. Contracting officials and WHD personnel use the records and
certified payrolls to verify contractors pay the required rates for
work performed.
Additionally, the Department reviews a proposed conformance action
report to determine the appropriateness of a conformance action. Upon
completion of review, the Department approves, modifies, or disapproves
a conformance request and issues a determination. The Department also
reviews requests for approval of unfunded fringe benefit plans to
determine the propriety of the plans.
WHD obtains PRA clearance under control number 1235-0008 for an
information collection covering the Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll and
certain proposed new recordkeeping requirements. An Information
Collection Request has been submitted to revise the approval to
incorporate the regulatory citations in this proposed rule applicable
to the proposed rule and adjust burden estimates to reflect a slight
increase in burden associated with the proposed new recordkeeping
requirements.
WHD obtains PRA clearance under OMB control number 1235-0023 for an
information collection related to reporting requirements related to
Conformance Reports and Unfunded Fringe Benefit Plans. This Information
Collection Request is being submitted as the proposed rule proposes to
revise the location within the regulatory text of certain requirements.
An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB to revise
the approval to incorporate the regulatory citations in this proposed
rule.
Information and technology: There is no particular order or form of
records prescribed by the proposed regulations. A respondent may meet
the requirements of this proposed rule using paper or electronic means.
Public comments: The Department seeks comments on its analysis that
this NPRM creates a slight increase in paperwork burden associated with
ICR 1235-0008 and no increase in burden to ICR 1235-0023. Commenters
may send their views on the Department's PRA analysis in the same way
they send comments in response to the NPRM as a whole (e.g., through
the www.regulations.gov website), including as part of a comment
responding to the broader NPRM. While much of the information provided
to OMB in support of the information collection request appears in the
preamble, interested parties may obtain a copy of the full copy of the
supporting statements by sending a written request to the mail address
shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble or by
calling the number listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Alternatively, a copy of the ICR with applicable supporting
documentation; including a description of the likely respondents,
proposed frequency of response, and estimated
[[Page 15763]]
total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov
website on the day following publication of this notice or by visiting
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain website. In addition to having
an opportunity to file comments with the Department, comments about the
paperwork implications of the proposed regulations may be addressed to
the OMB. Comments to the OMB should be directed to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for WHD, New Executive Office Building, Room
10235, Washington, DC 20503. The OMB will consider all written comments
that the agency receives during the comment period of this proposed
rule. As previously indicated, written comments directed to the
Department may be submitted during the comment period of this proposed
rule.
The OMB and the Department are particularly interested in comments
that:
Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Total burden for the subject information collections, including the
burdens that will be unaffected by this proposed rule and any changes
are summarized as follows:
Type of review: Revisions to currently approved information
collections.
Agency: Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Title: Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll.
OMB Control Number: 1235-0008.
Affected public: Private sector, businesses or other for-profits
and Individuals or Households.
Estimated number of respondents: 154,500 (0 from this rulemaking).
Estimated number of responses: 9,194,616 (1,200,000 from this
rulemaking).
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Estimated annual burden hours: 7,464,975 (3,333 burden hours due to
this NPRM).
Capital/Start-up costs: $0 ($0 from this rulemaking).
Title: Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and
Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
OMB Control Number: 1235-0023.
Affected public: Private sector, businesses or other for-profits
and Individuals or Households.
Estimated number of respondents: 8,518 (0 from this rulemaking).
Estimated number of responses: 8,518 (0 from this rulemaking).
Frequency of response: on occasion.
Estimated annual burden hours: 2,143 (0 from this rulemaking).
Estimated annual burden costs: 0.
V. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive
Order 13563, Improved Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is
significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and OMB review.\127\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as a regulatory
action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as economically
significant); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is
economically significant. Although the Department has only quantified
costs of $12.6 million in Year 1, there are multiple components of the
rule that could not be quantified due to data limitations, so it is
possible that the aggregate effect of the rule is larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ See 58 FR 51735, 51741 (Oct. 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to, among other things,
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs; that it is tailored to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives;
and that, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the
agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some costs and benefits are
difficult to quantify and provides that, when appropriate and permitted
by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are
difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity,
fairness, and distributive impacts. The analysis below outlines the
impacts that the Department anticipates may result from this proposed
rule and was prepared pursuant to the above-mentioned executive orders.
A. Introduction
1. Background and Need for Rulemaking
In order to provide greater clarity and enhance their usefulness in
the modern economy, the Department proposes to update and modernize the
regulations that implement the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. The Davis-
Bacon Act (DBA), enacted in 1931, requires the payment of locally
prevailing wages and fringe benefits on Federal contracts for
construction. See 40 U.S.C. 3142. The law applies to workers on
contracts awarded directly by Federal agencies and the District of
Columbia that are in excess of $2,000 and for the construction,
alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works. Congress
subsequently incorporated DBA prevailing wage requirements into
numerous statutes (referred to as Related Acts) under which Federal
agencies assist construction projects through grants, loans,
guarantees, insurance, and other methods.
The Department seeks to address a number of outstanding challenges
in the program while also providing greater clarity in the DBA and
Related Acts (collectively, the DBRA) regulations and enhancing their
usefulness in the modern economy. In this rulemaking, the Department
proposes to update and modernize the regulations implementing the DBRA
at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5. Among other proposals as discussed more
fully earlier in this preamble, the Department proposes:
To return to the definition of ``prevailing wage'' in
Sec. 1.2 that it used
[[Page 15764]]
from 1935 to 1983.\128\ Currently, a single wage rate may be identified
as prevailing in the area only if it is paid to a majority of workers
in a classification on the wage survey; otherwise a weighted average is
used. The Department proposes to return instead to the ``three-step''
method in effect before 1983. Under that method (also known as the 30-
percent rule), in the absence of a wage rate paid to a majority of
workers in a particular classification, a wage rate will be considered
prevailing if was paid to at least 30 percent of such workers. Only if
no single wage rate is paid to at least 30 percent of workers in a
classification will an average rate be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ The 1981-1982 rulemaking went into effect April 29, 1983.
48 FR 19532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To revise Sec. 1.6(c)(1) to provide a mechanism to
regularly update certain non-collectively bargained prevailing wage
rates based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index.
The mechanism is intended to keep such rates more current between
surveys so that they do not become out-of-date and fall behind
prevailing wage rates in the area.
To expressly give the Administrator authority and
discretion to adopt State or local wage determinations as the Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage where certain specified criteria are satisfied.
To return to a prior policy made during the 1981-1982
rulemaking related to the delineation of wage survey data submitted for
``metropolitan'' or ``rural'' counties in Sec. 1.7(b). Through this
change, the Department seeks to more accurately reflect modern labor
force realities, to allow more wage rates to be determined at smaller
levels of geographical aggregation, and to increase the sufficiency of
data at the statewide level.
To include provisions to reduce the need for the use of
``conformances'' where the Department has received insufficient data to
publish a prevailing wage for a classification of worker--a process
that currently is burdensome for contracting agencies, contractors, and
the Department.
To strengthen enforcement, including by making effective
by operation of law contract clauses or wage determinations that were
wrongly omitted from contracts, and by codifying the principle of
annualization used to calculate the amount of Davis-Bacon credit that a
contractor may receive for contributions to a fringe benefit plan when
the contractor's workers also work on private projects.
To clarify and strengthen the scope of coverage under the
DBRA, including by revising the definition of ``site of the work'' to
further encompass certain construction of significant portions of a
building or work at secondary worksites, to better clarify when
demolition and similar activities are covered by the Davis-Bacon labor
standards, and to clarify that the regulatory definitions of ``building
or work'' and ``public building or public work'' can be met even when
the construction activity involves only a portion of an overall
building, structure, or improvement.
2. Summary of Affected Contractors, Workers, Costs, Transfers, and
Benefits
The Department evaluates the impacts of two components of this
proposed rule in this regulatory impact analysis:
The return to the ``three-step'' method for determining
the prevailing wage and
The provision of a mechanism to regularly update certain
non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates based on the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index.
This proposed rule predominantly affects firms that hold federally
funded or assisted construction contracts because of its impact on
prevailing wage and fringe benefit rate determinations. The Department
identified a range of potentially affected firms. The more narrowly
defined population (those actively holding DBRA-covered contracts)
includes 113,900 firms. The broader population (including those bidding
on contracts but without active contracts, or those considering bidding
in the future) includes 154,800 firms. Only a subset of potentially
affected firms will be substantively affected and fewer may experience
a change in payroll costs because some firms already pay above the
prevailing wage rates that may result from this proposal. The
Department estimated there are 1.2 million workers on DBRA covered
contracts and therefore potentially affected by this proposed rule.
Some of these workers will not be affected because they work in
occupations not covered by DBRA or, if they are covered by DBRA,
workers may not be affected by the prevailing wage updates of this
proposed rule because they may already earn above the updated
prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates.
The Department estimated both regulatory familiarization costs and
implementation costs for affected firms. Year 1 costs are estimated to
total $12.6 million. Average annualized costs across the first 10 years
are estimated to be $3.9 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). The
transfer analysis discussed in Section IV.D. draws on two illustrative
analyses conducted by the Department. However, the Department does not
definitively quantify annual transfer payments due to data limitations
and uncertainty. Similarly, benefits are discussed qualitatively due to
data limitations and uncertainty. See Table 1 for a summary of affected
contractor firms, workers, and costs.
Table 1--Summary of Affected Contractor Firms, Workers, and Costs
[2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future years Average annualized value
Year 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2 Year 10 3% real rate 7% real rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms: Narrow Definition \a\.... 154,500 154,500 154,500 .............. ..............
Firms: Broad Definition \b\..... 192,400 192,400 192,400 .............. ..............
Potentially Affected Workers 1.2 1.2 1.2 .............. ..............
(millions).....................
Direct employer costs (million). $12.6 $2.5 $2.5 $3.7 $3.9
Regulatory familiarization.. $10.1 $0.0 $0.0 1.2 1.4
Implementation.............. $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 2.5 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Firms actively holding DBRA-covered contracts.
\b\ Firms who may be bidding on DBA contracts or considering bidding in the future.
[[Page 15765]]
B. Number of Potentially Affected Contractor Firms and Workers
1. Number of Potentially Affected Contractor Firms
The Department identified a range of potentially affected firms.
This includes both firms impacted by the DBA and firms impacted by the
Related Acts. The more narrowly defined population (firms actively
holding DBRA-covered contracts) includes 154,500 firms: 61,200 Impacted
by DBA and 93,300 impacted by the Related Acts (Table 2). The broader
population (including those bidding on DBA contracts but without active
contracts, or those considering bidding in the future) includes 192,400
firms: 99,100 Impacted by DBA and 93,300 impacted by the Related Acts.
Additionally, only a subset of these firms will experience a change in
payroll costs. Those firms that already pay above the new wage
determination rates calculated under the 30-percent rule will not be
substantively affected. Because there is no readily usable source of
data on the earnings of workers of these affected firms, the Department
cannot definitively identify the number of firms that will experience
changes in payroll costs due to changes in prevailing wage rates.
i. Firms Currently Holding DBA Contracts
USASpending.gov--the official source for spending data for the U.S.
Government--contains Government award data from the Federal Procurement
Data System Next Generation (FPDS-NG), which is the system of record
for Federal procurement data. The Department used these data to
identify the number of firms that currently hold DBA contracts.
Although more recent data are available, the Department used data from
2019 to avoid any shifts in the data associated with the COVID-19
pandemic in 2020. Any long-run impacts of COVID-19 are speculative
because this is an unprecedented situation, so using data from 2019 may
be the best approximation the Department has for future impacts. The
pandemic could cause structural changes to the economy, resulting in
shifts in industry employment and wages. The Department welcomes
comments and data on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted firms and
workers on DBRA contracts, as well as the impact on construction and
other affected industries as a whole.
The Department identified firms working on DBRA contracts as
contracts with an assigned NAICS code of 23 or if the ``Construction
Wage Rate Requirements'' element is ``Y,'' meaning that the contracting
agency flagged that the contract is covered by DBRA.\129\ \130\ The
Department also excluded (1) contracts for financial assistance such as
direct payments, loans, and insurance; and (2) contracts performed
outside the U.S. because DBA coverage is limited to the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
is a method by which Federal statistical agencies classify business
establishments in order to collect, analyze, and publish data about
certain industries. Each industry is categorized by a sequence of
codes ranging from 2 digits (most aggregated level) to 6 digits
(most granular level). https://www.census.gov/naics/.
\130\ The Department acknowledges that there may be affected
firms that fall under other NAICS codes and for which the
contracting agency did not flag in the FPDS-NG system that the
contract is covered by DBRA. Including these additional NAICS codes
could result in an overestimate because they would only be affected
by this proposed rule if Davis-Bacon covered construction occurs.
The data does not allow the Department to determine this.
\131\ The DBA only applies in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia and does not apply in the territories. However, some
Related Acts provided Federal funding of construction in the
territories that, by virtue of the Related Act, is subject to DBA
prevailing wage requirements. For example, the DBA does not apply in
Guam, but a Related Act provides that base realignment construction
in Guam is subject to DBA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2019, there were 14,000 unique prime contractors with active
construction contracts in USASpending. However, subcontractors are also
impacted by this proposed rule. The Department examined 5 years of
USASpending data (2015 through 2019) and identified 47,200 unique
subcontractors who did not hold contracts as primes in 2019. The
Department used 5 years of data for the count of subcontractors to
compensate for lower-tier subcontractors that may not be included in
USASpending.gov. In total, the Department estimates 61,200 firms
currently hold DBA contracts and are potentially affected by this
rulemaking under the narrow definition; however, to the extent that any
of these firms already pay above the prevailing wage rates as
determined under this proposed rule they will not actually be impacted
by the rule.
ii. All Potentially Affected Contractors (DBA Only)
The Department also cast a wider net to identify other potentially
affected contractors, both those directly affected (i.e., holding
contracts) and those that plan to bid on DBA-covered contracts in the
future. To determine the number of these firms, the Department
identified construction firms registered in the General Services
Administration's (GSA) System for Award Management (SAM) since all
entities bidding on Federal procurement contracts or grants must
register in SAM. The Department believes that firms registered in SAM
represent those that may be affected if the proposed rulemaking impacts
their decision to bid on contracts or their competitiveness in the
bidding process. However, it is possible that some firms that are not
already registered in SAM could decide to bid on DBA-covered contracts
after this proposed rulemaking; these firms are not included in the
Department's estimate. The proposed rule could also impact them if they
are awarded a future contract.
Using May 2021 SAM data, the Department identified 51,900
registered firms with construction listed as the primary NAICS
code.\132\ The Department excluded firms with expired registrations,
firms only applying for grants,\133\ government entities (such as city
or county governments),\134\ foreign organizations, and companies that
only sell products and do not provide services. SAM includes all prime
contractors and some subcontractors (those who are also prime
contractors or who have otherwise registered in SAM). However, the
Department is unable to determine the number of subcontractors that are
not in the SAM database. Therefore, the Department added the
subcontractors identified in USASpending to this estimate. Adding these
47,200 firms identified in USASpending to the number of firms in SAM,
results in 99,100 potentially affected firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Data released in monthly files. Available at: https://www.sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/extracts/samPublicAccessData.jsf.
\133\ Entities registering in SAM are asked if they wish to bid
on contracts. If the firm answers ``yes,'' then they are included as
``All Awards'' in the ``Purpose of Registration'' column in the SAM
data. The Department included only firms with a value of ``Z2,''
which denotes ``All Awards.''
\134\ The Department believes that there may be certain limited
circumstances in which State and local governments may be
contractors, but believes that this number would be minimal and
including government entities would result in an inappropriate
overestimation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Firms Impacted by the Related Acts
USASpending does not adequately capture all work performed under
the Related Acts. Additionally, there is not a central database, such
as SAM, where contractors working on Related Acts contracts must
register. Therefore, the Department used a different methodology to
estimate the number of firms impacted by the Related Acts. The
Department estimated 883,900 workers work on Related Acts contracts
(see section V.B.2.iii.), then divided that number by the average
number of workers per firm (9.5) in the
[[Page 15766]]
construction industry.\135\ This results in 93,300 firms. Some of these
firms likely also perform work on DBA contracts. However, because the
Department has no information on the size of this overlap, the
Department has assumed all are unique firms. The Department welcomes
comments and data on the number of firms working on Related Acts
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 2018 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). U.S., NAICS
sectors, larger employment sizes up to 20,000+. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/susb/2018-susb-annual.html.
Table 2--Range of Number of Potentially Affected Firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Count (Davis-Bacon and Related Acts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrow definition \a\................................... 154,500
Broad definition \b\.................................... 192,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBA (Narrow Definition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 61,200
Prime contractors from USASpending.................. 14,000
Subcontractors from USASpending..................... 47,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBA (Broad Definition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 99,100
SAM................................................. 51,900
Subcontractors from USASpending..................... 47,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Acts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 93,300
Related Acts workers................................ 883,900
Employees per firm (SUSB)........................... 9.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Firms actively holding DBRA-covered contracts.
\b\ Firms who may be bidding on DBA contracts or considering bidding in
the future.
2. Number of Potentially Affected Workers
There are no readily available government data on the number of
workers working on DBA contracts; therefore, to estimate the number of
these workers, the Department employed the approach used in the 2021
final rule, ``Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors,''
which implements Executive Order 14026.\136\ That methodology is based
on the 2016 rulemaking implementing Executive Order 13706's paid sick
leave requirements, which contained an updated version of the
methodology used in the 2014 rulemaking for Executive Order 13658.\137\
Using this methodology, the Department estimated the number of workers
who work on DBRA contracts, representing the number of ``potentially
affected workers,'' is 1.2 million potentially affected workers. Some
of these workers will not be affected because while they work on DBRA-
covered contracts they are not in occupations covered by the DBRA
prevailing wage determinations (e.g., laborers or mechanics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See 86 FR 38816, 38816-38898.
\137\ See 81 FR 9591, 9591-9671 and 79 FR 60634-60733.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimated the number of potentially affected workers
in three parts. First, the Department estimated employees and self-
employed workers working on DBA contracts in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia. Second, the Department estimated the number of
workers and self-employed DBRA workers in the U.S. territories. Third,
the Department estimated the number of potentially affected workers
working on contracts covered by Davis-Bacon Related Acts.
i. Workers on DBA Contracts in the 50 States and the District of
Columbia
DBA contract employees were estimated by calculating the ratio of
Federal contracting expenditures to total output in NAICS 23:
Construction. Total output is the market value of the goods and
services produced by an industry. This ratio is then applied to total
private employment in that industry (Table 3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MR22.036
The Department used Federal contracting expenditures from
USASpending.gov data excluding (1) financial assistance such as direct
payments, loans, and insurance; and (2) contracts performed outside the
U.S.
To determine the share of all output associated with Federal
Government contracts, the Department divided contracting expenditures
by gross output in NAICS 23.\138\ This results in an estimated 3.27
percent of output in
[[Page 15767]]
the construction industry covered by Federal Government contracts
(Table 3). The Department then multiplied the ratio of covered-to-gross
output by private sector employment in the construction industry (9.1
million) to estimate the share of employees working on covered
contracts. The Department's private sector employment number is
primarily comprised of construction industry employment from the May
2019 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), formerly the
Occupational Employment Statistics.\139\ However, the OEWS excludes
unincorporated self-employed workers, so the Department supplemented
OEWS data with data from the 2019 Current Population Survey Merged
Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS MORG) to include unincorporated self-
employed in the estimate of workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2020). Table 8. Gross Output
by Industry Group. https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-industry-fourth-quarter-and-year-2019. ``Gross output of an
industry is the market value of the goods and services produced by
an industry, including commodity taxes. The components of gross
output include sales or receipts and other operating income,
commodity taxes, plus inventory change. Gross output differs from
value added, which measures the contribution of the industry's labor
and capital to its gross output.''
\139\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. OEWS. May 2019. Available at:
https://www.bls.gov/oes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to this methodology, the Department estimated there are
297,900 workers on DBA covered contracts in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia. However, these laws only apply to wages for
mechanics and laborers, so some of these workers would not be affected
by these changes to DBA.
This methodology represents the number of year-round-equivalent
potentially affected workers who work exclusively on DBA contracts.
Thus, when the Department refers to potentially affected employees in
this analysis, the Department is referring to this conceptual number of
people working exclusively on covered contracts. The total number of
potentially affected mechanics and laborers will likely exceed this
number because affected workers likely do not work exclusively on DBA
contracts.
ii. Workers on DBRA Contracts in the U.S. Territories
The methodology to estimate potentially affected workers in the
U.S. territories is similar to the methodology above for the 50 States
and the District of Columbia. The primary difference is that data on
gross output in the territories are not available, and so the
Department had to make some additional assumptions. The Department
approximated gross output in the territories by calculating the ratio
of gross output to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the U.S. (1.8),
then multiplying that ratio by GDP in each territory to estimate total
gross output.\140\ To limit gross output to the construction industry,
the Department multiplied it by the share of the territory's payroll in
NAICS 23. For example, the Department estimated that Puerto Rico's
gross output in the construction industry totaled $3.6 billion.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ GDP limited to personal consumption expenditures and gross
private domestic investment.
\141\ In Puerto Rico, personal consumption expenditures plus
gross private domestic investment equaled $71.2 billion. Therefore,
Puerto Rico gross output was calculated as $71.2 billion x 1.8 x 2.7
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the methodology follows the methodology for the 50
States and the District of Columbia. To determine the share of all
output associated with Government contracts, the Department divided
contract expenditures by gross output. Federal contracting expenditures
from USASpending.gov data show that the Government spent $993.3 million
on construction contracts in 2019 in American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. The Department then multiplied the ratio of covered contract
spending to gross output by private sector employment to estimate the
number of workers working on covered contracts (6,100).\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ For the U.S. territories, the unincorporated self-employed
are excluded because CPS data are not available on the number of
unincorporated self-employed workers in U.S. territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Workers on Related Acts Contracts
This proposed rulemaking will also impact workers on DBRA-covered
contracts in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Data are not
available on the number of workers covered by the Related Acts.
Additionally, neither USASpending nor any other database fully captures
this population.\143\ Therefore, the Department used a different
approach to estimate the number of potentially affected workers for
DBRA contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ USASpending includes information on grants, assistance,
and loans provided by the Federal government. However, this does not
include all covered projects, it does not capture the full value of
the project because it is just the Federal share (i.e., excludes
spending by State and local governments or private institutions that
are also subject to DBRA labor standards because of the Federal
share on the project), and it cannot easily be restricted to
construction projects because there is no NAICS or product service
code (PSC) variable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department identified that the total State and local government
construction spending as reported by the Census Bureau was $318 billion
in 2019.\144\ The Department then applied adjustment factors to adjust
for the share of State and local expenditures that are covered by the
Related Acts. Data on the share of State and local expenditures covered
by the Related Acts are not available, therefore the Department used
rough approximations. The Department requests comments and data on the
appropriate adjustment factors. The Department assumed half of the
total State and local government construction expenditures are subject
to a DBRA, resulting in estimated expenditures of $158 billion. To
this, the Department added $3 billion to represent U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) backed mortgage insurance for
private construction projects.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Census Bureau. Annual Value of Public Construction Put in
Place 2009-2020. Available at: https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/historical_data.html.
\145\ Estimate based on personal communications with the Office
of Labor Standards Enforcement and Economic Opportunity at HUD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was done for DBA, the Department divided contracting
expenditures by gross output, and multiplied that ratio by the estimate
of private sector employment used above to estimate the share of
workers working on Related Acts-covered contracts (883,900).
Table 3--Number of Potentially Affected Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracting Share output Private-sector Workers DBRA
Private output output from covered workers contracts
(billions) \a\ (millions) \b\ contracting (1,000s) \c\ (1,000s) \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBA, excl. territories.......... $1,662 $54,400 3.27% 9,100 297.9
DBRA, territories............... 5 993 (\e\) 35 6.1
Related Acts.................... 1,667 161,297 9.68% 9,135 883.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15768]]
Total....................... .............. 216,700 .............. .............. 1,188.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Gross output. 2019. For territories, gross output estimated by
multiplying (1) total GDP for the territory by the ratio of total gross output to total GDP for the U.S. and
(2) the share of national gross output in the construction industry.
\b\ For DBA, and DBRA in the territories, data from USASpending.gov for contracting expenditures for covered
contracts in 2019. For Related Acts, data from Census Bureau on value of State and local government
construction put in place, adjusted for coverage ratios. The Census data includes some data for territories
but may be underestimated.
\c\ OEWS May 2019. For non-territories, also includes unincorporated self-employed workers from the 2019 CPS
MORG.
\d\ Assumes share of expenditures on contracting is same as share of employment. Assumes workers work
exclusively, year-round on DBRA covered contracts.
\e\ Varies by U.S. Territory.
3. Demographics of the Construction Industry
In order to provide information on the types of workers that may be
affected by this rule, the Department presents demographic
characteristics of production workers in the construction industry. For
purposes of this demographic analysis only, the Department is defining
the construction industry as workers in the following occupations:
Construction and extraction occupations
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
Production occupations
Transportation and material moving occupations
The Department notes that the demographic characteristics of
workers on DBRA projects may differ from the general construction
industry; however, data on the demographics of workers on DBRA projects
is unavailable. Demographics of the general workforce are also
presented for comparison. The Department welcomes comments and data on
how the demographics of workers on DBRA projects would differ from the
demographics of workers in the construction industry as a whole.
Tabulated numbers are based on 2019 CPS data for consistency with the
rest of the analysis and to avoid potential impacts of COVID-19.
Additional information on the demographics of workers in the
construction industry can be found in The Construction Chart Book: The
U.S. Construction Industry and Its Workers.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Dong, Xiuwen, Xuanwen Wang, Rebecca Katz, Gavin West, and
Bruce Lippy. The Construction Chart Book: The U.S. Construction
Industry and Its Workers, 6th ed. Silver Spring: CPWR-The Center for
Construction Research and Training, 2018, 18. https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/The_6th_Edition_Construction_eChart_Book.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of workers in the construction industry are men,
97 percent (Table 4), which is significantly higher than the general
workforce where 53 percent are men. Workers in construction are also
significantly more likely to be Hispanic than the general workforce; 38
percent of construction workers are Hispanic, compared with 18 percent
of the workforce. Lastly, while many construction workers may have
completed registered apprenticeship programs 84 percent of workers in
the construction industry have a high school diploma or less, compared
with 54 percent of the general workforce.
Table 4--Demographics of Workers in the Construction Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production workers Total workforce
in construction (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast....................... 16.4 17.9
Midwest......................... 16.4 21.9
South........................... 41.7 36.9
West............................ 25.5 23.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male............................ 97.1 53.4
Female.......................... 2.9 46.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Race
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White only...................... 87.1 77.2
Black only...................... 7.5 12.4
All others...................... 5.4 10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ethnicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic........................ 38.0 18.1
Not Hispanic.................... 62.0 81.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15769]]
By Race and Ethnicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White only, Not Hispanic........ 52.2 61.1
Black only, Not Hispanic........ 6.2 11.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Age
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-25........................... 15.2 16.7
26-55........................... 71.6 64.2
56+............................. 13.3 19.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No degree....................... 23.0 8.9
High school diploma............. 60.6 45.3
Associate's degree.............. 9.3 10.7
Bachelor's degree or advanced... 7.2 35.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CPS data for 2019.
The Department has also presented some demographic data on
Registered Apprentices, as they are the pipeline for future
construction workers. These demographics come from Federal Workload
data, which covers the 25 states administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor's Office of Apprenticeship and national registered apprenticeship
programs.\147\ Note that this data includes apprenticeships for other
industries beyond construction, but 68 percent of the active
apprentices are in the construction industry, so the Department
believes this data could be representative of that industry. Of the
active apprentices in this data set, 9.1 percent are female and 90.9
percent are male. The data show that 58.4 percent of active apprentices
are White, 10.5 percent are Black or African American, 2.4 percent are
American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.5 percent are Asian, and 0.8
percent are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The data also
show that 23.6 percent of active apprentices are Hispanic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ FY2019 Data and Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Office of Apprenticeship. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Costs of the Proposed Rule
This section quantifies direct employer costs associated with the
proposed rule. The Department considered employer costs associated with
both (a) the return to the ``three-step'' method for determining the
prevailing wage (i.e., the change from a 50 percent threshold to a 30
percent threshold) and (b) the incorporation of a mechanism to
periodically update certain non-collectively bargained prevailing wage
rates. Costs presented are combined for both provisions. However, the
Department believes most of the costs will be associated with the
second provision, as will be discussed below. The Department estimated
both regulatory familiarization costs and implementation costs. Year 1
costs are estimated to total $12.6 million. Average annualized costs
across the first 10 years of implementation are estimated to be $3.9
million (using a 7 percent discount rate). Transfers resulting from
these provisions are discussed in section V.D.
1. Regulatory Familiarization Costs
The proposed rule will impose direct costs on some covered
contractors who will review the regulations to understand how the
prevailing wage determination methodology will change and how certain
non-collectively bargained rates will be periodically updated. However,
the Department believes these time costs will be small. Firms are
simply required to pay no less than the prevailing wage and fringe
benefit rates set forth in the wage determinations applicable to their
covered contracts; they do not need to familiarize themselves with the
methodology used to develop those prevailing wage rates in order to
comply with them. Costs associated with ensuring compliance are
included as implementation costs.
For this analysis, the Department has included all firms who either
hold DBA or Related Acts contracts or who are considering bidding on
work (192,400 firms). However, this may be an overestimate, because
firms who are registered in SAM might not bid on a DBA contract, and
therefore may not review these regulations. The Department assumes
that, on average, 1 hour of a human resources staff member's time will
be spent reviewing the rulemaking. Some firms will spend more time
reviewing the rule, but others will spend less or no time reviewing the
rule. The cost of this time is the median loaded wage for a
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialist of $52.65 per
hour.\148\ Therefore, the Department has estimated regulatory
familiarization costs to be $10.1 million ($52.65 per hour x 1.0 hour x
192,400 contractors) (Table 5). The Department has included all
regulatory familiarization costs in Year 1. New entrants will not incur
any additional regulatory familiarization costs attributable to this
rule; had this rule not been proposed, they still would have incurred
the costs of regulatory familiarization with existing provisions.
Average annualized regulatory familiarization costs over 10 years,
using a 7 percent discount rate, are $1.4 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ This includes the median base wage of $32.30 from the 2020
OEWS plus benefits paid at a rate of 46 percent of the base wage, as
estimated from the BLS's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
(ECEC) data, and overhead costs of 17 percent. OEWS data available
at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131141.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Implementation Costs
Firms will incur costs associated with implementing updated
prevailing wage rates. When preparing a bid on a DBRA-covered contract,
the contractor must review the wage determination identified by the
contracting agency as appropriate for the work and determine the wage
rates applicable for each occupation or classification to perform work
on the contract. Once that contract
[[Page 15770]]
is signed, the specified prevailing wages generally remain in effect
through the life of that contract.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ With the exception of certain significant changes; see
section III.B.1.vi.(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed periodic adjustment rule will generally affect the
frequency with which prevailing wage rates are updated through both the
provision to update old, outmoded rates, and moving forward, the
provision to periodically update rates when that does not occur through
the survey process (see section V.D.). Implementation costs may be
incurred by affected firms through the need to update compensation
rates in their relevant payroll systems. Currently, only a fraction of
prevailing wages can be expected to change each year. Because the
Department intends to update older rates to more accurately represent
wages and benefits being paid in the construction industry, and, moving
forward, more published wage rates will change more frequently than in
the past, firms will spend more time updating prevailing wage rates for
contractual purposes than they have in the past.
To estimate the additional cost attributable to the need to update
out-of-date rates, it is necessary to estimate the number of firms that
need to update rates each year and the additional time these firms will
spend implementing the new wage and fringe benefit rates due to this
provision. The Department estimates that on average new wage rates are
published from 7.8 surveys per year.\150\ These surveys may cover an
entire State or a subset of counties, and multiple construction types
or a single type of construction. For simplicity, the Department
assumed that each survey impacts all contractors in the State, all
construction types, and all classes of laborers and mechanics covered
by DBRA. Under these assumptions, the Department assumed that each year
15.6 percent of firms with DBRA contracts, roughly 24,100 firms (0.156
x 154,500 firms), might already be affected by changes in prevailing
wage rates in any given year and thus will not incur additional
implementation costs attributable to the rule.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ The Department used the number of surveys started between
2002 (first year with data readily available) and 2019 (last year
prior to COVID-19) to estimate that 7.8 surveys are started
annually. This is a proxy for the number of surveys published on
average in a year.
\151\ The Department divided 7.8 surveys per year by 50 states.
The District of Columbia and the territories were excluded from the
denominator because these tend to be surveyed less often (with the
exception of Guam which is surveyed regularly due to Related Act
funding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, there may be some firms that already update
prevailing wage rates periodically to reflect CBA increases. These
firms generally will not incur any additional implementation costs
because of this rule. The Department lacks specific data on how many
firms fall into this category, but used information on the share of
rates that are collectively bargained under the current method to help
refine the estimate of firms with implementation costs. According to
section V.D., 24 percent of rates are CBA rates under the current
method, meaning 37,080 firms (0.24 x 154,500) might already be affected
by changes in prevailing wages in any given year. Combining this number
with the 24,100 firms calculated above, 61,180 firms in total would not
incur additional implementation costs with this rule. The Department
welcomes comments and data on what is the appropriate share of firms
who already update wage rates due to CBA increases.
Therefore, 93,320 firms (154,500 firms - 61,180 firms) are assumed
to not update prevailing wage information in any given year because
prevailing wage rates were unchanged in their areas of operation, and
would therefore incur implementation costs. Under the proposed
provisions, the Department intends to first update certain outdated
non-collectively bargained rates \152\ (currently designated as ``SU''
rates) up to their current value to better track wages and benefits
being paid in the construction industry over a staggered period. Then,
in the future, the Department intends to update non-collectively
bargained rates afterward as needed, and not more frequently than every
3 years. Therefore, all firms that intend to bid on future contracts
may need to update relevant prevailing wage rates and thus incur
implementation costs. The Department therefore assumes that these
93,230 firms may be expected to incur additional costs updating rates
each year. The Department acknowledges that this estimate of firms may
be an overestimate, because this proposed rule states that rates will
be updated no more frequently than every 3 years. In each year, only a
fraction of firms will have to update their prevailing wage rates, but
the Department has included all firms in the estimate so as to not
underestimate costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ The ``SU'' designation currently is used on general wage
determinations when the prevailing wage is set through the weighted
average method based on non-collectively bargained rates or a mix of
collectively bargained rates and non-collectively bargained rates,
or when a non-collectively bargained rate prevails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimated it will take a half hour on average for
firms to adjust their wage rates each year for purposes of bidding on
DBRA contracts. The Department believes that this average estimated
time is appropriate because some firms will spend no time on
implementation costs. Only a subset of firms will experience a change
in payroll costs, because those firms that already pay above the new
wage determination rates calculated under the 30-percent rule will not
need to incur any implementation costs.
Implementation time will be incurred by human resource workers (or
a similarly compensated employee) who will implement the changes. As
with previous costs, these workers earn a loaded hourly wage of $52.65.
Therefore, total Year 1 implementation costs were estimated to equal
$2.5 million ($52.65 x 0.5 hour x 93,320 firms). The average annualized
implementation cost over 10 years, using a 7 percent discount rate, is
$2.5 million. The Department welcomes comments on exactly how long it
will take firms to adjust their wage rates each year.
Table 5--Summary of Costs
[2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory
Variable Total familiarization Implementation
costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially affected firms.......................... .................. 192,400 93,320
Hours per firm...................................... .................. 1 0.5
Loaded wage rate \a\................................ .................. $52.65 $52.65
[[Page 15771]]
Cost ($1,000s)...................................... $12,600 $10,100 $2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years 2-10 ($1,000s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost......................................... $2,500 $0 $2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annualized Costs ($1,000s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate.................................... $3,700 $1,200 $2,500
7% discount rate.................................... $3,900 $1,400 $2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2020 OEWS median wage for Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists (SOC 13-1141) of $32.30
multiplied by 1.63: The ratio of loaded wage to unloaded wage from the 2020 ECEC (46 percent) plus 17 percent
for overhead.
3. Other Provisions Not Analyzed
For certain provisions contained in this proposal, the Department
expects that any impacts of the provision would be negligible, as
discussed below. The Department welcomes comments with data to help
analyze these provisions.
The Department proposes that prevailing wage rates set by State and
local governments may be adopted as Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates
under specified conditions. Specifically, the Department proposes that
the Administrator may adopt such a rate if the Administrator determines
that: (1) The State or local government sets wage rates, and collects
relevant data, using a survey or other process that is open to full
participation by all interested parties; (2) the wage rate reflects
both a basic hourly rate of pay as well as any prevailing fringe
benefits, each of which can be calculated separately; (3) the State or
local government classifies laborers and mechanics in a manner that is
recognized within the field of construction; and (4) the State or local
government's criteria for setting prevailing wage rates are
substantially similar to those the Administrator uses in making wage
determinations. These conditions are intended to provide WHD with the
flexibility to adopt State and local rates where appropriate while also
ensuring that adoption of such rates is consistent with the statutory
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. These conditions are also intended
to ensure that arbitrary distinctions are not created between
jurisdictions where WHD makes wage determinations using its own surveys
and jurisdictions where WHD adopts State or local prevailing wage
rates.
The Department does not possess sufficient data to conduct an
analysis comparing prevailing wage rates set by State and local
governments nationwide to those established by the Administrator.
However, by definition, any adopted State or local prevailing wage must
be set using criteria that are substantially similar to those used by
the Administrator, so the resulting wage rates are likely to be similar
to those which would have been established by the Administrator. The
proposed change would also allow WHD to have more current rates in
places where wage surveys are out-of-date, and to avoid WHD duplicating
wage survey work that states and localities are already doing. The
Department believes that this proposal could result in cost savings,
which are discussed further in section V.E.
The Department also proposes to eliminate the across-the-board
restriction on mixing rural and metropolitan county data to allow for a
more flexible case-by-case approach to using such data. Under this
proposal, if sufficient data were not available to determine a
prevailing wage in a county, the Department would be permitted to use
data from surrounding counties whether those counties may be designated
overall as rural or metropolitan. While sufficient data for analyzing
the impact of this proposal are not available, the Department believes
this proposal will improve the quality and accuracy of wage
determinations by including data from counties that likely share and
reflect the same labor market conditions when appropriate.
The proposal to expressly authorize WHD to list classifications and
corresponding wage and fringe benefit rates on wage determinations even
when WHD has received insufficient data through its wage survey process
is expected to ease the burden on contracting entities, both public and
private, by improving the timeliness of information about conformed
wage rates. For classifications for which conformance requests are
regularly submitted, the Administrator would be authorized to list the
classification on the wage determination along with wage and fringe
benefit rates that bear a ``reasonable relationship'' to the wage and
fringe benefit rates contained in the wage determination, in the same
manner that such classifications and rates are currently conformed by
WHD pursuant to current Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3). In other words, for
a classification for which conformance requests are regularly
submitted, WHD would be expressly authorized to essentially ``pre-
approve'' certain conformed classifications and wage rates, thereby
providing contracting agencies, contractors and workers with advance
notice of the minimum wage and fringe benefits required to be paid for
work within those classifications, reducing uncertainty and costly
delays in determining wage rates for the classifications.
For example, suppose the Department was not able to publish a
prevailing wage rate for carpenters on a building wage determination
for a county due to insufficient data. Currently, every contractor in
that county working on a Davis-Bacon building project that needed a
carpenter would have to submit a conformance request for each of their
building projects in that county. Moreover, because conformances cannot
be submitted until after contract award, those same contractors would
have a certain degree of uncertainty in their bidding procedure, as
they would not know the exact rate that they would have to pay to their
carpenters. This proposal would eliminate that requirement for
classifications where conformance requests are common. While the
Department does not have information on how much administrative time
and money is spent on these tasks, for the commonly-requested
classifications, this proposal
[[Page 15772]]
could make things more streamlined and efficient for the contractors.
There are a few places in the NPRM where the Department is
proposing to add language that clarifies existing policies. For
example, the Department proposes to add language to the definitions of
``building or work'' and ``public building or public work'' to clarify
that these definitions can be met even when the construction activity
involves only a portion of an overall building, structure, or
improvement. Also, the Department proposes to add language regarding
the ``material suppliers'' exemption. Although this language is just a
clarification of existing guidelines and not a change in policy, the
Department understands that contracting agencies may have differed in
their implementation of Davis-Bacon labor standards. In these cases,
there may be firms who are newly applying Davis-Bacon labor standards
because of the clarifications in this rule. This could result in
additional rule familiarization and implementation costs for these
firms, and transfers to workers in the form of higher in wages if the
contractors are currently paying below the prevailing wage.
The Department does not have data to estimate to what extent
contracting agencies have not been implementing Davis-Bacon labor
standards but welcomes comments and data to help inform an estimate of
the impact of these provisions. Specifically, the Department welcomes
comments from commercial building owners who lease space to the Federal
Government on how this provision would affect costs and the wages paid
to workers.
Other proposed provisions are also likely to have no significant
economic impact, such as the proposed clarification of the ``material
supplier'' exception in Sec. 5.2, and the proposal regarding the
applicable apprenticeship ratios and wage rates when work is performed
by apprentices in a different State than the State in which the
apprenticeship program was originally registered.
D. Transfer Payments
1. The Return to the ``Three-Step'' Method for Determining the
Prevailing Wage
i. Overview
The proposed revision to the definition of prevailing wage (i.e.,
the return to the ``three-step process'') may lead to income transfers
to or from workers. Under the ``three-step process'' when a wage rate
is not paid to a majority of workers in a particular classification, a
wage rate will be considered prevailing if it is paid to at least 30
percent of such workers. Thus, under this proposal fewer future wage
determinations will be established based on a weighted average.
Consequently, some future wage determinations may be different than
they otherwise would as a result of this proposed provision. The
Department is not able to quantify the impact of this proposed change
because it will apply to surveys yet to be conducted, covering
classifications and projects in locations not yet determined.
Nonetheless in an effort to illustrate the potential impact, the
Department conducted a retrospective analysis that considers the impact
of the 30-percent rule had it been used to set the wage determinations
for a few occupations in recent years.
Specifically, to demonstrate the impact of this provision, the
Department compiled data for seven select classifications from 19
surveys across 17 states from 2015 to 2018 (see Appendix A).\153\ This
sample of rates covers all four construction types, and includes metro
and rural counties, and a variety of geographic regions. The seven
select key classifications considered are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Data were obtained from the Automated Survey Data System
(ASDS), the data system used by the Department to compile and
process WD-10 submissions. Out of the 21 surveys that occurred
during this time period and met sufficiency standards, these 19
surveys are all of the ones with usable data for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building and residential construction: Bricklayers, common
laborers, plumbers, and roofers.
Heavy and highway construction: Common laborers, cement
masons, and electricians.
In total, the sample is comprised of 3,097 county-classification
observations. Because this sample only covers seven out of the many
occupations covered by DBRA and all classification-county observations
are weighted equally in the analysis, the Department believes the
results need to be interpreted with care and cannot be extrapolated to
definitively quantify the overall impact of the 30-percent rule.
Instead, these results should be viewed as an informative illustration
of the potential direction and magnitude of transfers that will be
attributed to this proposed provision.
The Department began its retrospective analysis by applying the
current prevailing wage setting protocols (see Appendix B) to this
sample of wage data to calculate the current prevailing wage and fringe
benefit rates.\154\ The Department then applied the proposed 30-percent
rule to the same sample of wage data.\155\ Then the Department compared
the wage rates determined by the proposed protocol with current wage
determinations. Results are reported at the county level (i.e., one
observation represents one classification in one county).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ The Department chose to calculate prevailing wages under
the current and proposed definitions to ensure comparability between
the methods. The Department compared calculated current rates to the
published wage determinations to verify the accuracy of its method.
The calculated current rates generally match the wage and the fringe
benefit rates within a few cents. However, there are a few instances
that do not match, but the Department does not believe these
differences bias the comparisons to the calculated proposed 30
percent prevailing definition.
\155\ This model, while useful for this illustrative analysis,
may not be relevant for future surveys. The methodology assumes that
the level of participation by firms in WHD's wage survey process
would be the same if the standard were 30 percent and is mostly
reflective of states with lower union densities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results differ depending on how heavily unionized the
construction industry is in the states analyzed (and thus how many
union rates are submitted in response to surveys). In Connecticut, for
example, the Department found that estimated rates were little changed
because the construction industry in Connecticut is highly unionized
and union rates prevail under both the 30 percent and the 50 percent
threshold. Conversely, in Florida, which is less unionized, there is
more variation in how wage rates would change. For Florida, calculated
prevailing wage rates generally changed from an average rate (e.g.,
insufficient identical rates to determine a single prevailing rate
under the current protocol) to a non-collectively bargained single
prevailing rate. Depending on the classification and county, the
prevailing hourly wage rate may have increased or decreased because of
the change in methodology.
Results may also differ by construction type. In particular,
changes to highway prevailing wages may differ from changes in other
construction types because they frequently rely on certified payroll.
Thus, many of the wages used to calculate the prevailing wage reflect
prevailing wages at the time of the survey.
ii. Results
Table 6 compares the share of counties with calculated wage
determinations by ``publication rule'' (i.e., the rule under which the
wage rate was or would be published): (1) An average rate, (2) a
collectively bargained
[[Page 15773]]
single prevailing rate, and (3) a non-collectively bargained single
prevailing rate. Fringe benefit rate results also include the number of
counties where the majority of workers received zero fringe benefits.
It also shows the change in the number of rates in each publication
rule category.
For the surveys analyzed, the majority of current county wage rates
were based on averages (1,954 / 3,097 = 63 percent), about 25 percent
were a single prevailing collectively bargained rate, and 12 percent
were a single prevailing non-collectively bargained rate. Using the 30
percent requirement for a single prevailing rate, the number of county
wage rates that would be based on averages decreased to 31 percent (948
/ 3,097). The percentage of rates that would be based on a single wage
rate increased for both non-collectively bargained and collectively
bargained rates, although more wage rates would be based on non-
collectively bargained rates than collectively bargained rates.
For fringe benefit rates, fringe benefits do not prevail for a
similar percent in both scenarios, (i.e., ``no fringes''): 50 percent
of current rates, 48 percent of proposed ``three-step process'' rates.
The share determined as average rates decreased from 22 percent to 10
percent. The prevalence of single prevailing fringe benefit rates
increased for both non-collectively bargained and collectively
bargained rates, with slightly more becoming collectively bargained
rates than non-collectively bargained rates.
The total number of counties will differ by classification based on
the State, applicable survey area (e.g., statewide, metro only), and
whether the data submitted for the classification met sufficiency
requirements.
Table 6--Prevalence of Calculated Prevailing Wages by Publication Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers Plumbers Roofers Bricklayers Cement masons Elec-tricians Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count................................... 949 504 545 379 360 360 3,097
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Hourly Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................. 82% 57% 55% 42% 68% 53% 63%
Single Prevailing--Union................ 12% 40% 23% 39% 4% 44% 25%
Single Prevailing--Non-Union............ 6% 3% 22% 19% 28% 4% 12%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed ``Three-Step Process'' Hourly Rate \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................. 47% 22% 26% 18% 40% 11% 31%
Single Prevailing--Union................ 21% 46% 25% 45% 7% 80% 34%
Single Prevailing--Non-Union............ 32% 31% 49% 37% 53% 9% 36%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change for Hourly Rate (Percentage Points)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................. -35 -35 -29 -23 -28 -42 -32
Single Prevailing--Union................ 9 7 2 5 3 36 9
Single Prevailing--Non-Union............ 26 28 27 18 25 5 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Fringe Benefit Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................. 23% 27% 12% 13% 9% 48% 22%
Single Prevailing--Union................ 14% 41% 23% 39% 4% 44% 25%
Single Prevailing--Non-Union............ 4% 5% 3% 2% 2% 0% 3%
No fringes.............................. 59% 27% 62% 46% 85% 8% 50%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed ``Three-Step Process'' Fringe Benefit Rate \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................. 13% 13% 9% 6% 5% 13% 10%
Single Prevailing--Union................ 21% 47% 25% 46% 7% 80% 34%
Single Prevailing--Non-Union............ 9% 13% 4% 2% 3% 7% 7%
No fringes.............................. 57% 27% 62% 46% 85% 0% 48%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change for Fringe Benefit Rate (Percentage Points)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................. -11 -14 -3 -7 -4 -35 -11
Single Prevailing--Union................ 7 6 2 7 3 36 9
Single Prevailing--Non-Union............ 6 8 1 0 1 7 4
No fringes.............................. -2 0 0 0 0 -8 -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Using a threshold of 30 percent of employees' wage or fringe benefit rates being identical.
Table 7 summarizes the difference in calculated prevailing wage
rates using the proposed three-step process compared to the current
process. The results highlighted in Table 7 show both average changes
across all observations and average changes when limited to those
classification-county observations where rates are different (about 32
percent of all observations in the sample). Notably, all
classification-counties are weighted equally in the calculations. On
average:
Across all observations, the average hourly rate increases
by only one cent. Across affected classification-counties, the
calculated hourly rate increases by 4 cents on average. However, there
is significant variation. The calculated hourly rate may increase by as
much as $7.80 or decrease by as much as $5.78.
Across all observations, the average hourly fringe benefit
rate increases by 19 cents. Across affected classification-counties,
the calculated hourly fringe benefit rate increases by $1.42 on average
(with a range from -$6.17 to $11.16).
Based on this demonstration of the impact of changing from the
current to the proposed definition of ``prevailing,'' some published
wage rates and fringe benefit rates may increase and others may
decrease. In the sample considered, wage rates changed very little on
average but fringe benefit rates increased on average. As discussed
above, the Department believes that these results need to be
interpreted with
[[Page 15774]]
care and cannot be extrapolated to definitively quantify the overall
impact of the 30-percent rule. Instead, these results should be viewed
as an informative illustration of the potential direction and magnitude
of transfers that will be attributed to this proposed provision.
Table 7--Change in Rates Attributable to Change in Definition of ``Prevailing''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers Plumbers Roofers Bricklayers Cement masons Electricians Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 949 504 545 379 360 360 3,097
Number changed.......................... 330 175 160 89 101 150 1,005
Percent changed......................... 35% 35% 29% 23% 28% 42% 32%
Average (non-zero)...................... $0.37 $1.10 -$1.06 $0.44 -$1.35 $0.94 $0.04
Average (all)........................... $0.13 $0.38 -$0.31 $0.10 -$0.38 $0.39 $0.01
Maximum................................. $7.80 $7.07 $4.40 $1.02 $2.54 $4.14 $7.80
Minimum................................. -$3.93 -$4.23 -$2.51 -$0.95 -$5.78 -$4.74 -$5.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fringe Benefit Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 949 504 545 379 360 360 3,097
Number changed.......................... 137 69 17 26 14 184 447
Percent changed......................... 14% 14% 3% 7% 4% 51% 14%
Average (non-zero)...................... $2.10 $2.14 -$1.67 $1.21 $0.74 $2.11 $1.42
Average (all)........................... $0.30 $0.29 -$0.05 $0.08 $0.03 $1.08 $0.19
Max..................................... $9.42 $11.16 $1.42 $2.19 $6.00 $4.61 $11.16
Min..................................... -$4.82 -$1.35 -$4.61 -$0.17 -$6.17 -$0.86 -$6.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Adjusting Out-of-Date Prevailing Wage and Fringe Benefit Rates
Updating old Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates
will increase the minimum required hourly compensation required to be
paid to workers on Davis-Bacon projects. This would result in transfers
of income to workers on Davis-Bacon projects who are currently being
paid only the required minimum hourly rate. Because the Federal
Government generally pays for increases to the prevailing wage through
higher contract bids, an increase in the prevailing wage will transfer
income from the Federal Government to the worker. This transfer will be
reflected in increased costs paid by the Federal Government for
construction.
However, to estimate a transfer estimate, many assumptions need to
be made with little or no supporting evidence. For example, the
Department would need to determine if workers really are being paid the
prevailing wage rate; some published rates are so outdated that it is
highly likely effective labor market rates exceed the published rates,
and the published prevailing wage rates are functionally irrelevant. In
addition, the Department would need to predict which Davis-Bacon
projects would occur each year, in which counties these projects will
occur, and the number of hours of work required from each class of
laborer and mechanic. Because of many uncertainties, the Department
instead characterizes the number and size of the changes in published
Davis-Bacon hourly rates and fringe benefits rather than formally
estimating the income change to those potentially affected by the
proposal to update rates.
To provide an illustrative analysis, the Department used the entire
set of wage and fringe benefit rates on Wage Determinations (WDs) as of
May 2019 to demonstrate the potential changes in Davis-Bacon wage and
fringe benefit rates resulting from updating old rates to 2021 values
using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Employment Cost Index
(ECI).\156\ For this demonstration, the Department considered the
impact of updating rates for key classification wage and fringe benefit
rates published prior to 2019 that were based on weighted averages,
which comprises 172,088 wage and fringe benefit rates lines in 3,997
WDs.\157\ The Department has focused on wage and fringe benefit rates
prior to 2019 because these are the universe of key classification
rates that may be more than 3 years old by the time a final rule is
issued, and the proposal calls for updating non-collectively-bargained
wage rates that are more than 3 years old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ At the time of the analysis, ECI was only available for
the first two quarters of 2021. Thus, the wage and fringe benefit
rates were updated to values representative of the first half of
2021.
\157\ In each type of construction covered by the Davis-Bacon
and Related Acts, some classifications are called ``key'' because
most projects require these workers. Building construction currently
has 16 key classifications, residential construction has 12 key
classifications and heavy and highway construction each have the
same eight key classifications. A line reflects a wage rate (or
fringe benefit rate) for a key classification by construction type
in a specific geographic area. For example, a line could reflect a
plumber in building construction in Fulton County, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After dropping hourly wages greater than $100 and wage rates that
were less than $7.25 but were updated to $7.25, 159,545 wage rates were
updated for this analysis.\158\ To update these wage rates, the
Department used the BLS' ECI, which measures the change over time in
the cost of labor total compensation.\159\ The Department believes that
the ECI for private industry workers, total compensation,
``construction, and extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry''
occupations, not seasonally adjusted is the most appropriate index.
However, the index for this group is only available starting in 2001.
Thus, for updating wages and fringe benefits from 1979 through 2000,
the Department determined the ECI for private industry workers in the
goods-producing industries was the most appropriate series to use that
was available back to 1979.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ The 54 wage rates greater than $100 were day or shift
rates. The remaining 12,489 rates excluded were less than $7.25
prior to July 24, 2009, but were published from surveys conducted
before the establishment of DOL's Automated Survey Data System
(ASDS) in 2002. The Department no longer has records of the original
published wage rates in these cases.
\159\ Available at: https://www.bls.gov/ect/.
\160\ Continuous Occupational and Industry Series, Table 5.
https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/eci-continuous-dollar.txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To consider potential transfers to workers due to changes in wages,
the full increase in the hourly rate would only occur if workers on
DBRA projects are currently paid the original published rates.\161\
However, due to market conditions in some areas, workers may be
receiving more than the published
[[Page 15775]]
rate. While completely comparable data on wages paid to workers on DBRA
projects in specific classifications and counties are not readily
available and usable for this analysis, the BLS's Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data provide a general estimate
of wages paid to certain categories of workers performing construction
and construction-related duties. Although the OEWS data can be
informative for this illustrative analysis, it is not a representative
data set of professional construction workers performing work on DBRA
projects. To estimate the approximate median 2021 wage rates, the
Department used the median hourly wage rate for each key classification
in the construction industry in the State 2020 OEWS data, then
approximated a 2021 value using ECI.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ The hourly wage rate increase would only occur when the
next contract goes into effect and a new WD with an updated wage
rate is incorporated into the contract.
\162\ Because the May 2021 OEWS data are not yet available, the
Department used the ECI for private industry workers, wages and
salaries, ``construction, and extraction, farming, fishing, and
forestry'' occupations, not seasonally adjusted, applied to the May
2020 OEWS estimates to approximate the median wage rates for May
2021. May 2020, Sectors 21, 22, & 23: Mining, Utilities, and
Construction. https://www.bls.gov/oes/special.requests/oes_research_2020_sec_21-22-23.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide an example of transfers, the Department compared the
ECI-updated Davis-Bacon wage rates to the applicable median hourly rate
in the OEWS data.\163\ Using the OEWS as a general measure of the
market conditions for construction worker wages in a given State, the
Department assumed that an updated Davis-Bacon wage rate below the
median OEWS rates would likely not lead to any income transfers to
construction workers because most workers are likely already paid more
than the updated Davis-Bacon rate. After removing the 99,111 updated
Davis-Bacon wage rates that were less than the OEWS median, there
remained 60,434 updated Davis-Bacon wage rates that may result in
transfers to workers. However, the Department notes that some of the
updated Davis-Bacon rates may be lower because they are a wage rate for
a rural county, and the OEWS data represents the statewide median.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ The Department used OEWS data for certain occupations
matching key classifications in the construction industry by State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further investigating the ECI-updated Davis-Bacon wage rates that
were substantially above the OEWS median wage rate, the Department
found that 24,044 of the originally published Davis-Bacon wage rates
were already higher than the OEWS median. For at least some of these
wage rates, the comparison to the OEWS median may not be appropriate
because such Davis-Bacon wage rates are for work in specialty
construction. For example, most of the prevailing wage rates published
specifically for a 2014 WD for Iowa Heavy Construction River Work
exceed the 2021 OEWS median rates for the same classifications in
Iowa.\164\ This may be an indication that comparing Davis-Bacon rates
for this type of construction to a more general measure of wages may
not be appropriate because workers are generally paid more for this
type of specialty construction than for more other types of
construction work measured by the OEWS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ WD IA20190002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, to measure possible transfers per hour to workers on
Davis-Bacon projects due to the updating of wage rates, the Department
began by taking the lesser of:
The difference between the updated wage rate and the OEWS
median wage rate.
The difference between the updated and originally
published wage rates.
The second difference accounts for the 24,044 Davis-Bacon wage
rates that were higher than the 2021 OEWS median rate even before they
were updated because otherwise the Department would overestimate the
potential hourly wage transfer.
The Department also examined an additional adjustment for DBA wage
rates because they are also subject to Executive Order 13658:
Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, which sets the minimum
wage paid to workers on Federal contracts at $11.25 in 2022.\165\ Thus,
the Department analyzed an additional restriction that the maximum
possible hourly transfer to workers on Davis-Bacon projects cannot
exceed the difference between the updated wage rate and $11.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ The Department also ran an analysis using the minimum wage
of $15.00 as proposed by Executive Order 14026, ``Increasing the
Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.'' The results were similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the added restriction has no impact on estimated transfers
because any updated wage rates that were less than $11.25 were also
less than the OEWS median wage rate. Thus, the maximum possible hourly
transfers attributable to updated Davis-Bacon wage rates are identical
for construction projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act and by the
Related Acts.
Table 8 provides the summary statistics of the per hour transfers
to workers that may occur due to updating old Davis-Bacon wage rates.
Among the wage rates considered in this demonstration, there are 60,434
wage rates updates that may result in transfers to workers. On average,
the maximum hourly transfer is $3.92.
Table 8--Distribution of Potential per-Hour Transfers Due to Updated Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Standard
Coverage rates Mean Median deviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis-Bacon Related Acts........................ 60,434 $3.92 $3.11 $3.92
Davis-Bacon Act................................. 60,434 3.92 3.11 3.92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fringe Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.................... 75,495 1.43 1.02 1.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.................... 94,547 3.65 2.13 4.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 172,088 pre-2019 SU key classification wage and fringe
benefit rates, 75,495 were non-zero, and thus would be updated,
possibly resulting in some transfers to workers (Table 8). On
[[Page 15776]]
average, these non-zero fringe benefits would increase by $1.43 per
hour.
Adding the required Davis-Bacon wage and fringe benefit rates
together measures the required total compensation rate on DBRA
projects. Due to updating old rates, 94,547 Davis-Bacon total
compensation hourly rates would increase by $3.65 on average.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ The average increase in total compensation is less than
the average wage increase because more wage and fringe benefit lines
are included for total compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department conducted these two demonstrations to provide an
indication of the possible changes to Davis-Bacon wage rates and fringe
benefit rates attributable to the proposed provision revising the
definition of ``prevailing,'' and the provision to update out-of-date
SU rates using the ECI (only one of which would affect a location-
occupation pair at a particular time). Both provisions may lead to
higher hourly payments, while the former also has the potential to lead
to lower hourly payments.
However, because accurate data to measure the current county-level
labor conditions for specific construction classifications are not
available, it is unclear if an increase or decrease in Davis-Bacon
minimum required rates will impact what workers earn on DBRA projects.
Furthermore, even if some of these rate changes do lead to different
rates paid to workers on DBRA projects, data are not available to
estimate how large transfers might be. To do so would require detailed
information on what federally funded construction contracts will be
issued, the types of projects funded, where the projects will occur
(specific county or counties), the value of the projects, and the labor
mix needed to complete the project. Due to these many uncertainties in
calculating a transfer estimate, the Department instead tried to
characterize what changes in rates might occur as a result of the
rulemaking.
E. Cost Savings
This proposed rule could lead to cost savings for both contractors
and the Federal Government, because the clarifications made in the rule
would reduce ambiguity and increase efficiency, which could reduce the
amount of time necessary to comply with the rule. For example, as
discussed in section V.C.3, the proposal to expressly authorize WHD to
list classifications and corresponding wage and fringe benefit rates on
wage determinations even when WHD has received insufficient data
through its wage survey process will increase certainty and reduce
administrative burden for contracting entities. It would reduce the
number of compliance requests needed, which could save time for the
contractors, contracting agencies, and the Department. Additionally,
the proposal which permits the Administrator to adopt prevailing wage
rates set by State and local governments could result in cost savings
for the Department, because it avoids WHD duplicating wage survey work
that states and localities are already doing. It could also result in
cost savings in the form of time savings for contractors, as they will
only have one wage determination that they will have to reference.
Additionally, the Department is providing clarifications throughout
the rule, which will make clear which contract workers are covered by
DBRA. For example, the Department is clarifying provisions related to
the site of work, demolition and removal workers, and truck drivers and
their assistants, among others. These clarifications will make it clear
to both contractors and contract workers who is covered, and therefore
could help reduce legal disputes between the two, resulting in cost
savings.
Because the Department does not have information on how much
additional time contractors and the Federal Government currently spend
complying with this rule due to lack of clarity, these cost savings are
discussed qualitatively. However, the Department welcomes any comments
and data that could inform a quantitative analysis of these cost
savings.
F. Benefits
Among the multiple proposals discussed above, the Department
recognizes that the proposal to update the definition of prevailing
wage using the ``30 percent rule'' could have various impacts on wage
rates. The effect of this proposal on actual wages paid is uncertain
for the reasons discussed in Section V.D.1. However, the Department's
proposal to update out-of-date wage rates using the ECI would result in
higher prevailing wage rates due to the increases in employer costs
over time. Any DBRA-covered workers that were not already being paid
above these higher wage rates would receive a raise when these updated
rates were implemented. These higher wages could lead to benefits such
as improved government services, increased productivity, and reduced
turnover, which are all discussed here qualitatively. The magnitude of
these wage increases could influence the magnitude of these benefits.
The Department notes that the literature cited in this section
sometimes does not directly consider changes in the DBRA prevailing
wages. Additionally, much of the literature is based on voluntary
changes made by firms. However, the Department has presented the
information here because the general findings may still be applicable
in this context. The Department welcomes comments and data on the
benefits of this proposed rulemaking.
1. Improved Government Services
For workers who are paid higher wage rates as a result of this
proposed rulemaking, the Department expects that the quality of
construction could improve. Higher wages can be associated with a
higher number of bidders for Government contracts, which can be
expected to generate greater competition and an improved pool of
contractors. Multiple studies have shown that the bidding for municipal
contracts remained competitive or even improved when living wage
ordinances were implemented (Thompson and Chapman, 2006).\167\ In a
study on the impact of bid competition on final outcomes of State
Department of Transportation (DOT) construction projects, Delaney
(2018) demonstrated that each additional bidder reduces final project
cost overruns by 2.2 percent and increases the likelihood of achieving
a high-quality bid by 4.9 times.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Thompson, J. and J. Chapman. (2006). ``The Economic Impact
of Local Living Wages,'' Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper
#170, 2006.
\168\ Delaney, J. (2018). The Effect of Competition on Bid
Quality and Final Results on State DOT Projects. https://www.proquest.com/openview/33655a0e4c7b8a6d25d30775d350b8ad/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Increased Productivity
For workers whose wages increase as a result of the Department's
proposal to update out-of-date wage rates, these increases could result
in increased productivity. Increased productivity could occur through
numerous channels, such as employee morale, level of effort, and
reduced absenteeism. A strand of economic research, commonly referred
to as ``efficiency wage'' theory, considers how an increase in
compensation may be met with greater productivity.\169\ Efficiency
wages may elicit greater effort on the
[[Page 15777]]
part of workers, making them more effective on the job.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Akerlof, G.A. (1982). Labor Contracts as Partial Gift
Exchange. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543-569.
\170\ Another model of efficiency wages, which is less
applicable here, is the adverse selection model in which higher
wages raise the quality of the pool of applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen (1984) estimates the ratio of the marginal product of union
and non-union labor.\171\ He finds that union workers are 17 to 22
percent more productive than non-union members. Although it is unclear
whether this entire productivity difference is attributable to higher
wages, it is likely a large contributing factor. The Construction Labor
Research Council (2004) compared the costs to build a mile of highway
in higher wage and lower wage states using data reported to the Federal
Highway Administration from 1994 to 2002.\172\ They found that in
higher wage states, 32 percent fewer labor hours are needed to complete
a mile of highway than in lower wage states, despite hourly wage rates
being 69 percent higher in those states. While this increased worker
productivity could be due in part to other factors such as greater
worker experience or more investment in capital equipment in higher
wage states, the higher wages likely contribute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Allen, S.G. (1984). Unionized Construction Workers are
More Productive. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 251-174.
\172\ The Construction Labor Research Council (2004). The Impact
of Wages on Highway Construction Costs. https://niabuild.org/WageStudybooklet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, Vedder (1999) compared output per worker across states
with and without prevailing wage laws.\173\ Data on construction
workers is from the Department of Labor and data on construction
contracts is from the Department of Commerce. A worker in a prevailing
wage law State produced $63,116 of value in 1997 while a worker from a
non-prevailing wage law State produced $65,754. Based on this simple
comparison, workers are more productive without prevailing wage laws.
However, this is a somewhat basic comparison in that it does not
control for other differences between states that may influence
productivity (for example, the amount of capital used or other State
regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Vedder, R. (1999). Michigan's Prevailing Wage Law and Its
Effects on Government Spending and Construction Employment. Midland,
Michigan: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies on absenteeism have demonstrated that there is a negative
effect on firm productivity as absentee rates increase.\174\ Zhang et
al., in their study of linked employer-employee data in Canada, found
that a 1 percent decline in the attendance rate reduces productivity by
0.44 percent.\175\ Allen (1983) similarly noted that a 10-percentage
point increase in absenteeism corresponds to a decrease of 1.6 percent
in productivity.\176\ Hanna et al. (2005) find that while absenteeism
rates of between 0 and 5 percent among contractors on electrical
construction projects lead to no loss of productivity, absenteeism
rates of between 6 and 10 percent can spark a 24.4 percent drop in
productivity.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Allen, S.G. (1983). How Much Does Absenteeism Cost?
Journal of Human Resources, 18(3), 379-393. https://www.jstor.org/stable/145207?seq=1.
\175\ Zhang, W., Sun, H., Woodcock, S., & Anis, A. (2013).
Valuing Productivity Loss Due to Absenteeism: Firm-level Evidence
from a Canadian Linked Employer-Employee Data. Health Economics
Review, 7(3). https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13561-016-0138-y.
\176\ Allen, S.G. (1983). How Much Does Absenteeism Cost?
Journal of Human Resources, 18(3), 379-393. https://www.jstor.org/stable/145207?seq=1.
\177\ Hanna, A., Menches, C., Sullivan, K., & Sargent, J. (2005)
Factors Affecting Absenteeism in Electrical Construction. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 131(11). https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1212).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairris et al. (2005) demonstrated that as a worker's wage
increases there is a reduction in unscheduled absenteeism.\178\ They
attribute this effect to workers standing to lose more if forced to
look for new employment and an increase in pay paralleling an increase
in access to paid time off. Pfeifer's (2010) study of German companies
provides similar results, indicating a reduction in absenteeism if
workers experience an overall increase in pay.\179\ Conversely, Dionne
and Dostie (2007) attribute a decrease in absenteeism to mechanisms
other than an increase in worker pay, specifically scheduling that
provides both the option to work-at-home and for fewer compressed work
weeks.\180\ However, the relevance of such policies in the context of
construction is unclear. The Department believes both the connection
between prevailing wages and absenteeism, and the connection between
absenteeism and productivity are well enough established that this is a
feasible benefit of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Fairris, D., Runstein, D., Briones, C., & Goodheart, J.
(2005). Examining the Evidence: The Impact of the Los Angeles Living
Wage Ordinance on Workers and Businesses. LAANE. https://laane.org/downloads/Examinig_the_Evidence.pdf.
\179\ Pfeifer, C. (2010). Impact of Wages and Job Levels on
Worker Absenteeism. International Journal of Manpower 31(1), 59-72.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721011031694.
\180\ Dionne, G., & Dostie, B. (2007). New Evidence on the
Determinants of Absenteeism Using Linked Employer-Employee Data.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 61(1), 108-120. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979390706100106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reduced Turnover
Little evidence is available on the impact of prevailing wage laws
and turnover, but an increase in the minimum wage has been shown to
decrease both turnover rates and the rate of worker separation (Dube,
Lester and Reich, 2011; Liu, Hyclak and Regmi, 2015; Jardim et al.,
2018).\181\ This decrease in turnover and worker separation can lead to
an increase in the profits of firms, as the hiring process can be both
expensive and time consuming. A review of 27 case studies found that
the median cost of replacing an employee was 21 percent of the
employee's annual salary.\182\ Fairris et al. (2005) \183\ found the
cost reduction due to lower turnover rates ranges from $137 to $638 for
each worker. Although the impacts cited here are not limited to
government construction contracting, because data specific to
government contracting and turnover are not available, the Department
believes that a reduction in turnover could be observed among those
workers on DBRA contracts whose wages increase following this proposed
rule. The potential reduction in turnover is a function of several
variables: The current wage, the change in the wage rate, hours worked
on covered contracts, and the turnover rate. Therefore, the Department
has not quantified the impacts of potential reduction in reduction in
turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Dube, A., Lester, T.W., & Reich, M. (2011). Do Frictions
Matter in the Labor Market? Accessions, Separations, and Minimum
Wage Effects. (Discussion Paper No. 5811). IZA. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/5811/do-frictions-matter-in-the-labor-market-accessions-separations-and-minimum-wage-effects.
Liu, S., Hyclak, T. J., & Regmi, K. (2015). Impact of the
Minimum Wage on Youth Labor Markets. Labour 29(4). doi: 10.1111/
labr.12071.
Jardim, E., Long, M.C., Plotnick, R., van Inwegen, E., Vigdor,
J., & Wething, H. (2018, October). Minimum Wage Increases and
Individual Employment Trajectories (Working paper No. 25182). NBER.
doi:10.3386/w25182.
\182\ Boushey, H. and Glynn, S. (2012). There are Significant
Business Costs to Replacing Employees. Center for American Progress.
Available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf.
\183\ Fairris, D., Runstein, D., Briones, C., & Goodheart, J.
(2005). Examining the Evidence: The Impact of the Los Angeles Living
Wage Ordinance on Workers and Businesses. LAANE. https://laane.org/downloads/Examinig_the_Evidence.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA) Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies
engaged in rulemaking to consider the impact of
[[Page 15778]]
their proposals on small entities, consider alternatives to minimize
that impact, and solicit public comment on their analyses. The RFA
requires the assessment of the impact of a regulation on a wide range
of small entities, including small businesses, not-for profit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must
perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.
A. Why the Department Is Considering Action
In order to provide greater clarity and enhance their usefulness in
the modern economy, the Department proposes to update and modernize the
regulations at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5, which implement the Davis-
Bacon Act and the Davis-Bacon Related Acts (collectively, the DBRA).
The Department has not undertaken a comprehensive revision of the DBRA
regulations since 1982. Since that time, Congress has expanded the
reach of the DBRA regulations significantly, adding numerous new
Related Act statutes to which they apply. The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and
now 71 active Related Acts collectively apply to an estimated tens of
billions of dollars in Federal and federally assisted construction
spending per year and provide minimum wage rates for hundreds of
thousands of U.S. construction workers. The Department expects these
numbers to continue to grow as Congress seeks to address the
significant infrastructure needs in the country, including, in
particular, energy and transportation infrastructure necessary to
address climate change. These regulations will provide additional
clarity that will be helpful given the increased number of construction
projects subject to Davis-Bacon requirements, due to the substantial
increases in federally funded construction provided for in legislation
such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
In addition to expanding coverage of the prevailing wage rate
requirements of the DBA, the Federal contracting system itself has
undergone significant changes since 1982. Federal agencies have
increased spending through the use of interagency Federal schedules.
Contractors have increased their use of single-purpose entities such as
joint ventures and teaming agreements. Off-site construction of
significant components of public buildings and works has also
increased. The regulations need to be updated to assure their continued
effectiveness in the face of changes such as these.
B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
In this NPRM, the Department seeks to address a number of
outstanding challenges in the program while also providing greater
clarity in the DBRA regulations and enhancing their usefulness in the
modern economy. Specifically, the Department proposes to return to the
definition of ``prevailing wage'' that was used from 1935 to 1983 to
address the overuse of average rates and ensure that prevailing wages
reflect actual wages paid to workers in the local community. The
Department also proposes to periodically update non-collectively
bargained prevailing wage rates to address out-of-date wage rates. The
Department proposes to give WHD broader authority to adopt State or
local wage determinations as the Federal prevailing wage where certain
specified criteria are satisfied, to issue supplemental rates for key
classifications where there is insufficient survey data, to modernize
the scope of work to include energy infrastructure and the site of work
to include prefabricated buildings, to ensure that DBRA requirements
protect workers by operation of law, and to strengthen enforcement
including debarment and anti-retaliation. See Section III.B. for a full
discussion of the Department's proposed changes to these regulations.
Congress has delegated authority to the Department to issue
prevailing wage determinations and prescribe rules and regulations for
contractors and subcontractors on DBRA-covered construction
projects.\184\ See 40 U.S.C. 3142, 3145. It has also directed the
Department, through Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, to ``prescribe
appropriate standards, regulations and procedures'' to be observed by
Federal agencies responsible for the administration of the Davis-Bacon
and Related Acts. 5 U.S.C. app. 1, effective May 24, 1950, 15 FR 3176,
64 Stat. 1267. These regulations, which have been updated and revised
periodically over time, are primarily located in parts 1, 3, and 5 of
title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ The DBA and the Related Acts apply to both prime contracts
and subcontracts of any tier thereunder. In this NPRM, as in the
regulations themselves, where the terms ``contracts'' or
``contractors'' are used, they are intended to include reference
both prime contracts and contractors and subcontracts and
subcontractors of any tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Estimating the Number of Small Businesses Affected by the Rulemaking
As discussed in section V.B., the Department identified a range of
firms potentially affected by this rulemaking. This includes both firms
impacted by the Davis-Bacon Act and firms impacted by the Related Acts.
The more narrowly defined population includes firms actively holding
Davis-Bacon contracts and firms affected by the Related Acts. The
broader population includes those bidding on Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts contracts but without active contracts, or those considering
bidding in the future. As described in section V.B., the total number
of potentially affected firms ranges from 154,500 to 192,400. This
includes firms that pay at or above the new wage determination rates
and thus will not be substantially affected. The Department does not
have data to identify the number of firms that will experience changes
in payroll costs.
To identify the number of small firms, the Department began with
the total population of firms and identified some of these firms as
small based on several methods.
For prime contractors in USASpending, the Department used
the variable ``Contracting Officer's Determination of Business Size.''
\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ The description of this variable in the USAspending.gov
Data Dictionary is: ``The Contracting Officer's determination of
whether the selected contractor meets the small business size
standard for award to a small business for the NAICS code that is
applicable to the contract.'' The Data Dictionary is available at:
https://www.usaspending.gov/data-dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For subcontractors from USASpending, the Department
identified those with ``small'' or ``SBA'' in the ``Subawardee Business
Types'' variable.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ The description of this variable in the USAspending.gov
Data Dictionary is: ``Comma separated list representing sub-
contractor business types pulled from Federal Procurement Data
System--Next Generation (FPDS-NG) or the System for Award Management
(SAM).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SAM data, the Department used the small business
determination in the data, in variable ``NAICS Code String.'' This is
flagged separately for each NAICS reported for the firm; therefore, the
Department classified a company as a small business if SAM identified
it as a small business in any 6-digit NAICS beginning with 23.
This results in an estimated number of potentially affected small
businesses ranging from 103,600 to 135,200.
[[Page 15779]]
Table 9--Range of Number of Potentially Affected Small Firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Small
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Count (Davis-Bacon and Related Acts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrow definition.................................... 103,600
Broad definition..................................... 135,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBA (Narrow Definition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 26,700
Prime contractors from USASpending............... 11,200
Subcontractors from USASpending \a\.............. 15,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBA (Broad Definition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 58,300
SAM.............................................. 42,800
Subcontractors from USASpending \a\.............. 15,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Acts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 77,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Determination based on inclusion of ``small'' or ``SBA'' in the
business types.
The Department estimated in section V.B. that 1.2 million employees
are potentially affected by the rulemaking. That methodology does not
include a variation to identify only workers employed by small firms.
The Department therefore assumed that the share of contracting
expenditures attributed to small businesses is the best approximation
of the share of employment in small businesses. In USASpending,
expenditures are available for by firm size. For example, in 2019,
$55.4 billion was spent on DBA covered contracts (see section V.B.2.)
and of that, $19.8 billion (36 percent) was awarded to small business
prime contractors.\187\ Data on expenditures by firm size are
unavailable for the Related Acts (Table 10). Therefore, the Department
assumed the same percentage applies to such expenditures as for Davis-
Bacon contracts. In total, an estimated 424,800 workers are employed by
potentially affected small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ If subcontractors are more likely to be small businesses
than prime contractors, then this methodology may underestimate the
number of workers who are employed by small businesses.
Table 10--Number of Potentially Affected Workers in Small Covered Contracting Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Total workers expenditures in Workers in small
(thousands) small contracting businesses
firms \a\ (thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBA, excl. territories................................. 297.9 35.7% 106.4
DBA, territories....................................... 6.1 38.2% 2.3
Related Acts \b\....................................... 883.9 35.8% 316.0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 1,188.0 ................. 424.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: USASpending.gov. Percentage of contracting expenditures for covered contracts in small businesses in
2019.
\b\ Because data on expenditures by firm size are unavailable for Related Acts. The Department assumed the same
percentage applied as for Davis-Bacon.
In several places in the NPRM, the Department is proposing to add
or revise language to clarify existing policies rather than to
substantively change them. For example, the Department proposes to add
language to the definitions of ``building or work'' and ``public
building or public work'' to clarify that these definitions can be met
even when the construction activity involves only a portion of an
overall building, structure, or improvement. Also, the Department
proposes to add language clarifying the applicability of the ``material
supplier'' exemption to coverage, the applicability of the DBRA to
truck drivers and flaggers, and the extent to which demolition
activities are covered by the DBRA. However, the Department
acknowledges that some contracting agencies may not have been applying
Davis-Bacon in accordance with those policies. Where this was the case,
the clarity provided by this proposed rule could lead to expanded
application of the Davis-Bacon labor standards, which could lead to
more small firms being required to comply with Davis-Bacon labor
standards. Additionally, the Department's proposes to revise the
definition of ``site of the work'' to further encompass certain
construction of significant portions of a building or work at secondary
worksites, which could clarify and strengthen the scope of coverage
under DBA, which would also lead to more small firms being required to
comply with Davis-Bacon labor standards. The Department does not have
data to determine how many of these small firms exist and welcomes data
and information on the extent to which small firms would newly be
applying
[[Page 15780]]
Davis-Bacon and what potential compliance costs they could incur.
D. Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including Reporting
and Recordkeeping
Many of the proposals in this rule only affect how the prevailing
wage rate is calculated. For these proposals there will be no new
compliance requirements for small firms, as they will still need to pay
the published prevailing wage. The Department is also proposing a
number of revisions to existing recordkeeping requirements to better
effectuate compliance and enforcement, including revisions to clarify
the record retention period and add requirements to maintain worker
telephone numbers and email addresses. The Department is proposing to
clarify language used to better distinguish the records that
contractors must make and maintain (regular payrolls and other basic
records) from the payroll documents that contractors must submit weekly
to contracting agencies (certified payrolls). The Department is also
proposing to clarify that electronic signatures and certified payroll
submission methods may be used.
E. Calculating the Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Business Firms
The Department considered employer costs associated with both (a)
the change in determining the prevailing wage based on a 30 percent
threshold instead of a 50 percent threshold and (b) the incorporation
of using the change in the ECI to update certain non-collectively
bargained prevailing wage rates. The Department estimated both
regulatory familiarization costs and implementation costs. An overview
of these costs is explained here but additional details can be found in
section V.C. Non-quantified direct employer costs are explained in
section V.C.3.
The Department acknowledges that if some wage rates increase due to
either of the provisions listed above, there could be an increase in
payroll costs for some small firms. Due to data limitations and
uncertainty, the Department did not quantify payroll costs (i.e.,
transfers). The change in the definition of prevailing wage will only
be applied to wage data received through future surveys, for geographic
areas and classifications that have not yet been identified. Both this
provision and the updating of out-of-date rates will not have any
impact if firms are already paying at or above the new prevailing wage
rate because of labor market forces. Please see section V.D. for a more
thorough discussion of these potential payroll costs, including an
illustrative example of the potential impact of the proposed rule on
prevailing wage rates.
The Department welcomes comments and data on whether small firms
would incur increased payroll costs following this rule, and the extent
to which firms are paying above the out-of-date prevailing wage rates.
Year 1 direct employer costs for small businesses are estimated to
total $8.7 million. Average annualized costs across the first 10 years
are estimated to be $2.6 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). On
a per firm basis, direct employer costs are estimated to be $78.97 in
Year 1.
The proposed rule will impose direct costs on some covered
contractors who will review the regulations to understand how the
prevailing wage setting methodology will change. However, the
Department believes these regulatory familiarization costs will be
small because firms are not required to understand how the prevailing
wage rates are set in order to comply with DBRA requirements, they are
just required to pay the prevailing wage rates. The Department included
all small potentially affected firms (135,200 firms). The Department
assumed that on average, 1 hour of a human resources staff member's
time will be spent reviewing the rulemaking. The cost of this time is
the median loaded wage for a Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialist of $52.65 per hour.\188\ Therefore, the Department has
estimated regulatory familiarization costs to be $7.1 million ($52.65
per hour x 1.0 hour x 135,200 contractors) (Table 11). The Department
has included all regulatory familiarization costs in Year 1. New
entrants will not incur any additional regulatory familiarization costs
attributable to this rule. Average annualized regulatory
familiarization costs over 10 years, using a 7 percent discount rate,
are $1.0 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ This includes the median base wage of $32.30 from the May
2020 OEWS estimates plus benefits paid at a rate of 46 percent of
the base wage, as estimated from the BLS's Employer Costs for
Employee ECEC data, and overhead costs of 17 percent. OEWS data
available at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131141.htm.
Table 11--Direct Employer Costs to Small Businesses
[2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory
Variable Total familiarization Implementation
costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Costs: ................. ................. .................
Potentially affected firms......................... ................. 135,200 62,574
Hours per firm..................................... ................. 1 0.5
Loaded wage rate................................... ................. $52.65 $52.65
Cost ($1,000s)..................................... $8,700 $7,100 $1,600
Years 2-10 ($1,000s): ................. ................. .................
Annual cost........................................ $1,600 $0 $1,600
Average Annualized Costs ($1,000s): ................. ................. .................
3% discount rate................................... $2,400 $835 $1,600
7% discount rate................................... $2,600 $1,000 $1,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When firms update prevailing wage rates, they can incur costs
associated with adjusting payrolls, adjusting contracts, and
communicating this information to employees (if applicable). This
proposed rule would generally affect the frequency with which
prevailing wage rates are updated through the provision to update old,
outmoded rates, and moving forward, to periodically update rates when
that does not occur through the survey process. Currently, only a
fraction of prevailing wages can be expected to change each year.
Because the
[[Page 15781]]
Department intends to update older rates to more accurately represent
wages and benefits being paid in the construction industry, and, moving
forward, more published wage rates will change more frequently than in
the past, firms may spend more time updating prevailing wage rates for
contractual purposes than they have in the past, leading to additional
implementation costs than there otherwise would have been. The
Department does not believe that there will be additional
implementation costs associated with the proposal to update the
definition of the prevailing wage (30 percent rule). This proposed
change would only apply to new surveys, for which employers would have
already had to update wage rates.
To estimate the size of the implementation cost associated with the
periodic updates, the Department assumed that each year 39.6 percent of
firms are already checking rates due to newly published surveys
(section V.C.2.). Multiplying the remaining 60.4 percent by the 103,600
small firms holding DBRA contracts results in 62,574 firms impacted
annually (Table 11). The proposed change to update current non-
collectively bargained rates will have an implementation cost to firms.
The proposed change to update non-collectively bargained rates moving
forward will result in ongoing implementation costs. Each time the rate
is updated, firms will incur some costs to adjust payroll (if
applicable) and communicate the new rates to employees. The Department
assumed that this provision would impact all small firms currently
holding DBRA contracts (62,574 firms). For the initial increase, the
Department estimated this will take approximately 0.5 hours per year
for firms to adjust their rates. As with previous costs, implementation
time costs are based on a loaded hourly wage of $52.65. Therefore,
total Year 1 implementation costs were estimated to equal $1.6 million
($52.65 x 0.5 hour x 62,574 firms). The average annualized
implementation cost over 10 years, using a 7 percent discount rate, is
$1.6 million.
To determine direct employer costs on a per firm basis, the
Department considers only those firms who are fully affected. These are
firms who seek to bid on DBRA contracts, and who have new wage rates to
incorporate into their bids and, as needed, into their payroll systems.
For these firms, the Year 1 costs are estimated as one and a half hours
of time (1 hour for regulatory familiarization and 0.5 hours for
implementation) valued at $52.65 per hour. This totals $78.97 in Year 1
costs per firm. The Department welcomes comments on all of the cost
estimates presented here.
F. Relevant Federal Rules Duplicating, Overlapping, or Conflicting With
the Proposed Rule
The Department is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that
conflict with this NPRM.
G. Alternative to the Proposed Rule
The RFA directs agencies to assess the impacts that various
regulatory alternatives would have on small entities and to consider
ways to minimize those impacts. Accordingly, the Department considered
certain regulatory alternatives.
For one alternative, the Department considered requiring all
contracting agencies--not just Federal agencies--that use wage
determinations under the DBRA to submit an annual report to the
Department outlining proposed construction programs for the coming
year. The Department concluded, however, that this requirement would be
unnecessarily onerous for non-Federal contracting agencies,
particularly as major construction projects such as those related to
road and water quality infrastructure projects may be dependent upon
approved funding or financial assistance from a Federal partner. The
Department's proposal to require only Federal agencies to submit these
annual reports would be simpler and less burdensome for the regulated
community as some Federal agencies have already been submitting these
reports pursuant to AAM 144 (Dec. 27, 1985) and AAM 224 (Jan. 17,
2017).
Another alternative that was considered was the use of a different
index instead of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for updating out-of-
date non-collectively bargained wage rates. The Department considered
proposing to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) but considers this data
source to be a less appropriate index to use because the CPI measures
movement of consumer prices as experienced by day-to-day living
expenses, unlike the ECI, which measures changes in the costs of labor
in particular. The CPI does not track changes in wages or benefits, nor
does it reflect the costs of construction workers nationwide.
The Department welcomes comments on these and other alternatives to
the proposed rule.
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires
agencies to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing any unfunded
Federal mandate that may result in excess of $100 million (adjusted
annually for inflation) in expenditures in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. This rulemaking is not expected exceed that threshold. See
section V. for an assessment of anticipated costs, transfers, and
benefits.
VIII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The Department has (1) reviewed this proposed rule in accordance
with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism and (2) determined that
it does not have federalism implications. The proposed rule would not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
IX. Executive Order 13175, Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule would not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 that would require a tribal summary impact
statement. The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Appendix A--Surveys Included in the Prevailing Wage Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys Included
Survey year Pub date -----------------------------------------------------------------
State Metro/rural Construction type(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.......................... 12/25/2020 Utah............. Metro........... Heavy.
2017.......................... 12/14/2018 Nevada........... Both............ Highway.
2017.......................... 12/25/2020 New York......... Rural........... Building.
[[Page 15782]]
2017.......................... 12/25/2020 North Dakota..... Both............ Heavy.
2017.......................... 2/7/2020 Oklahoma......... Metro........... Residential.
2017.......................... 2/7/2020 Pennsylvania..... East Metro...... Residential.
2017.......................... 1/24/2020 Vermont.......... Both............ Heavy, highway [\a\].
2016.......................... 12/14/2018 Connecticut...... Metro [\b\]..... Building.
2016.......................... 12/14/2018 New Mexico....... Metro........... Building and heavy.
2016.......................... 9/29/2017 New York......... 4 metro counties Building.
2016.......................... 2/7/2020 North Carolina... Both............ Residential.
2016.......................... 12/8/2017 South Carolina... Metro [\c\]..... Residential.
2015.......................... 10/6/2017 Alabama.......... Both [\d\]...... Building and heavy.
2016.......................... 2/7/2020 Alabama.......... Both............ Highway.
2015.......................... 4/21/2017 Arkansas......... Both............ Building and heavy.
2015.......................... 9/28/2018 Minnesota........ Both............ Building.
2015.......................... 7/28/2017 Mississippi...... Both............ Building and heavy.
2015.......................... 9/29/2017 New Hampshire.... Both............ Building and heavy.
2014.......................... 12/16/2016 Florida.......... Metro [\c\]..... Building.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[\a\] Building component not sufficient.
[\b\] Only one rural county so excluded.
[\c\] Rural component of survey was not sufficient.
[\d\] Excludes heavy rural which were not sufficient.
This includes most surveys with published rates that began in 2015
or later. They include all four construction types, metro and rural
counties, and a variety of geographic regions. Two surveys were
excluded because they did not meet sufficiency standards (2016 Alaska
residential and 2015 Maryland highway). A few surveys were excluded due
to anomalies that could not be reconciled. These include:
2016 Kansas highway
2016 Virginia highway
Appendix B: Current DOL Wage Determination Protocols
Sufficiency requirement is: For a classification to have sufficient
responses there generally must be data on at least six employees from
at least three contractors. Additionally, if data is received for
either exactly six employees or exactly three contractors, then no more
than 60 percent of the total employees can be employed by any one
contractor. Exceptions to these criteria are allowed under limited
circumstances. Examples include: Surveys conducted in rural counties,
or residential and heavy surveys with limited construction activity, or
for highly specialized classifications. In these circumstances, the
rule can be three employees and two contractors.
Aggregation: If the classification is not sufficient at the county
level, data are aggregated to the group level, supergroup level, and
State level (metro or rural), respectively. For building and
residential construction, at each level of aggregation (as well as at
the county level) WHD first attempts to calculate a prevailing rate
using data only for projects not subject to Davis-Bacon labor
standards; if such data are insufficient to calculate a prevailing
rate, then data for projects subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards is
also included.
Majority rate: If more than 50 percent of employees are paid the
exact same hourly rate, then that rate prevails. If not, the Department
calculates a weighted average. If more than 50 percent are not exactly
the same, but 100 percent of the data are union, then a union weighted
average is calculated.
Prevailing fringe benefits: Before a fringe benefit is applicable,
it must prevail. The first step is to determine if more than 50 percent
of the workers in the reported classification receive a fringe benefit.
If more than 50 percent of the employees in a single classification are
paid any fringe benefits, then fringe benefits prevail. If fringe
benefits prevail in a classification and:
More than 50 percent of the employees receiving fringe
benefits are paid the same total fringe benefit rate, then that total
fringe benefit rate prevails.
more than 50 percent of the employees receiving benefits
are not paid at the same total rate, then the average rate of fringe
benefits weighted by the number of workers who received fringe benefits
prevails. If more than 50 percent are not paid the same total rate, but
100 percent of the data are union, then a union weighted average is
calculated.
However, if 50 percent or less of the employees in a single
classification are paid a fringe benefit, then fringe benefits will not
prevail, and a fringe benefit rate of $0.00 will be published for that
classification.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Construction industry,
Government contracts, Government procurement, Law enforcement,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Construction industry,
Government contracts, Government procurement, Law enforcement,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 5
Administrative practice and procedure, Construction industry,
Government contracts, Government procurement, Law enforcement,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor, proposes to amend 29 CFR subtitle A as follows:
PART 1--PROCEDURES FOR PREDETERMINATION OF WAGE RATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; R.S. 161, 64 Stat. 1267; Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. Appendix; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.; 40
U.S.C. 3145; 40 U.S.C. 3148; and Secretary of Labor's Order 01-2014
(Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); and the laws
referenced by 29 CFR 5.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.1 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
[[Page 15783]]
Sec. 1.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) The procedural rules in this part apply under the Davis-Bacon
Act (946 Stat. 1494, as amended; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.), and any laws
now existing or subsequently enacted, which provide for the payment of
minimum wages, including fringe benefits, to laborers and mechanics
engaged in construction activity under contracts entered into or
financed by or with the assistance of agencies of the United States or
the District of Columbia, based on determinations by the Secretary of
Labor of the wage rates and fringe benefits prevailing for the
corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects
similar to the contract work in the local areas where such work is to
be performed.
(1) A listing of laws requiring the payment of wages at rates
predetermined by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act is
currently found at www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts.
(2) Functions of the Secretary of Labor under these statutes and
under Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267, as amended; 5
U.S.C. Appendix), except for functions assigned to the Office of
Administrative Law Judges (see part 6 of this subtitle) and appellate
functions assigned to the Administrative Review Board (see part 7 of
this subtitle) or reserved by the Secretary of Labor (see Secretary's
Order 01-2020 (Feb. 21, 2020) have been delegated to the Administrator
of the Wage and Hour Division and authorized representatives.
(b) The regulations in this part set forth the procedures for
making and applying such determinations of prevailing wage rates and
fringe benefits pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act and any laws now
existing or subsequently enacted providing for determinations of such
wages by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 1.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.2 Definitions.
Administrator. The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator
of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, or authorized
representative.
Agency. The term ``agency'' means any Federal, State, or local
agency or instrumentality, or other similar entity, that enters into a
contract or provides assistance through loan, grant, loan guarantee or
insurance, or otherwise, to a project subject to the Davis-Bacon labor
standards, as defined in Sec. 5.2 of this subtitle.
(1) Federal agency. The term ``Federal agency'' means an agency or
instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, as
defined in this section, that enters into a contract or provides
assistance through loan, grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
(2) [Reserved]
Area. The term ``area'' means the city, town, village, county or
other civil subdivision of the State in which the work is to be
performed.
(1) For highway projects, the area may be State department of
transportation highway districts or other similar State subdivisions.
(2) Where a project requires work in multiple counties, the area
may include all counties in which the work will be performed.
Department of Labor-approved website for wage determinations (DOL-
approved website). The term ``Department of Labor-approved website for
wage determinations'' means the government website for both Davis-Bacon
Act and Service Contract Act wage determinations. In addition, the DOL-
approved website provides compliance assistance information. The term
will also apply to any other website or electronic means that the
Department of Labor may approve for these purposes.
Employed. Every person performing the duties of a laborer or
mechanic in the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of a
public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole
or in part by assistance from the United States through loan, grant,
loan guarantee or insurance, or otherwise, is employed regardless of
any contractual relationship alleged to exist between the contractor
and such person.
Prevailing wage. The term ``prevailing wage'' means:
(1) The wage paid to the majority (more than 50 percent) of the
laborers or mechanics in the classification on similar projects in the
area during the period in question;
(2) If the same wage is not paid to a majority of those employed in
the classification, the prevailing wage will be the wage paid to the
greatest number, provided that such greatest number constitutes at
least 30 percent of those employed; or
(3) If no wage rate is paid to 30 percent or more of those so
employed, the prevailing wage will be the average of the wages paid to
those employed in the classification, weighted by the total employed in
the classification.
Type of construction (or construction type). The term ``type of
construction (or construction type)'' means the general category of
construction, as established by the Administrator, for the publication
of general wage determinations. Types of construction may include, but
are not limited to, building, residential, heavy, and highway. As used
in this part, the terms ``type of construction'' and ``construction
type'' are synonymous and interchangeable.
United States or the District of Columbia. The term ``United States
or the District of Columbia'' means the United States, the District of
Columbia, and all executive departments, independent establishments,
administrative agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States and
of the District of Columbia, and any corporation for which all or
substantially all of the stock of which is beneficially owned by the
United States, by the District of Columbia, or any of the foregoing
departments, establishments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
0
4. Revise Sec. 1.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.3 Obtaining and compiling wage rate information.
For the purpose of making wage determinations, the Administrator
will conduct a continuing program for the obtaining and compiling of
wage rate information. In determining the prevailing wages at the time
of issuance of a wage determination, the Administrator will be guided
by the definition of prevailing wage in Sec. 1.2 and will consider the
types of information listed in this section.
(a) The Administrator will encourage the voluntary submission of
wage rate data by contractors, contractors' associations, labor
organizations, public officials and other interested parties,
reflecting wage rates paid to laborers and mechanics on various types
of construction in the area. The Administrator may also obtain data
from agencies on wage rates paid on construction projects under their
jurisdiction. The information submitted should reflect the wage rates
paid to workers employed in a particular classification in an area, the
type or types of construction on which such rate or rates are paid, and
whether or not such wage rates were paid on Federal or federally
assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
(b) The following types of information may be considered in making
wage rate determinations:
[[Page 15784]]
(1) Statements showing wage rates paid on projects, including the
names and addresses of contractors, including subcontractors; the
locations, approximate costs, dates of construction and types of
projects, as well as whether or not the projects are Federal or
federally assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements; and the number of workers employed in each classification
on each project and the respective wage rates paid such workers.
(2) Signed collective bargaining agreements, for which the
Administrator may request that the parties to agreements submit
statements certifying to their scope and application.
(3) Wage rates determined for public construction by State and
local officials pursuant to State and local prevailing wage
legislation.
(4) Wage rate data submitted to the Department of Labor by
contracting agencies pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(iii) of this subtitle.
(5) For Federal-aid highway projects under 23 U.S.C. 113,
information obtained from the highway department(s) of the State(s) in
which the project is to be performed. For such projects, the
Administrator must consult the relevant State highway department and
give due regard to the information thus obtained.
(6) Any other information pertinent to the determination of
prevailing wage rates.
(c) The Administrator may initially obtain or supplement such
information obtained on a voluntary basis by such means, including the
holding of hearings, and from any sources determined to be necessary.
All information of the types described in paragraph (b) of this
section, pertinent to the determination of the wages prevailing at the
time of issuance of the wage determination, will be evaluated in light
of the definition of prevailing wage in Sec. 1.2.
(d) In compiling wage rate data for building and residential wage
determinations, the Administrator will not use data from Federal or
federally assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements unless it is determined that there is insufficient wage
data to determine the prevailing wages in the absence of such data.
Data from Federal or federally assisted projects will be used in
compiling wage rate data for heavy and highway wage determinations.
(e) In determining the prevailing wage, the Administrator may treat
variable wage rates paid by a contractor or contractors to employees
within the same classification as the same wage where the pay rates are
functionally equivalent, as explained by a collective bargaining
agreement or written policy otherwise maintained by the contractor.
(f) If the Administrator determines that there is insufficient wage
survey data to determine the prevailing wage for a classification for
which conformance requests are regularly submitted pursuant to Sec.
5.5(a)(1)(iii) of this subtitle, the Administrator may list the
classification and wage and fringe benefit rates for the classification
on the wage determination, provided that:
(1) The work performed by the classification is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination;
(2) The classification is used in the area by the construction
industry; and
(3) The wage rate for the classification bears a reasonable
relationship to the wage rates contained in the wage determination.
(g) Under the circumstances described in paragraph (h) of this
section, the Administrator may make a wage determination by adopting,
with or without modification, one or more prevailing wage rates
determined for public construction by State and/or local officials.
Provided that the conditions in paragraph (h) are met, the
Administrator may do so even if the methods and criteria used by State
or local officials differ in some respects from those that the
Administrator would otherwise use under the Davis-Bacon Act and the
regulations in this part. Such differences may include, but are not
limited to, a definition of prevailing wage under a State or local
prevailing wage law or regulation that differs from the definition in
Sec. 1.2, a geographic area or scope that differs from the standards
in Sec. 1.7, and/or the restrictions on data use in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(h) The Administrator may adopt a State or local wage rate as
described in paragraph (g) of this section if the Administrator, after
reviewing the rate and the processes used to derive the rate,
determines that:
(1) The State or local government sets wage rates, and collects
relevant data, using a survey or other process that is open to full
participation by all interested parties;
(2) The wage rate reflects both a basic hourly rate of pay as well
as any prevailing fringe benefits, each of which can be calculated
separately;
(3) The State or local government classifies laborers and mechanics
in a manner that is recognized within the field of construction; and
(4) The State or local government's criteria for setting prevailing
wage rates are substantially similar to those the Administrator uses in
making wage determinations under this part. This determination will be
based on the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited
to, the State or local government's definition of prevailing wage; the
types of fringe benefits it accepts; the information it solicits from
interested parties; its classification of construction projects,
laborers, and mechanics; and its method for determining the appropriate
geographic area(s).
(i) In order to adopt wage rates of a State or local government
entity pursuant to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, the
Administrator must obtain the wage rates and any relevant supporting
documentation and data, from the State or local government entity. Such
information may be submitted via email to
[email protected], via mail to U.S. Department of Labor,
Wage and Hour Division, Branch of Wage Surveys, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20210, or through other means directed by the
Administrator.
(j) Nothing in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this section
precludes the Administrator from otherwise considering State or local
prevailing wage rates, consistent with paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, or from giving due regard to information obtained from State
highway departments, consistent with paragraph (b)(4) of this section,
as part of the Administrator's process of making prevailing wage
determinations under this part.
0
5. Revise Sec. 1.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.4 Report of agency construction programs.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, each Federal agency using
wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act or any of the laws
referenced by Sec. 5.1 of this subtitle, must furnish the
Administrator with a report that contains a general outline of its
proposed construction programs for the upcoming 3 fiscal years. This
report must include a list of proposed projects (including those for
which options to extend the contract term of an existing construction
contract are expected during the period covered by the report): the
estimated start date of construction; the anticipated type or types of
construction; the estimated cost of construction; the location or
locations of construction; and any other project-specific information
that the Administrator requests. The report must also include
notification of any significant changes to previously reported
construction programs, such as the delay or cancellation of previously
reported projects. Reports must be
[[Page 15785]]
submitted no later than April 10th of each year by email to
[email protected], and must include the name, telephone number,
and email address of the official responsible for coordinating the
submission.
0
6. Amend Sec. 1.5 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding a
heading to paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.5 Publication of general wage determinations and procedure for
requesting project wage determinations.
(a) General wage determinations. A general wage determination
contains, among other information, a list of wage and fringe benefit
rates determined to be prevailing for various classifications of
laborers or mechanics for specified type(s) of construction in a given
area. The Department of Labor publishes general wage determinations
under the Davis-Bacon Act on the DOL-approved website.
(b) Project wage determinations. (1) A project wage determination
is specific to a particular project. An agency may request a project
wage determination for an individual project under any of the following
circumstances:
(i) The project involves work in more than one county and will
employ workers who may work in more than one county;
(ii) There is no general wage determination in effect for the
relevant area and type(s) of construction for an upcoming project, or
(iii) All or virtually all of the work on a contract will be
performed by a classification that is not listed in the general wage
determination that would otherwise apply, and contract award (or bid
opening, in contracts entered into in sealed bidding procedures) has
not yet taken place.
(2) To request a project wage determination, the agency must submit
Standard Form (SF) 308, Request for Wage Determination and Response to
Request, to the Department of Labor, either by mailing the form to U.S.
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Branch of Construction
Wage Determinations, Washington, DC 20210, or by submitting the form
through other means directed by the Administrator.
(3) In completing Form SF-308, the agency must include the
following information:
(i) A sufficiently detailed description of the work to indicate the
type(s) of construction involved, as well as any additional description
or separate attachment, if necessary, for identification of the type(s)
of work to be performed. If the project involves multiple types of
construction, the requesting agency must attach information indicating
the expected cost breakdown by type of construction.
(ii) The location (city, county, state, zip code) or locations in
which the proposed project is located.
(iii) The classifications needed for the project. The agency must
identify only those classifications that will be needed in the
performance of the work. Inserting a note such as ``entire schedule''
or ``all applicable classifications'' is not sufficient. Additional
classifications needed that are not on the form may be typed in the
blank spaces or on a separate list and attached to the form.
(iv) Any other information requested in Form SF-308.
(4) A request for a project wage determination must be accompanied
by any pertinent wage information that may be available. When the
requesting agency is a State highway department under the Federal-Aid
Highway Acts as codified in 23 U.S.C. 113, such agency must also
include its recommendations as to the wages which are prevailing for
each classification of laborers and mechanics on similar construction
in the area.
(5) The time required for processing requests for project wage
determinations varies according to the facts and circumstances in each
case. An agency should anticipate that such processing by the
Department of Labor will take at least 30 days.
(c) Processing time. * * *
0
7. Revise Sec. 1.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.6 Use and effectiveness of wage determinations.
(a) Application, Validity, and Expiration of Wage Determinations--
(1) Application of incorporated wage determinations. Once a wage
determination is incorporated into a contract (or once construction has
started when there is no contract award), the wage determination
generally applies for the duration of the contract or project, except
as specified in this section.
(2) General wage determinations. (i) General wage determinations
published on the DOL-approved website contain no expiration date. Once
issued, a general wage determination remains valid until revised,
superseded, or canceled.
(ii) If there is a current general wage determination applicable to
a project, an agency may use it without notifying the Administrator,
Provided that questions concerning its use are referred to the
Administrator in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
(iii) When a wage determination is revised, superseded, or
canceled, it becomes inactive. Inactive wage determinations may be
accessed on the DOL-approved website for informational purposes only.
Contracting officers may not use such an inactive wage determination in
a contract action unless the inactive wage determination is the
appropriate wage determination that must be incorporated to give
retroactive effect to the post-award incorporation of a contract clause
under Sec. 5.6(a)(1)(ii) of this subtitle or a wage determination
under paragraph (f) of this section. Under such circumstances, the
agency must provide prior notice to the Administrator of its intent to
incorporate an inactive wage determination, and may not incorporate it
if the Administrator instructs otherwise.
(3) Project wage determinations. (i) Project wage determinations
initially issued will be effective for 180 calendar days from the date
of such determinations. If a project wage determination is not
incorporated into a contract (or, if there is no contract award, if
construction has not started) in the period of its effectiveness it is
void.
(ii) Accordingly, if it appears that a project wage determination
may expire between bid opening and contract award (or between initial
endorsement under the National Housing Act or the execution of an
agreement to enter into a housing assistance payments contract under
section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and the start of
construction) the agency shall request a new project wage determination
sufficiently in advance of the bid opening to assure receipt prior
thereto.
(iii) However, when due to unavoidable circumstances a project wage
determination expires before award but after bid opening (or before the
start of construction, but after initial endorsement under the National
Housing Act, or before the start of construction but after the
execution of an agreement to enter into a housing assistance payments
contract under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937), the head of
the agency or his or her designee may request the Administrator to
extend the expiration date of the project wage determination in the bid
specifications instead of issuing a new project wage determination.
Such request shall be supported by a written finding, which shall
include a brief statement of factual support, that the extension of the
expiration date of the project wage determination is necessary and
proper in the public interest to prevent injustice or undue hardship or
to avoid
[[Page 15786]]
serious impairment in the conduct of Government business. The
Administrator will either grant or deny the request for an extension
after consideration of all of the circumstances, including an
examination to determine if the previously issued rates remain
prevailing. If the request for extension is denied, the Administrator
will proceed to issue a new wage determination for the project.
(b) Identifying and incorporating appropriate wage determinations.
(1) Contracting agencies are responsible for making the initial
determination of the appropriate wage determination(s) for a project
and for ensuring that the appropriate wage determination(s) are
incorporated in bid solicitations and contract specifications and that
inapplicable wage determinations are not incorporated. When a contract
involves construction in more than one area, and no multi-county
project wage determination has been obtained, the solicitation and
contract must incorporate the applicable wage determination for each
area. When a contract involves more than one type of construction, the
solicitation and contract must incorporate the applicable wage
determination for each type of construction involved that is
anticipated to be substantial. The contracting agency is responsible
for designating the specific work to which each incorporated wage
determination applies.
(2) The contractor or subcontractor has an affirmative obligation
to ensure that its pay practices are in compliance with the Davis-Bacon
Act labor standards.
(3) Any question regarding application of wage rate schedules or
wage determinations must be referred to the Administrator for
resolution. The Administrator should consider any relevant factors when
resolving such questions, including, but not limited to, relevant area
practice information.
(c) Revisions to wage determinations. (1) General and project wage
determinations may be revised from time to time to keep them current. A
revised wage determination replaces the previous wage determination.
``Revisions,'' as used in this section, refers both to modifications of
some or all of the rates in a wage determination, such as periodic
updates to reflect current rates, and to instances where a wage
determination is re-issued entirely, such as after a new wage survey is
conducted. Revisions also include adjustments to non-collectively
bargained prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates on general wage
determinations, with the adjustments based on U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Employment Cost Index (ECI) data or its successor data. Such
rates may be adjusted based on ECI data no more frequently than once
every 3 years, and no sooner than 3 years after the date of the rate's
publication. Such periodic revisions to wage determinations are
distinguished from the circumstances described in paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f) of this section.
(2)(i) Whether a revised wage determination is effective with
respect to a particular contract or project generally depends on the
date on which the revised wage determination is issued. The date on
which a revised wage determination is ``issued,'' as used in this
section, means the date that a revised general wage determination is
published on the DOL-approved website or the date that the contracting
agency receives actual written notice of a revised project wage
determination.
(ii) If a revised wage determination is issued before contract
award (or the start of construction when there is no award), it is
effective with respect to the project, except as follows:
(A) For contracts entered into pursuant to sealed bidding
procedures, a revised wage determination issued at least 10 calendar
days before the opening of bids is effective with respect to the
solicitation and contract. If a revised wage determination is issued
less than 10 calendar days before the opening of bids, it is effective
with respect to the solicitation and contract unless the agency finds
that there is not a reasonable time still available before bid opening
to notify bidders of the revision and a report of the finding is
inserted in the contract file. A copy of such report must be made
available to the Administrator upon request. No such report is required
if the revision is issued after bid opening.
(B) In the case of projects assisted under the National Housing
Act, a revised wage determination is effective with respect to the
project if it is issued prior to the beginning of construction or the
date the mortgage is initially endorsed, whichever occurs first.
(C) In the case of projects to receive housing assistance payments
under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, a revised wage
determination is effective with respect to the project if it is issued
prior to the beginning of construction or the date the agreement to
enter into a housing assistance payments contract is signed, whichever
occurs first.
(D) If, in the case of a contract entered into pursuant to sealed
bidding procedures under paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section the
contract has not been awarded within 90 days after bid opening, or if,
in the case of projects assisted under the National Housing Act or
receiving housing assistance payments section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act
of 1937 under paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section,
construction has not begun within 90 days after initial endorsement or
the signing of the agreement to enter into a housing assistance
payments contract, any revised general wage determination issued prior
to award of the contract or the beginning of construction, as
appropriate, is effective with respect to that contract unless the head
of the agency or the agency head's designee requests and obtains an
extension of the 90-day period from the Administrator. Such request
must be supported by a written finding, which includes a brief
statement of the factual support, that the extension is necessary and
proper in the public interest to prevent injustice or undue hardship or
to avoid serious impairment in the conduct of Government business. The
Administrator will either grant or deny the request for an extension
after consideration of all the circumstances.
(iii) If a revised wage determination is issued after contract
award (or after the beginning of construction where there is no
contract award), it is not effective with respect to that project,
except under the following circumstances:
(A) Where a contract or order is changed to include additional,
substantial construction, alteration, and/or repair work not within the
scope of work of the original contract or order, or to require the
contractor to perform work for an additional time period not originally
obligated, including where an agency exercises an option provision to
unilaterally extend the term of a contract, the contracting agency must
include the most recent revision of any wage determination(s) at the
time the contract is changed or the option is exercised. This does not
apply where the contractor is simply given additional time to complete
its original commitment or where the additional construction,
alteration, and/or repair work in the modification is merely
incidental.
(B) Some contracts call for construction, alteration, and/or repair
work over a period of time that is not tied to the completion of any
particular project. Examples of such contracts include, but are not
limited to, indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity construction
contracts to perform any necessary repairs to a Federal facility over a
period of time; long-term operations-and-maintenance contracts
[[Page 15787]]
that may include construction, alteration, and/or repair work covered
by Davis-Bacon labor standards; or schedule contracts or blanket
purchase agreements in which a contractor agrees to provide certain
construction work at agreed-upon prices to Federal agencies. These
types of contracts often involve a general commitment to perform
necessary construction as the need arises, but do not necessarily
specify the exact construction to be performed. For the types of
contracts described here, the contracting agency must incorporate into
the contract the most recent revision(s) of any applicable wage
determination(s) on each anniversary date of the contract's award (or
each anniversary date of the beginning of construction when there is no
award), or another similar anniversary date where the agency has sought
and received prior approval from the Department for the alternative
date. Such revised wage determination(s) will apply to any construction
work that begins or is obligated under such a contract during the 12
months following that anniversary date until such construction work is
completed, even if the completion of that work extends beyond the
twelve-month period. Where such contracts have task orders, purchase
orders, or other similar contract instruments awarded under the master
contract, the contracting and ordering agency must include the
applicable updated wage determination in such task orders, purchase
orders, or other similar contract instrument.
(d) Corrections for clerical errors. Upon the Administrator's own
initiative or at the request of an agency, the Administrator may
correct any wage determination, without regard to paragraph (a) or (c)
of this section, whenever the Administrator finds that it contains
clerical errors. Such corrections must be included in any
solicitations, bidding documents, or ongoing contracts containing the
wage determination in question, and such inclusion, and application of
the correction(s), must be retroactive to the start of construction if
construction has begun.
(e) Pre-award determinations that a wage determination may not be
used. If, prior to the award of a contract (or the start of
construction under the National Housing Act, under section 8 of the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937, or where there is no contract award), the
Administrator provides written notice that:
(1) The wrong wage determination or the wrong schedule was included
in the bidding documents or solicitation; or
(2) A wage determination included in the bidding documents or
solicitation was withdrawn by the Department of Labor as a result of a
decision by the Administrative Review Board, the wage determination may
not be used for the contract, without regard to whether bid opening (or
initial endorsement or the signing of a housing assistance payments
contract) has occurred.
(f) Post-award determinations and procedures. (1) If a contract
subject to the labor standards provisions of the laws referenced by
Sec. 5.1 of this subtitle is entered into without the correct wage
determination(s), the agency must, upon the request of the
Administrator or upon its own initiative, incorporate the correct wage
determination into the contract or require its incorporation. Where the
agency is not entering directly into such a contract but instead is
providing Federal financial assistance, the agency must ensure that the
recipient or sub-recipient of the Federal assistance similarly
incorporates the correct wage determination(s) into its contracts.
(2) The Administrator may require the agency to incorporate a wage
determination after contract award or after the beginning of
construction if the agency has failed to incorporate a wage
determination in a contract required to contain prevailing wage rates
determined in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, or has used a wage
determination which by its terms or the provisions of this part clearly
does not apply to the contract. Further, the Administrator may require
the application of the correct wage determination to a contract after
contract award or after the beginning of construction when it is found
that the wrong wage determination has been incorporated in the contract
because of an inaccurate description of the project or its location in
the agency's request for the wage determination.
(3) Under any of the circumstances described in paragraphs (f)(1)
and (2) of this section, the agency must either terminate and resolicit
the contract with the correct wage determination, or incorporate the
correct wage determination into the contract (or ensure it is so
incorporated) through supplemental agreement, change order, or any
other authority that may be needed. The method of incorporation of the
correct wage determination, and adjustment in contract price, where
appropriate, should be in accordance with applicable law. Additionally,
the following requirements apply:
(i) Unless the Administrator directs otherwise, the incorporation
of the correct wage determination(s) must be retroactive to the date of
contract award or start of construction if there is no award.
(ii) If incorporation occurs as the result of a request from the
Administrator, the incorporation must take place within 30 days of the
date of that request, unless the agency has obtained an extension from
the Administrator.
(iii) Before the agency requires incorporation upon its own
initiative, it must provide notice to the Administrator of the proposed
action.
(iv) The contractor must be compensated for any increases in wages
resulting from incorporation of a missing wage determination.
(v) If a recipient or sub-recipient of Federal assistance under any
of the applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1 of this subtitle
refuses to incorporate the wage determination as required, the agency
must make no further payment, advance, grant, loan, or guarantee of
funds in connection with the contract until the recipient incorporates
the required wage determination into its contract, and must promptly
refer the dispute to the Administrator for further proceedings under
Sec. 5.13 of this subtitle.
(vi) Before terminating a contract pursuant to this section, the
agency must withhold or cross-withhold sufficient funds to remedy any
back-wage liability resulting from the failure to incorporate the
correct wage determination or otherwise identify and obligate
sufficient funds through a termination settlement agreement, bond, or
other satisfactory mechanism.
(4) Under any of the above circumstances, notwithstanding the
requirement to incorporate the correct wage determination(s) within 30
days, the correct wage determination(s) will be effective by operation
of law, retroactive to the date of award or the beginning of
construction (under the National Housing Act, under section 8 of the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937, or where there is no contract award), in
accordance with Sec. 5.5(e) of this subtitle.
(g) Approval of Davis-Bacon Related Act Federal funding or
assistance after contract award. If Federal funding or assistance under
a statute requiring payment of wages determined in accordance with the
Davis-Bacon Act is not approved prior to contract award (or the
beginning of construction where there is no contract award), the
applicable wage determination must be incorporated based upon the wages
and fringe benefits found to be prevailing on the date of award or the
beginning of construction (under the National Housing Act, under
section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, or where there is no
contract award), as appropriate, and
[[Page 15788]]
must be incorporated in the contract specifications retroactively to
that date, Provided that upon the request of the head of the Federal
agency providing the Federal funding or assistance, in individual cases
the Administrator may direct incorporation of the wage determination to
be effective on the date of approval of Federal funds or assistance
whenever the Administrator finds that it is necessary and proper in the
public interest to prevent injustice or undue hardship, Provided
further that the Administrator finds no evidence of intent to apply for
Federal funding or assistance prior to contract award or the start of
construction, as appropriate.
0
8. Revise Sec. 1.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.7 Scope of consideration.
(a) In making a wage determination, the area from which wage data
will be drawn will normally be the county unless sufficient current
wage data (data on wages paid on current projects or, where necessary,
projects under construction no more than 1 year prior to the beginning
of the survey or the request for a wage determination, as appropriate)
is unavailable to make a wage determination.
(b) If sufficient current wage data is not available from projects
within the county to make a wage determination, wages paid on similar
construction in surrounding counties may be considered.
(c) If sufficient current wage data is not available in surrounding
counties, the Administrator may consider wage data from similar
construction in comparable counties or groups of counties in the State,
and, if necessary, overall statewide data.
(d) If sufficient current statewide wage data is not available,
wages paid on projects completed more than 1 year prior to the
beginning of the survey or the request for a wage determination, as
appropriate, may be considered.
(e) The use of helpers and apprentices is permitted in accordance
with part 5 of this subtitle.
0
9. Revise Sec. 1.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.8 Reconsideration by the Administrator.
(a) Any interested party may seek reconsideration of a wage
determination issued under this part or of a decision of the
Administrator regarding application of a wage determination.
(b) Such a request for reconsideration must be in writing,
accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's views and any
supporting wage data or other pertinent information. Requests must be
submitted via email to [email protected]; by mail to
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210; or through other means
directed by the Administrator. The Administrator will respond within 30
days of receipt thereof, or will notify the requestor within the 30-day
period that additional time is necessary.
(c) If the decision for which reconsideration is sought was made by
an authorized representative of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division, the interested party seeking reconsideration may request
further reconsideration by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division. Such a request must be submitted within 30 days from the date
the decision is issued; this time may be extended for good cause at the
discretion of the Administrator upon a request by the interested party.
The procedures in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any such
reconsideration requests.
0
10. Add Sec. 1.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.10 Severability.
The provisions of this part are separate and severable and operate
independently from one another. If any provision of this part is held
to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any
person or circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the
provision is to be construed so as to continue to give the maximum
effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision is
severable from this part and will not affect the remaining provisions.
Appendix A to Part 1--[Removed]
0
11. Remove appendix A to part 1.
Appendix B to Part 1--[Removed]
0
12. Remove appendix B to part 1.
PART 3-- CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC BUILDING OR
PUBLIC WORK FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY LOANS OR GRANTS FROM
THE UNITED STATES
0
13. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: R.S. 161, 48 Stat. 848, Reorg. Plan No. 14 of 1950,
64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. 301; 40 U.S.C. 3145; Secretary's Order 01-
2014 (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014).
0
14. Revise Sec. 3.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.1 Purpose and scope.
This part prescribes ``anti-kickback'' regulations under section 2
of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3145), popularly
known as the Copeland Act. This part applies to any contract which is
subject to Federal wage standards and which is for the construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of public buildings, public works or
buildings or works financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from
the United States. The part is intended to aid in the enforcement of
the minimum wage provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and the various
statutes dealing with federally assisted construction that contain
similar minimum wage provisions, including those provisions which are
not subject to Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (e.g., the College
Housing Act of 1950, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the
Housing Act of 1959), and in the enforcement of the overtime provisions
of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act whenever they are
applicable to construction work. The part details the obligation of
contractors and subcontractors relative to the weekly submission of
statements regarding the wages paid on work covered thereby; sets forth
the circumstances and procedures governing the making of payroll
deductions from the wages of those employed on such work; and
delineates the methods of payment permissible on such work.
0
15. Revise Sec. 3.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.2 Definitions.
As used in the regulations in this part:
Affiliated person. The term ``affiliated person'' includes a
spouse, child, parent, or other close relative of the contractor or
subcontractor; a partner or officer of the contractor or subcontractor;
a corporation closely connected with the contractor or subcontractor as
parent, subsidiary, or otherwise, and an officer or agent of such
corporation.
Agency. The term ``agency'' means any Federal, State, or local
government agency or instrumentality, or other similar entity, that
enters into a contract or provides assistance through loan, grant, loan
guarantee or insurance, or otherwise, for a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards, as defined in Sec. 5.2 of this subtitle.
(1) Federal agency. The term ``Federal agency'' means an agency or
instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, as
defined in this section, that enters into a contract or provides
assistance through loan, grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
(2) [Reserved]
[[Page 15789]]
Building or work. The term ``building or work'' generally includes
construction activity of all types, as distinguished from
manufacturing, furnishing of materials, or servicing and maintenance
work. The term includes, without limitation, buildings, structures, and
improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, solar panels, wind
turbines, broadband installation, installation of electric car
chargers, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels,
sewers, mains, powerlines, pumping stations, heavy generators,
railways, airports, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways,
lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, and canals; dredging,
shoring, scaffolding, drilling, blasting, excavating, clearing, and
landscaping. The term ``building or work'' also includes a portion of a
building or work, or the installation (where appropriate) of equipment
or components into a building or work.
(1) Building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or
grants from the United States. The term ``building or work financed in
whole or in part by loans or grants from the United States'' includes
any building or work for which construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair, as defined in this section, payment or part payment is made
directly or indirectly from funds provided by loans or grants by a
Federal agency. The term includes any building or work for which the
Federal assistance granted is in the form of loan guarantees or
insurance.
(2) [Reserved]
Construction, prosecution, completion, or repair. The term
``construction, prosecution, completion, or repair'' mean all types of
work done on a particular building or work at the site thereof as
specified in Sec. 5.2 of this subtitle, including, without limitation,
altering, remodeling, painting and decorating, installation on the site
of the work of items fabricated off-site, transportation as reflected
in Sec. 5.2, demolition as reflected in Sec. 5.2, and the
manufacturing or furnishing of materials, articles, supplies, or
equipment on the site of the building or work, performed by laborers
and mechanics at the site.
Employed (and wages). Every person paid by a contractor or
subcontractor in any manner for their labor in the construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of a public building or public work
or building or work financed in whole or in part by assistance from the
United States through loan, grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, is employed and receiving wages, regardless of any
contractual relationship alleged to exist between him and the real
employer.
Public building (or public work). The term ``public building (or
public work)'' includes a building or work the construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of which, as defined in this
section, is carried on directly by authority of or with funds of a
Federal agency to serve the general public regardless of whether title
thereof is in a Federal agency. The construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair of a portion of a building or work may still be
considered a public building or work, even where the entire building or
work is not owned, leased by, or to be used by the Federal agency, as
long as the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of that
portion of the building or work is carried on by authority of or with
funds of a Federal agency to serve the interest of the general public.
United States or the District of Columbia. The term ``United States
or the District of Columbia'' means the United States, the District of
Columbia, and all executive departments, independent establishments,
administrative agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States and
of the District of Columbia, and any corporation for which all or
substantially all of the stock of which is beneficially owned by the
United States, by the District of Columbia, or any of the foregoing
departments, establishments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
0
16. Revise Sec. 3.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.3 Certified payrolls.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Each contractor or subcontractor engaged in the construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of any public building or public
work, or building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or
grants from the United States, each week must provide a copy of its
weekly payroll for all laborers and mechanics engaged on work covered
by this part and part 5 of this chapter during the preceding weekly
payroll period, accompanied by a statement of compliance certifying the
accuracy of the weekly payroll information. This statement must be
executed by the contractor or subcontractor or by an authorized officer
or employee of the contractor or subcontractor who supervises the
payment of wages, and must be on the back of Form WH-347, ``Payroll
(For Contractors Optional Use)'' or on any form with identical wording.
Copies of WH-347 may be obtained from the contracting or sponsoring
agency or from the Wage and Hour Division website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/construction/forms or its
successor site. The signature by the contractor, subcontractor, or the
authorized officer or employee must be an original handwritten
signature or a legally valid electronic signature.
(c) The requirements of this section shall not apply to any
contract of $2,000 or less.
(d) Upon a written finding by the head of a Federal agency, the
Secretary of Labor may provide reasonable limitations, variations,
tolerances, and exemptions from the requirements of this section
subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Labor may specify.
0
17. Revise Sec. 3.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.4 Submission of certified payroll and the preservation and
inspection of weekly payroll records.
(a) Certified payroll. Each certified payroll required under Sec.
3.3 must be delivered by the contractor or subcontractor, within 7 days
after the regular payment date of the payroll period, to a
representative at the site of the building or work of the agency
contracting for or financing the work, or, if there is no
representative of the agency at the site of the building or work, the
statement must be delivered by mail or by any other means normally
assuring delivery by the contractor or subcontractor, within that 7 day
time period, to the agency contracting for or financing the building or
work. After the certified payrolls have been reviewed in accordance
with the contracting or sponsoring agency's procedures, such certified
payrolls must be preserved by the Federal agency for a period of 3
years after all the work on the prime contract is completed and must be
produced for inspection, copying, and transcription by the Department
of Labor upon request. The certified payrolls must also be transmitted
together with a report of any violation, in accordance with applicable
procedures prescribed by the United States Department of Labor.
(b) Recordkeeping. Each contractor or subcontractor must preserve
the regular payroll records for a period of 3 years after all the work
has been completed on the prime contract. The regular payroll records
must set out accurately and completely the name; Social Security
number; last known address, telephone number, and email address of each
laborer and mechanic; each worker's correct classification(s) of work
actually performed; hourly rates of wages paid (including rates of
contributions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or
cash equivalents thereof); daily and
[[Page 15790]]
weekly number of hours actually worked in total and on each covered
contract; deductions made; and actual wages paid. The contractor or
subcontractor must make such regular payroll records, as well as copies
of the certified payrolls provided to the contracting or sponsoring
agency, available at all times for inspection, copying, and
transcription by the contracting officer or his authorized
representative, and by authorized representatives of the Department of
Labor.
0
18. Revise Sec. 3.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.5 Payroll deductions permissible without application to or
approval of the Secretary of Labor.
Deductions made under the circumstances or in the situations
described in the paragraphs of this section may be made without
application to and approval of the Secretary of Labor:
(a) Any deduction made in compliance with the requirements of
Federal, State, or local law, such as Federal or State withholding
income taxes and Federal social security taxes.
(b) Any deduction of sums previously paid to the laborer or
mechanic as a bona fide prepayment of wages when such prepayment is
made without discount or interest. A bona fide prepayment of wages is
considered to have been made only when cash or its equivalent has been
advanced to the person employed in such manner as to give him complete
freedom of disposition of the advanced funds.
(c) Any deduction of amounts required by court process to be paid
to another, unless the deduction is in favor of the contractor,
subcontractor, or any affiliated person, or when collusion or
collaboration exists.
(d) Any deduction constituting a contribution on behalf of the
laborer or mechanic employed to funds established by the contractor or
representatives of the laborers or mechanics, or both, for the purpose
of providing either from principal or income, or both, medical or
hospital care, pensions or annuities on retirement, death benefits,
compensation for injuries, illness, accidents, sickness, or disability,
or for insurance to provide any of the foregoing, or unemployment
benefits, vacation pay, savings accounts, or similar payments for the
benefit of the laborers or mechanics, their families and dependents:
Provided, however, That the following standards are met:
(1) The deduction is not otherwise prohibited by law;
(2) It is either:
(i) Voluntarily consented to by the laborer or mechanic in writing
and in advance of the period in which the work is to be done and such
consent is not a condition either for the obtaining of or for the
continuation of employment; or
(ii) Provided for in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement
between the contractor or subcontractor and representatives of its
laborers or mechanics;
(3) No profit or other benefit is otherwise obtained, directly or
indirectly, by the contractor or subcontractor or any affiliated person
in the form of commission, dividend, or otherwise; and
(4) The deductions shall serve the convenience and interest of the
laborer or mechanic.
(e) Any deduction requested by the laborer or mechanic to enable
him or her to repay loans to or to purchase shares in credit unions
organized and operated in accordance with Federal and State credit
union statutes.
(f) Any deduction voluntarily authorized by the laborer or mechanic
for the making of contributions to governmental or quasi-governmental
agencies, such as the American Red Cross.
(g) Any deduction voluntarily authorized by the laborer or mechanic
for the making of contributions to charitable organizations as defined
by 26 U.S.C 501(c)(3).
(h) Any deductions to pay regular union initiation fees and
membership dues, not including fines or special assessments: Provided,
however, That a collective bargaining agreement between the contractor
or subcontractor and representatives of its laborers or mechanics
provides for such deductions and the deductions are not otherwise
prohibited by law.
(i) Any deduction not more than for the ``reasonable cost'' of
board, lodging, or other facilities meeting the requirements of section
3(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, and 29 CFR
part 531. When such a deduction is made the additional records required
under 29 CFR 516.25(a) shall be kept.
(j) Any deduction for the cost of safety equipment of nominal value
purchased by the laborer or mechanic as his or her own property for his
or her personal protection in his or her work, such as safety shoes,
safety glasses, safety gloves, and hard hats, if such equipment is not
required by law to be furnished by the contractor, if such deduction
does not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act or any other law, if the
cost on which the deduction is based does not exceed the actual cost to
the contractor where the equipment is purchased from him or her and
does not include any direct or indirect monetary return to the
contractor where the equipment is purchased from a third person, and if
the deduction is either:
(1) Voluntarily consented to by the laborer or mechanic in writing
and in advance of the period in which the work is to be done and such
consent is not a condition either for the obtaining of employment or
its continuance; or
(2) Provided for in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement
between the contractor or subcontractor and representatives of its
laborers and mechanics.
0
19. Revise Sec. 3.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.7 Applications for the approval of the Secretary of Labor.
Any application for the making of payroll deductions under Sec.
3.6 shall comply with the requirements prescribed in the following
paragraphs of this section:
(a) The application must be in writing and addressed to the
Secretary of Labor. The application must be submitted by email to
[email protected], by mail to the United States Department of
Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Director, Division of Government
Contracts Enforcement, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-3502,
Washington, DC 20210, or by any other means normally assuring delivery.
(b) The application need not identify the contract or contracts
under which the work in question is to be performed. Permission will be
given for deductions on all current and future contracts of the
applicant for a period of 1 year. A renewal of permission to make such
payroll deduction will be granted upon the submission of an application
which makes reference to the original application, recites the date of
the Secretary of Labor's approval of such deductions, states
affirmatively that there is continued compliance with the standards set
forth in the provisions of Sec. 3.6, and specifies any conditions
which have changed in regard to the payroll deductions.
(c) The application must state affirmatively that there is
compliance with the standards set forth in the provisions of Sec. 3.6.
The affirmation must be accompanied by a full statement of the facts
indicating such compliance.
(d) The application must include a description of the proposed
deduction, the purpose of the deduction, and the classes of laborers or
mechanics from whose wages the proposed deduction would be made.
(e) The application must state the name and business of any third
person
[[Page 15791]]
to whom any funds obtained from the proposed deductions are to be
transmitted and the affiliation of such person, if any, with the
applicant.
0
20. Revise Sec. 3.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.8 Action by the Secretary of Labor upon applications.
The Secretary of Labor will decide whether or not the requested
deduction is permissible under provisions of Sec. 3.6; and will notify
the applicant in writing of the decision.
0
21. Revise Sec. 3.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.11 Regulations part of contract.
All contracts made with respect to the construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair of any public building or public work or building
or work financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the United
States covered by the regulations in this part must expressly bind the
contractor or subcontractor to comply with such of the regulations in
this part as may be applicable. In this regard, see Sec. 5.5(a) of
this subtitle. However, these requirements will be considered to be
effective by operation of law, whether or not they are incorporated
into such contracts, as set forth in Sec. 5.5(e) of this subtitle.
PART 5--LABOR STANDARDS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS COVERING
FEDERALLY FINANCED AND ASSISTED CONSTRUCTION (ALSO LABOR STANDARDS
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO NONCONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE
CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT)
0
22. The authority citation for part 5 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; R.S. 161, 64 Stat. 1267; Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. appendix; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.; 40
U.S.C. 3145; 40 U.S.C. 3148; 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; and the laws
listed in 5.1(a) of this part; Secretary's Order No. 01-2014 (Dec.
19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at
section 701, 129 Stat 584.
0
23. Revise Sec. 5.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) The regulations contained in this part are promulgated under
the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Labor by Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix) and
the Copeland Act (48 Stat. 948; 18 U.S.C. 874; 40 U.S.C. 3145) in order
to coordinate the administration and enforcement of labor standards
provisions contained in the Davis-Bacon Act (946 Stat. 1494, as
amended; 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) and its related statutes (``Related
Acts'').
(1) A listing of laws requiring Davis-Bacon labor standards
provisions is currently found at www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts.
(b) Part 1 of this subtitle contains the Department's procedural
rules governing requests for wage determinations and the issuance and
use of such wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act and its
Related Acts.
0
24. Revise Sec. 5.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.2 Definitions.
Administrator. The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator
of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, or authorized
representative.
Agency. The term ``agency'' means any Federal, State, or local
government agency or instrumentality, or other similar entity, that
enters into a contract or provides assistance through loan, grant, loan
guarantee or insurance, or otherwise, to a project subject to the
Davis-Bacon labor standards, as defined in this section.
(1) Federal agency. The term ``Federal agency'' means an agency or
instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, as
defined in this section, that enters into a contract or provides
assistance through loan, grant, loan guarantee or insurance, or
otherwise, to a project subject to the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
(2) [Reserved]
Agency Head. The term ``Agency Head'' means the principal official
of an agency and includes those persons duly authorized to act on
behalf of the Agency Head.
Apprentice and helper. The terms ``apprentice'' and ``helper'' are
defined as follows:
(1) ``Apprentice'' means:
(i) A person employed and individually registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship, or
with a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office of
Apprenticeship; or
(ii) A person in the first 90 days of probationary employment as an
apprentice in such an apprenticeship program, who is not individually
registered in the program, but who has been certified by the Office of
Apprenticeship or a State Apprenticeship Agency (where appropriate) to
be eligible for probationary employment as an apprentice;
(2) These provisions do not apply to apprentices and trainees
employed on projects subject to 23 U.S.C. 113 who are enrolled in
programs which have been certified by the Secretary of Transportation
in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 113(c).
(3) A distinct classification of helper will be issued in wage
determinations applicable to work performed on construction projects
covered by the labor standards provisions of the Davis-Bacon and
Related Acts only where:
(i) The duties of the helper are clearly defined and distinct from
those of any other classification on the wage determination;
(ii) The use of such helpers is an established prevailing practice
in the area; and
(iii) The helper is not employed as a trainee in an informal
training program. A helper classification will be added to wage
determinations pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(iii)(A) only where, in
addition, the work to be performed by the helper is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination.
Building or work. The term ``building or work'' generally includes
construction activities of all types, as distinguished from
manufacturing, furnishing of materials, or servicing and maintenance
work. The term includes, without limitation, buildings, structures, and
improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, solar panels, wind
turbines, broadband installation, installation of electric car
chargers, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels,
sewers, mains, power lines, pumping stations, heavy generators,
railways, airports, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways,
lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, dredging,
shoring, rehabilitation and reactivation of plants, scaffolding,
drilling, blasting, excavating, clearing, and landscaping. The term
building or work also includes a portion of a building or work, or the
installation (where appropriate) of equipment or components into a
building or work.
Construction, prosecution, completion, or repair. The term
``construction, prosecution, completion, or repair'' means the
following:
(1) These terms include all types of work done--
(i) On a particular building or work at the site of the work, as
defined in this section, by laborers and mechanics employed by a
contractor or subcontractor, or
[[Page 15792]]
(ii) In the construction or development of a project under a
development statute.
(2) These terms include, without limitation (except as specified in
this definition):
(i) Altering, remodeling, installation (where appropriate) on the
site of the work of items fabricated off-site;
(ii) Painting and decorating;
(iii) Manufacturing or furnishing of materials, articles, supplies
or equipment, but only if such work is done
(A) On the site of the work, as defined in this section, or
(B) In the construction or development of a project under a
development statute;
(iv) ``Covered transportation'' is defined as transportation under
any of the following circumstances:
(A) Transportation that takes place entirely within a location
meeting the definition of ``site of the work'' in this section;
(B) Transportation of portion(s) of the building or work between a
``secondary construction site'' as defined in this section and a
``primary construction site'' as defined in this section;
(C) Transportation between a ``nearby dedicated support site'' as
defined in this section and a ``primary construction site'' or
``secondary construction site'' as defined in this section;
(D) ``Onsite activities essential or incidental to offsite
transportation''--defined as activities conducted by a truck driver or
truck driver's assistant on the site of the work that are essential or
incidental to the transportation of materials or supplies to or from
the site of the work, such as loading, unloading, or waiting for
materials to be loaded or unloaded--where the driver or driver's
assistant's time spent on the site of the work is not so insubstantial
or insignificant that it cannot as a practical administrative matter be
precisely recorded; and
(E) Any transportation and related activities, whether on or off
the site of the work, by laborers and mechanics employed in the
construction or development of the project under a development statute.
(v) Demolition and/or removal, under any of the following
circumstances:
(A) Where the demolition and/or removal activities themselves
constitute construction, alteration, and/or repair of an existing
building or work. Examples of such activities include the removal of
asbestos, paint, components, systems, or parts from a facility that
will not be demolished; as well as contracts for hazardous waste
removal, land recycling, or reclamation that involve substantial earth
moving, removal of contaminated soil, re-contouring surfaces, and/or
habitat restoration.
(B) Where subsequent construction covered in whole or in part by
the labor standards in this part is contemplated at the site of the
demolition or removal, either as part of the same contract or as part
of a future contract. In determining whether covered construction is
contemplated within the meaning of this provision, relevant factors
include, but are not limited to, the existence of engineering or
architectural plans or surveys of the site; the allocation of, or an
application for, Federal funds; contract negotiations or bid
solicitations; the stated intent of the relevant government officials;
and the disposition of the site after demolition.
(C) Where otherwise required by statute.
(3) Except for transportation that constitutes ``covered
transportation'' as defined in this section, construction, prosecution,
completion, or repair does not include the transportation of materials
or supplies to or from the site of the work.
Contract. The term ``contract'' means any prime contract which is
subject wholly or in part to the labor standards provisions of any of
the laws referenced by Sec. 5.1 and any subcontract of any tier
thereunder, let under the prime contract.
Contracting Officer. The term ``Contracting Officer'' means the
individual, a duly appointed successor, or authorized representative
who is designated and authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of
an agency, sponsor, owner, applicant, or other similar entity.
Contractor. The term ``contractor'' means any individual or other
legal entity that enters into or is awarded a contract that is subject
wholly or in part to the labor standards provisions of any of the laws
referenced by Sec. 5.1, including any prime contract or subcontract of
any tier under a covered prime contract. In addition, the term
contractor includes any surety that is completing performance for a
defaulted contractor pursuant to a performance bond. The U.S.
Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities are not contractors,
subcontractors, employers or joint employers for purposes of the labor
standards provisions of any of the laws referenced by Sec. 5.1. A
State or local government is not regarded as a contractor or
subcontractor under statutes providing loans, grants, or other Federal
assistance in situations where construction is performed by its own
employees. However, under development statutes or other statutes
requiring payment of prevailing wages to all laborers and mechanics
employed on the assisted project, such as the U.S. Housing Act of 1937,
State and local recipients of Federal-aid must pay these employees
according to Davis-Bacon labor standards. The term ``contractor'' does
not include an entity that is a material supplier, except if the entity
is performing work under a development statute.
Davis-Bacon labor standards. The term ``Davis-Bacon labor
standards'' as used in this part means the requirements of the Davis-
Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (other than
those relating to safety and health), the Copeland Act, and the
prevailing wage provisions of the other statutes referenced in Sec.
5.1, and the regulations in parts 1 and 3 of this subtitle and this
part.
Development statute. The term ``development statute'' means a
statute that requires payment of prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon
labor standards to all laborers and mechanics employed in the
development of a project.
Employed. Every person performing the duties of a laborer or
mechanic in the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of a
public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole
or in part by assistance from the United States through loan, grant,
loan guarantee or insurance, or otherwise, is ``employed'' regardless
of any contractual relationship alleged to exist between the contractor
and such person.
Laborer or mechanic. The term ``laborer or mechanic'' includes at
least those workers whose duties are manual or physical in nature
(including those workers who use tools or who are performing the work
of a trade), as distinguished from mental or managerial. The term
``laborer'' or ``mechanic'' includes apprentices, helpers, and, in the
case of contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act, watchmen or guards. The term does not apply to workers
whose duties are primarily administrative, executive, or clerical,
rather than manual. Persons employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional capacity as defined in 29 CFR part 541
are not deemed to be laborers or mechanics. Working supervisors who
devote more than 20 percent of their time during a workweek to mechanic
or laborer duties, and who do not meet the criteria of part 541, are
laborers and mechanics for the time so spent.
Material supplier. The term ``material supplier'' is defined as
follows:
[[Page 15793]]
(1) A material supplier is an entity meeting all of the following
criteria:
(i) Its only obligations for work on the contract or project are
the delivery of materials, articles, supplies, or equipment, which may
include pickup of the same in addition to, but not exclusive of,
delivery;
(ii) It also supplies materials, articles, supplies, or equipment
to the general public; and
(iii) Its facility manufacturing the materials, articles, supplies,
or equipment, if any, is neither established specifically for the
contract or project nor located at the site of the work.
(2) If an entity, in addition to being engaged in the activities
specified in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition, also engages in other
construction, prosecution, completion, or repair work at the site of
the work, it is not a material supplier.
Prime contractor. The term ``prime contractor'' means any person or
entity that enters into a contract with an agency. For the purposes of
the labor standards provisions of any of the laws referenced by Sec.
5.1, the term prime contractor also includes the controlling
shareholders or members of any entity holding a prime contract, the
joint venturers or partners in any joint venture or partnership holding
a prime contract, any contractor (e.g., a general contractor) that has
been delegated all or substantially all of the responsibilities for
overseeing any construction anticipated by the prime contract, and any
other person or entity that has been delegated all or substantially all
of the responsibility for overseeing Davis-Bacon labor standards
compliance on a prime contract. For the purposes of the cross-
withholding provisions in Sec. 5.5, any such related entities holding
different prime contracts are considered to be the same prime
contractor.
Public building or public work. The term ``public building'' or
``public work'' includes a building or work, the construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of which, as defined in this
section, is carried on directly by authority of or with funds of a
Federal agency to serve the interest of the general public regardless
of whether title thereof is in a Federal agency. The construction,
prosecution, completion, or repair of a portion of a building or work
may still be considered a public building or work, even where the
entire building or work is not owned, leased by, or to be used by a
Federal agency, as long as the construction, prosecution, completion,
or repair of that portion of the building or work is carried on by
authority of or with funds of a Federal agency to serve the interest of
the general public.
Secretary. The term ``Secretary'' includes the Secretary of Labor,
or authorized representative.
Site of the work. The term ``site of the work'' is defined as
follows:
(1) ``Site of the work'' includes all of the following:
(i) The primary construction site(s), defined as the physical place
or places where the building or work called for in the contract will
remain.
(ii) Any secondary construction site(s), defined as any other
site(s) where a significant portion of the building or work is
constructed, provided that such construction is for specific use in
that building or work and does not simply reflect the manufacture or
construction of a product made available to the general public. A
``significant portion'' of a building or work means one or more entire
portion(s) or module(s) of the building or work, as opposed to smaller
prefabricated components, with minimal construction work remaining
other than the installation and/or assembly of the portions or modules
at the place where the building or work will remain.
(iii) Any nearby dedicated support sites, defined as:
(A) Job headquarters, tool yards, batch plants, borrow pits, and
similar facilities that are dedicated exclusively, or nearly so, to
performance of the contract or project, and adjacent or virtually
adjacent to either a primary construction site or a secondary
construction site, and
(B) Locations adjacent or virtually adjacent to a primary
construction site at which workers perform activities associated with
directing vehicular or pedestrian traffic around or away from the
primary construction site.
(2) With the exception of locations that are secondary construction
sites as defined in paragraph (1)(ii) of this definition, site of the
work does not include:
(i) Permanent home offices, branch plant establishments,
fabrication plants, tool yards, etc., of a contractor or subcontractor
whose location and continuance in operation are determined wholly
without regard to a particular Federal or federally assisted contract
or project; or
(ii) Fabrication plants, batch plants, borrow pits, job
headquarters, tool yards, etc., of a material supplier, which are
established by a material supplier for the project before opening of
bids and not on the physical place or places where the building or work
called for in the contract will remain, even where the operations for a
period of time may be dedicated exclusively, or nearly so, to the
performance of a contract.
Subcontractor. The term ``subcontractor'' means any contractor that
agrees to perform or be responsible for the performance of any part of
a contract that is subject wholly or in part to the labor standards
provisions of any of the laws referenced in Sec. 5.1. The term
subcontractor includes subcontractors of any tier, but does not include
the ordinary laborers or mechanics to whom a prevailing wage must be
paid regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to
exist between the contractor or subcontractor and the laborers and
mechanics.
United States or the District of Columbia. The term ``United States
or the District of Columbia'' means the United States, the District of
Columbia, and all executive departments, independent establishments,
administrative agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States and
of the District of Columbia, including non-appropriated fund
instrumentalities and any corporation for which all or substantially
all of its stock is beneficially owned by the United States or by the
foregoing departments, establishments, agencies, or instrumentalities.
Wages. The term ``wages'' means the basic hourly rate of pay; any
contribution irrevocably made by a contractor or subcontractor to a
trustee or to a third person pursuant to a bona fide fringe benefit
fund, plan, or program; and the rate of costs to the contractor or
subcontractor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing bona
fide fringe benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an
enforceable commitment to carry out a financially responsible plan or
program, which was communicated in writing to the laborers and
mechanics affected. The fringe benefits enumerated in the Davis-Bacon
Act include medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational
activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing; unemployment
benefits; life insurance, disability insurance, sickness insurance, or
accident insurance; vacation or holiday pay; defraying costs of
apprenticeship or other similar programs; or other bona fide fringe
benefits. Fringe benefits do not include benefits required by other
Federal, State, or local law.
Wage determination. The term ``wage determination'' includes the
original decision and any subsequent decisions revising, modifying,
superseding,
[[Page 15794]]
correcting, or otherwise changing the provisions of the original
decision. The application of the wage determination shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1.6 of this subtitle.
0
25. Amend Sec. 5.5 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) through (4),
(6), and (10);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(11);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(5);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 5.5 Contract provisions and related matters.
(a) Required contract clauses. The Agency head will cause or
require the contracting officer to insert in full in any contract in
excess of $2,000 which is entered into for the actual construction,
alteration and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of a
public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole
or in part from Federal funds or in accordance with guarantees of a
Federal agency or financed from funds obtained by pledge of any
contract of a Federal agency to make a loan, grant or annual
contribution (except where a different meaning is expressly indicated),
and which is subject to the labor standards provisions of any of the
laws referenced by Sec. 5.1, the following clauses (or any
modifications thereof to meet the particular needs of the agency,
Provided, That such modifications are first approved by the Department
of Labor):
(1) Minimum wages--(i) Wage rates and fringe benefits. All laborers
and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or
otherwise working in construction or development of the project under a
development statute), will be paid unconditionally and not less often
than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any
account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations
issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act (part 3 of this
subtitle)), the full amount of basic hourly wages and bona fide fringe
benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed
at rates not less than those contained in the wage determination of the
Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part hereof,
regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to
exist between the contractor and such laborers and mechanics. As
provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, the appropriate
wage determinations are effective by operation of law even if they have
not been attached to the contract. Contributions made or costs
reasonably anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits under the Davis-
Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B)) on behalf of laborers or mechanics are
considered wages paid to such laborers or mechanics, subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section; also, regular
contributions made or costs incurred for more than a weekly period (but
not less often than quarterly) under plans, funds, or programs which
cover the particular weekly period, are deemed to be constructively
made or incurred during such weekly period. Such laborers and mechanics
must be paid the appropriate wage rate and fringe benefits on the wage
determination for the classification(s) of work actually performed,
without regard to skill, except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section. Laborers or mechanics performing work in more than one
classification may be compensated at the rate specified for each
classification for the time actually worked therein: Provided, That the
employer's payroll records accurately set forth the time spent in each
classification in which work is performed. The wage determination
(including any additional classifications and wage rates conformed
under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section) and the Davis-Bacon poster
(WH-1321) must be posted at all times by the contractor and its
subcontractors at the site of the work in a prominent and accessible
place where it can be easily seen by the workers.
(ii) Frequently recurring classifications. (A) In addition to wage
and fringe benefit rates that have been determined to be prevailing
under the procedures set forth in part 1 of this subtitle, a wage
determination may contain, pursuant to Sec. 1.3(f), wage and fringe
benefit rates for classifications of laborers and mechanics for which
conformance requests are regularly submitted pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section, provided that:
(1) The work performed by the classification is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination for which a prevailing wage
rate has been determined;
(2) The classification is used in the area by the construction
industry; and
(3) The wage rate for the classification bears a reasonable
relationship to the prevailing wage rates contained in the wage
determination.
(B) The Administrator will establish wage rates for such
classifications in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A)(3) of this
section. Work performed in such a classification must be paid at no
less than the wage and fringe benefit rate listed on the wage
determination for such classification.
(iii) Conformance. (A) The contracting officer must require that
any class of laborers or mechanics, including helpers, which is not
listed in the wage determination and which is to be employed under the
contract be classified in conformance with the wage determination.
Conformance of an additional classification and wage rate and fringe
benefits is appropriate only when the following criteria have been met:
(1) The work to be performed by the classification requested is not
performed by a classification in the wage determination; and
(2) The classification is used in the area by the construction
industry; and
(3) The proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe
benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained
in the wage determination.
(B) The conformance process may not be used to split, subdivide, or
otherwise avoid application of classifications listed in the wage
determination.
(C) If the contractor and the laborers and mechanics to be employed
in the classification (if known), or their representatives, and the
contracting officer agree on the classification and wage rate
(including the amount designated for fringe benefits where
appropriate), a report of the action taken will be sent by the
contracting officer by email to [email protected]. The
Administrator, or an authorized representative, will approve, modify,
or disapprove every additional classification action within 30 days of
receipt and so advise the contracting officer or will notify the
contracting officer within the 30-day period that additional time is
necessary.
(D) In the event the contractor, the laborers or mechanics to be
employed in the classification or their representatives, and the
contracting officer do not agree on the proposed classification and
wage rate (including the amount designated for fringe benefits, where
appropriate), the contracting officer will, by email to
[email protected], refer the questions, including the views of all
interested parties and the recommendation of the contracting officer,
to the Administrator for determination. The Administrator, or an
authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 days of
receipt and so advise the contracting officer or will notify the
contracting officer within
[[Page 15795]]
the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.
(E) The contracting officer must promptly notify the contractor of
the action taken by the Wage and Hour Division under paragraphs
(a)(1)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section. The contractor must furnish a
written copy of such determination to each affected worker or it must
be posted as a part of the wage determination. The wage rate (including
fringe benefits where appropriate) determined pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(C) or (D) must be paid to all workers performing work in
the classification under this contract from the first day on which work
is performed in the classification.
(iv) Fringe benefits not expressed as an hourly rate. Whenever the
minimum wage rate prescribed in the contract for a class of laborers or
mechanics includes a fringe benefit which is not expressed as an hourly
rate, the contractor may either pay the benefit as stated in the wage
determination or may pay another bona fide fringe benefit or an hourly
cash equivalent thereof.
(v) Unfunded plans. If the contractor does not make payments to a
trustee or other third person, the contractor may consider as part of
the wages of any laborer or mechanic the amount of any costs reasonably
anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits under a plan or
program, Provided, That the Secretary of Labor has found, upon the
written request of the contractor, in accordance with the criteria set
forth in Sec. 5.28, that the applicable standards of the Davis-Bacon
Act have been met. The Secretary of Labor may require the contractor to
set aside in a separate account assets for the meeting of obligations
under the plan or program.
(vi) Interest. In the event of a failure to pay all or part of the
wages required by the contract, the contractor will be required to pay
interest on any underpayment of wages.
(2) Withholding--(i) Withholding requirements. The (write in name
of Federal agency or the loan or grant recipient) must, upon its own
action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the
Department of Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld from the
contractor under this contract so much of the accrued payments or
advances as may be considered necessary to satisfy the liabilities of
the prime contractor or any subcontractor for the full amount of wages
required by the clause set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
and monetary relief for violations of paragraph (a)(11) of this section
of this contract, including interest, or to satisfy any such
liabilities required by any other Federal contract, or federally
assisted contract subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards, that is held
by the same prime contractor (as defined in Sec. 5.2). The necessary
funds may be withheld from the contractor under this contract or any
other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other
federally assisted contract that is subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage requirements and is held by the same prime contractor, regardless
of whether the other contract was awarded or assisted by the same
agency. In the event of a contractor's failure to pay any laborer or
mechanic, including any apprentice or helper working on the site of the
work (or otherwise working in construction or development of the
project under a development statute) all or part of the wages required
by the contract, or upon the contractor's failure to submit the
required records as discussed in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section,
the (Agency) may on its own initiative and after written notice to the
contractor, sponsor, applicant, owner, or other entity, as the case may
be, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any
further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such violations
have ceased.
(ii) Priority to withheld funds. The Department has priority to
funds withheld or to be withheld in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i)
or (b)(3)(i) of this section, or both, over claims to those funds by:
(A) A contractor's surety(ies), including without limitation
performance bond sureties and payment bond sureties;
(B) A contracting agency for its reprocurement costs;
(C) A trustee(s) (either a court-appointed trustee or a U.S.
trustee, or both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or a contractor's
bankruptcy estate;
(D) A contractor's assignee(s);
(E) A contractor's successor(s); or
(F) A claim asserted under the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901-
3907.
(3) Records and certified payrolls--(i) Basic record requirements--
(A) Length of record retention. All regular payrolls and other basic
records must be maintained by the contractor and any subcontractor
during the course of the work and preserved for all laborers and
mechanics working at the site of the work (or otherwise working in
construction or development of the project under a development statute)
for a period of at least 3 years after all the work on the prime
contract is completed.
(B) Information required. Such records must contain the name;
Social Security number; last known address, telephone number, and email
address of each such worker; each worker's correct classification(s) of
work actually performed; hourly rates of wages paid (including rates of
contributions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or
cash equivalents thereof of the types described in 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B)
of the Davis-Bacon Act); daily and weekly number of hours actually
worked in total and on each covered contract; deductions made; and
actual wages paid.
(C) Additional records relating to fringe benefits. Whenever the
Secretary of Labor has found under paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section
that the wages of any laborer or mechanic include the amount of any
costs reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a plan or
program described in 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B) of the Davis-Bacon Act, the
contractor must maintain records which show that the commitment to
provide such benefits is enforceable, that the plan or program is
financially responsible, and that the plan or program has been
communicated in writing to the laborers or mechanics affected, and
records which show the costs anticipated or the actual cost incurred in
providing such benefits.
(D) Additional records relating to apprenticeship. Contractors with
apprentices working under approved programs must maintain written
evidence of the registration of apprenticeship programs, the
registration of the apprentices, and the ratios and wage rates
prescribed in the applicable programs.
(ii) Certified payroll requirements--(A) Frequency and method of
submission. The contractor or subcontractor must submit weekly for each
week in which any DBA- or Related Acts-covered work is performed
certified payrolls to the (write in name of appropriate Federal agency)
if the agency is a party to the contract, but if the agency is not such
a party, the contractor will submit the certified payrolls to the
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be, that
maintains such records, for transmission to the (write in name of
agency). The prime contractor is responsible for the submission of
copies of certified payrolls by all subcontractors. A contracting
agency or prime contractor may permit or require contractors to submit
certified payrolls through an electronic system, as long as the
electronic system requires a legally valid electronic signature and the
contracting agency or prime contractor permits other methods of
submission in situations where the contractor is unable or limited in
its ability to use or access the electronic system.
[[Page 15796]]
(B) Information required. The certified payrolls submitted must set
out accurately and completely all of the information required to be
maintained under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, except that full
Social Security numbers and last known addresses, telephone numbers,
and email addresses must not be included on weekly transmittals.
Instead the payrolls need only include an individually identifying
number for each worker (e.g., the last four digits of the worker's
Social Security number). The required weekly certified payroll
information may be submitted using Optional Form WH-347, or in any
other format desired. Optional Form WH-347 is available for this
purpose from the Wage and Hour Division website at https://www.dol.gov/files/WHD/legacy/files/wh347.pdf or its successor site. It is not a
violation of this section for a prime contractor to require a
subcontractor to provide full Social Security numbers and last known
addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses to the prime
contractor for its own records, without weekly submission by the
subcontractor to the sponsoring government agency (or the applicant,
sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be, that maintains
such records).
(C) Statement of Compliance. Each certified payroll submitted must
be accompanied by a ``Statement of Compliance,'' signed by the
contractor or subcontractor, or the contractor's or subcontractor's
agent who pays or supervises the payment of the persons working on the
contract, and must certify the following:
(1) That the certified payroll for the payroll period contains the
information required to be provided under paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this
section, the appropriate information and basic records are being
maintained under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, and such
information and records are correct and complete;
(2) That each laborer or mechanic (including each helper and
apprentice) working on the contract during the payroll period has been
paid the full weekly wages earned, without rebate, either directly or
indirectly, and that no deductions have been made either directly or
indirectly from the full wages earned, other than permissible
deductions as set forth in part 3 of this subtitle; and
(3) That each laborer or mechanic has been paid not less than the
applicable wage rates and fringe benefits or cash equivalents for the
classification(s) of work actually performed, as specified in the
applicable wage determination incorporated into the contract.
(D) Use of Optional Form WH-347. The weekly submission of a
properly executed certification set forth on the reverse side of
Optional Form WH-347 will satisfy the requirement for submission of the
``Statement of Compliance'' required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(E) Signature. The signature by the contractor, subcontractor, or
the contractor's or subcontractor's agent, must be an original
handwritten signature or a legally valid electronic signature.
(F) Falsification. The falsification of any of the above
certifications may subject the contractor or subcontractor to civil or
criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 31 U.S.C. 3729.
(iii) Contracts, subcontracts, and related documents. The
contractor or subcontractor must maintain this contract or subcontract,
and related documents including, without limitation, bids, proposals,
amendments, modifications, and extensions. The contractor or
subcontractor must preserve these contracts, subcontracts, and related
documents during the course of the work and for a period of 3 years
after all the work on the prime contract is completed.
(iv) Required disclosures and access--(A) Required record
disclosures and access to workers. The contractor or subcontractor must
make the records required under paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of
this section and any other documents that the (write the name of the
agency) or the Department of Labor deems necessary to determine
compliance with the labor standards provisions of any of the applicable
statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1, available for inspection, copying, or
transcription by authorized representatives of the (write the name of
the agency) or the Department of Labor, and must permit such
representatives to interview workers during working hours on the job.
(B) Sanctions for non-compliance with records and worker access
requirements. If the contractor or subcontractor fails to submit the
required records or to make them available, or to permit worker
interviews during working hours on the job, the Federal agency may,
after written notice to the contractor, sponsor, applicant, owner, or
other entity, as the case may be, that maintains such records or that
employs such workers, take such action as may be necessary to cause the
suspension of any further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds.
Furthermore, failure to submit the required records upon request or to
make such records available, or to permit worker interviews during
worker hours on the job, may be grounds for debarment action pursuant
to Sec. 5.12. In addition, any contractor or other person that fails
to submit the required records or make those records available to WHD
within the time WHD requests that the records be produced, will be
precluded from introducing as evidence in an administrative proceeding
under part 6 of this subtitle any of the required records that were not
provided or made available to WHD. WHD will take into consideration a
reasonable request from the contractor or person for an extension of
the time for submission of records. WHD will determine the
reasonableness of the request and may consider, among other things, the
location of the records and the volume of production.
(C) Required information disclosures. Contractors and
subcontractors must maintain the full Social Security number and last
known address, telephone number, and email address of each covered
worker, and must provide them upon request to the (write in name of
appropriate Federal agency) if the agency is a party to the contract,
or to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. If the
Federal agency is not such a party to the contract, the contractor or
subcontractor, or both, must upon request provide the full Social
Security number and last known address, telephone number, and email
address of each covered worker to the applicant, sponsor, owner, or
other entity, as the case may be, that maintains such records, for
transmission to the (write in name of agency), the contractor, or the
Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor for purposes of an
investigation or other compliance action.
(4) Apprentices and equal employment opportunity --(i)
Apprentices--(A) Rate of pay. Apprentices will be permitted to work at
less than the predetermined rate for the work they perform when they
are employed pursuant to and individually registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship (OA),
or with a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the OA. A person
who is not individually registered in the program, but who has been
certified by the OA or a State Apprenticeship Agency (where
appropriate) to be eligible for probationary employment as an
apprentice, will be permitted to work at less than the predetermined
rate for the
[[Page 15797]]
work they perform in the first 90 days of probationary employment as an
apprentice in such a program. In the event the OA or a State
Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the OA withdraws approval of an
apprenticeship program, the contractor will no longer be permitted to
use apprentices at less than the applicable predetermined rate for the
work performed until an acceptable program is approved.
(B) Fringe benefits. Apprentices must be paid fringe benefits in
accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship program. If the
apprenticeship program does not specify fringe benefits, apprentices
must be paid the full amount of fringe benefits listed on the wage
determination for the applicable classification. If the Administrator
determines that a different practice prevails for the applicable
apprentice classification, fringe benefits must be paid in accordance
with that determination.
(C) Apprenticeship ratio. The allowable ratio of apprentices to
journeyworkers on the job site in any craft classification must not be
greater than the ratio permitted to the contractor as to the entire
work force under the registered program. Any worker listed on a payroll
at an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered or otherwise employed
as stated above, must be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on
the wage determination for the classification of work actually
performed. In addition, any apprentice performing work on the job site
in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program must be
paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination
for the work actually performed.
(D) Reciprocity of ratios and wage rates. Where a contractor is
performing construction on a project in a locality other than the
locality in which its program is registered, the ratios and wage rates
(expressed in percentages of the journeyworker's hourly rate)
applicable within the locality in which the construction is being
performed must be observed. Every apprentice must be paid at not less
than the rate specified in the registered program for the apprentice's
level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeyworker
hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination.
(ii) Equal employment opportunity. The use of apprentices and
journeyworkers under this part shall be in conformity with the equal
employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246, as
amended, and 29 CFR part 30.
* * * * *
(6) Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor must insert in
any subcontracts the clauses contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(11) of this section, along with the applicable wage determination(s)
and such other clauses as the (write in the name of the Federal agency)
may by appropriate instructions require, and also a clause requiring
the subcontractors to include these clauses and wage determination(s)
in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor is responsible for
the compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with
all the contract clauses in this section. In the event of any
violations of these clauses, the prime contractor and any
subcontractor(s) responsible will be liable for any unpaid wages and
monetary relief, including interest from the date of the underpayment
or loss, due to any workers of lower-tier subcontractors, and may be
subject to debarment, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(10) Certification of eligibility. (i) By entering into this
contract, the contractor certifies that neither it nor any person or
firm who has an interest in the contractor's firm is a person or firm
ineligible to be awarded Government contracts by virtue of 40 U.S.C.
3144(b) or Sec. 5.12(a) or (b).
(ii) No part of this contract shall be subcontracted to any person
or firm ineligible for award of a Government contract by virtue of 40
U.S.C. 3144(b) or Sec. 5.12(a) or (b).
(iii) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the
U.S. Code, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(11) Anti-retaliation. It is unlawful for any person to discharge,
demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, harass, or
in any other manner discriminate against, or to cause any person to
discharge, demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
harass, or in any other manner discriminate against, any worker or job
applicant for:
(i) Notifying any contractor of any conduct which the worker
reasonably believes constitutes a violation of the DBA, Related Acts,
this part, or part 1 or 3 this subtitle;
(ii) Filing any complaint, initiating or causing to be initiated
any proceeding, or otherwise asserting on behalf of themselves or
others any right or protection under the DBA, Related Acts, this part,
or part 1 or 3 of this subtitle;
(iii) Cooperating in any investigation or other compliance action,
or testifying in any proceeding under the DBA, Related Acts, this part,
or part 1 or 3 of this subtitle; or
(iv) Informing any other person about their rights under the DBA,
Related Acts, this part, or part 1 or 3 of this subtitle.
(b) * * *
(2) Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In
the event of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section the contractor and any subcontractor responsible
therefor shall be liable for the unpaid wages and interest from the
date of the underpayment. In addition, such contractor and
subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work
done under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to
such District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such
liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual
laborer or mechanic, including watchmen and guards, employed in
violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1), in the sum of
$29 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or
permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours
without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth
in paragraph (b)(1).
(3) Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages--(i)
Withholding process. The (write in the name of the Federal agency or
the loan or grant recipient) must, upon its own action or upon written
request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor,
withhold or cause to be withheld from the contractor under this
contract so much of the accrued payments or advances as may be
considered necessary to satisfy the liabilities of the prime contractor
or any subcontractor for unpaid wages and monetary relief, including
interest, required by the clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(2) and
(5) of this section and liquidated damages for violations of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section or to satisfy any such liabilities required by
any other Federal contract, or federally assisted contract subject to
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements, that is held by the same
prime contractor (as defined in Sec. 5.2). The necessary funds may be
withheld from the contractor under this contract or any other Federal
contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally
assisted contract that is subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements and is held by the same prime contractor, regardless of
whether the other contract was awarded or assisted by the same agency.
[[Page 15798]]
(ii) Priority to withheld funds. The Department has priority to
funds withheld or to be withheld in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i)
or (b)(3)(i) of this section, or both, over claims to those funds by:
(A) A contractor's surety(ies), including without limitation
performance bond sureties and payment bond sureties;
(B) A contracting agency for its reprocurement costs;
(C) A trustee(s) (either a court-appointed trustee or a U.S.
trustee, or both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or a contractor's
bankruptcy estate;
(D) A contractor's assignee(s);
(E) A contractor's successor(s); or
(F) A claim asserted under the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901-
3907.
(4) Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor must insert in
any subcontracts the clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)
of this section and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to
include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime
contractor is responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower
tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5). In the event of any violations of these clauses, the prime
contractor and any subcontractor(s) responsible will be liable for any
unpaid wages and monetary relief, including interest from the date of
the underpayment or loss, due to any workers of lower-tier
subcontractors, and associated liquidated damages, and may be subject
to debarment, as appropriate.
(5) Anti-retaliation. It is unlawful for any person to discharge,
demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, harass, or
in any other manner discriminate against, or to cause any person to
discharge, demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
harass, or in any other manner discriminate against, any worker or job
applicant for:
(i) Notifying any contractor of any conduct which the worker
reasonably believes constitutes a violation of the Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) or its implementing regulations in
this part;
(ii) Filing any complaint, initiating or causing to be initiated
any proceeding, or otherwise asserting on behalf of themselves or
others any right or protection under CWHSSA or part 5 of this title;
(iii) Cooperating in any investigation or other compliance action,
or testifying in any proceeding under CWHSSA or this part; or
(iv) Informing any other person about their rights under CWHSSA or
this part.
(c) CWHSSA payroll records clause. In addition to the clauses
contained in paragraph (b) of this section, in any contract subject
only to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and not to any
of the other laws referenced by Sec. 5.1, the Agency Head must cause
or require the contracting officer to insert a clause requiring that
the contractor or subcontractor must maintain payrolls and basic
payroll records during the course of the work and must preserve them
for a period of 3 years after all the work on the prime contract is
completed for all laborers and mechanics, including guards and
watchmen, working on the contract. Such records must contain the name;
last known address, telephone number, and email address; and social
security number of each such worker; each worker's correct
classification(s) of work actually performed; hourly rates of wages
paid; daily and weekly number of hours actually worked; deductions
made; and actual wages paid. Further, the Agency Head must cause or
require the contracting officer to insert in any such contract a clause
providing that the records to be maintained under this paragraph must
be made available by the contractor or subcontractor for inspection,
copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of the (write
the name of agency) and the Department of Labor, and the contractor or
subcontractor will permit such representatives to interview workers
during working hours on the job.
(d) Incorporation of contract clauses and wage determinations by
reference. Although agencies are required to insert the contract
clauses set forth in this section, along with appropriate wage
determinations, in full into covered contracts, and contractors and
subcontractors are required to insert them in any lower-tier
subcontracts, the incorporation by reference of the required contract
clauses and appropriate wage determinations will be given the same
force and effect as if they were inserted in full text.
(e) Incorporation by operation of law. The contract clauses set
forth in this section, along with the correct wage determinations, will
be considered to be a part of every prime contract required by the
applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1 to include such clauses,
and will be effective by operation of law, whether or not they are
included or incorporated by reference into such contract, unless the
Administrator grants a variance, tolerance, or exemption from the
application of this paragraph. Where the clauses and applicable wage
determinations are effective by operation of law under this paragraph,
the prime contractor must be compensated for any resulting increase in
wages in accordance with applicable law.
0
26. Revise Sec. 5.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.6 Enforcement.
(a) Agency responsibilities. (1)(i) The Federal agency has the
initial responsibility to ascertain whether the clauses required by
Sec. 5.5 and the appropriate wage determination(s) have been
incorporated into the contracts subject to the labor standards
provisions of the laws referenced by Sec. 5.1. Additionally, a Federal
agency that provides Federal financial assistance that is subject to
the labor standards provisions of the Act must promulgate the necessary
regulations or procedures to require the recipient or sub-recipient of
the Federal assistance to insert in its contracts the provisions of
Sec. 5.5. No payment, advance, grant, loan, or guarantee of funds will
be approved by the Federal agency unless it ensures that the clauses
required by Sec. 5.5 and the appropriate wage determination(s) are
incorporated into such contracts. Furthermore, no payment, advance,
grant, loan, or guarantee of funds will be approved by the Federal
agency after the beginning of construction unless there is on file with
the Federal agency a certification by the contractor that the
contractor and its subcontractors have complied with the provisions of
Sec. 5.5 or unless there is on file with the Federal agency a
certification by the contractor that there is a substantial dispute
with respect to the required provisions.
(ii) If a contract subject to the labor standards provisions of the
applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1 is entered into without the
incorporation of the clauses required by Sec. 5.5, the agency must,
upon the request of the Administrator or upon its own initiative,
either terminate and resolicit the contract with the required contract
clauses, or incorporate the required clauses into the contract (or
ensure they are so incorporated) through supplemental agreement, change
order, or any and all authority that may be needed. Where an agency has
not entered directly into such a contract but instead has provided
Federal financial assistance, the agency must ensure that the recipient
or sub-recipient of the Federal assistance similarly incorporates the
clauses required into its contracts. The method of incorporation of the
correct wage determination, and adjustment in contract price, where
appropriate, should be in accordance with applicable
[[Page 15799]]
law. Additionally, the following requirements apply:
(A) Unless the Administrator directs otherwise, the incorporation
of the clauses required by Sec. 5.5 must be retroactive to the date of
contract award or start of construction if there is no award.
(B) If this incorporation occurs as the result of a request from
the Administrator, the incorporation must take place within 30 days of
the date of that request, unless the agency has obtained an extension
from the Administrator.
(C) The contractor must be compensated for any increases in wages
resulting from incorporation of a missing contract clauses.
(D) If the recipient refuses to incorporate the clauses as
required, the agency must make no further payment, advance, grant,
loan, or guarantee of funds in connection with the contract until the
recipient incorporates the required clauses into its contract, and must
promptly refer the dispute to the Administrator for further proceedings
under Sec. 5.13.
(E) Before terminating a contract pursuant to this section, the
agency must withhold or cross-withhold sufficient funds to remedy any
back wage liability resulting from the failure to incorporate the
correct wage determination or otherwise identify and obligate
sufficient funds through a termination settlement agreement, bond, or
other satisfactory mechanism.
(F) Notwithstanding the requirement to incorporate the contract
clauses and correct wage determination within 30 days, the contract
clauses and correct wage determination will be effective by operation
of law, retroactive to the beginning of construction, in accordance
with Sec. 5.5(e).
(2)(i) Certified payrolls submitted pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(3)(ii)
must be preserved by the Federal agency for a period of 3 years after
all the work on the prime contract is completed, and must be produced
at the request of the Department of Labor at any time during the 3-year
period, regardless of whether the Department of Labor has initiated an
investigation or other compliance action.
(ii) In situations where the Federal agency does not itself
maintain certified payrolls required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.
5.5(a)(3)(ii), upon the request of the Department of Labor the Federal
agency must ensure that such certified payrolls are provided to the
Department of Labor. Such certified payrolls may be provided by the
applicant, sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be,
directly to the Department of Labor, or to the Federal agency which, in
turn, must provide those records to the Department of Labor.
(3) The Federal agency will cause such investigations to be made as
may be necessary to assure compliance with the labor standards clauses
required by Sec. 5.5 and the applicable statutes referenced in Sec.
5.1. Investigations will be made of all contracts with such frequency
as may be necessary to assure compliance. Such investigations will
include interviews with workers, which must be taken in confidence, and
examinations of certified payrolls, regular payrolls, and other basic
records required to be maintained under Sec. 5.5(a)(3). In making such
examinations, particular care must be taken to determine the
correctness of classification(s) of work actually performed, and to
determine whether there is a disproportionate amount of work by
laborers and of apprentices registered in approved programs. Such
investigations must also include evidence of fringe benefit plans and
payments thereunder. Federal agencies must give priority to complaints
of alleged violations.
(4) In accordance with normal operating procedures, the contracting
agency may be furnished various investigatory material from the
investigation files of the Department of Labor. None of the material,
other than computations of back wages, liquidated damages, and monetary
relief for violations of Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), and the summary of
back wages due, may be disclosed in any manner to anyone other than
Federal officials charged with administering the contract or program
providing Federal assistance to the contract, without requesting the
permission and views of the Department of Labor.
(b) Department of Labor investigations and other compliance
actions. (1) The Administrator will investigate and conduct other
compliance actions as deemed necessary in order to obtain compliance
with the labor standards provisions of the applicable statutes
referenced by Sec. 5.1, or to affirm or reject the recommendations by
the Agency Head with respect to labor standards matters arising under
the statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1.
(2) Federal agencies, contractors, subcontractors, sponsors,
applicants, owners, or other entities, as the case may be, must
cooperate with any authorized representative of the Department of Labor
in the inspection of records, in interviews with workers, and in all
other aspects of the investigations or other compliance actions.
(3) The findings of such an investigation or other compliance
action, including amounts found due, may not be altered or reduced
without the approval of the Department of Labor.
(4) Where the underpayments disclosed by such an investigation or
other compliance action total $1,000 or more, where there is reason to
believe that the contractor or subcontractor has disregarded its
obligations to workers or subcontractors, or where liquidated damages
may be assessed under CWHSSA, the Department of Labor will furnish the
Federal agency an enforcement report detailing the labor standards
violations disclosed by the investigation or other compliance action
and any action taken by the contractor or subcontractor to correct the
violations, including any payment of back wages or any other relief
provided workers or remedial actions taken for violations of Sec.
5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5). In other circumstances, the Federal agency will
be furnished a notification summarizing the findings of the
investigation or other compliance action.
(c) Confidentiality requirements. It is the policy of the
Department of Labor to protect the identity of its confidential sources
and to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Accordingly, the identity of a worker or other informant who makes a
written or oral statement as a complaint or in the course of an
investigation or other compliance action, as well as portions of the
statement which would tend to reveal the identity of the informant,
will not be disclosed in any manner to anyone other than Federal
officials without the prior consent of the informant. Disclosure of
such statements will be governed by the provisions of the ``Freedom of
Information Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552, see part 70 of this subtitle) and the
``Privacy Act of 1974'' (5 U.S.C. 552a, see part 71 of this subtitle).
0
27. Amend Sec. 5.7 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 5.7 Reports to the Secretary of Labor.
(a) Enforcement reports. (1) Where underpayments by a contractor or
subcontractor total less than $1,000, where there is no reason to
believe that the contractor or subcontractor has disregarded its
obligations to workers or subcontractors, and where restitution has
been effected and future compliance assured, the Federal agency need
not submit its investigative findings and recommendations to the
Administrator, unless the investigation or other compliance action was
made at the request of the Department of Labor. In
[[Page 15800]]
the latter case, the Federal agency will submit a factual summary
report detailing any violations including any data on the amount of
restitution paid, the number of workers who received restitution,
liquidated damages assessed under the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act, corrective measures taken (such as ``letters of notice''
or remedial action taken for violations of Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5)),
and any information that may be necessary to review any recommendations
for an appropriate adjustment in liquidated damages under Sec. 5.8.
(2) Where underpayments by a contractor or subcontractor total
$1,000 or more, or where there is reason to believe that the contractor
or subcontractor has disregarded its obligations to workers or
subcontractors, the Federal agency will furnish within 60 days after
completion of its investigation, a detailed enforcement report to the
Administrator.
* * * * *
0
28. Revise Sec. 5.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.9 Suspension of funds.
(a) Suspension and withholding. In the event of failure or refusal
of the contractor or any subcontractor to comply with the applicable
statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1 and the labor standards clauses
contained in Sec. 5.5, whether incorporated into the contract
physically, by reference, or by operation of law, the Federal agency,
upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized
representative of the Department of Labor, must take such action as may
be necessary to cause the suspension of the payment, advance, or
guarantee of funds until such time as the violations are discontinued
or until sufficient funds are withheld to compensate workers for the
wages to which they are entitled, any monetary relief due for
violations of Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), and to cover any liquidated
damages and pre-judgment or post-judgment interest which may be due.
(b) Cross-withholding. In addition to the suspension and
withholding of funds from the contract under which the violation(s)
occurred, the necessary funds also may be withheld under any other
Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally
assisted contract that is subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements and is held by the same prime contractor, regardless of
whether the other contract was awarded or assisted by the same agency.
(c) Cross-withholding from different legal entities. Cross-
withholding of funds may be requested from contracts held by other
entities that may be considered to be the same prime contractor as that
term is defined in Sec. 5.2. Such cross-withholding is appropriate
where the separate legal entities have independently consented to it by
entering into contracts containing the withholding provisions at Sec.
5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3). Cross-withholding from a contract held by a
different legal entity is not appropriate unless the withholding
provisions were incorporated in full or by reference in that entity's
contract. Absent exceptional circumstances, cross-withholding is not
permitted from a contract held by a different legal entity where the
labor standards were incorporated only by operation of law into that
contract.
0
29. Revise Sec. 5.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.10 Restitution, criminal action.
(a) In cases other than those forwarded to the Attorney General of
the United States under paragraph (b) of this section where violations
of the labor standards clauses contained in Sec. 5.5 and the
applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1 result in underpayment of
wages to workers or monetary damages caused by violations of Sec.
5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the Federal agency or an authorized
representative of the Department of Labor will request that restitution
be made to such workers or on their behalf to plans, funds, or programs
for any type of bona fide fringe benefits within the meaning of 40
U.S.C. 3141(2)(B), including interest from the date of the underpayment
or loss. Interest on any back wages or monetary relief provided for in
this part will be calculated using the percentage established for the
underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded
daily.
(b) In cases where the Agency Head or the Administrator finds
substantial evidence that such violations are willful and in violation
of a criminal statute, the matter will be forwarded to the Attorney
General of the United States for prosecution if the facts warrant. In
all such cases the Administrator will be informed simultaneously of the
action taken.
0
30. Revise Sec. 5.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.11 Disputes concerning payment of wages.
(a) This section sets forth the procedure for resolution of
disputes of fact or law concerning payment of prevailing wage rates,
overtime pay, proper classification, or monetary relief for violations
of Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5). The procedures in this section may be
initiated upon the Administrator's own motion, upon referral of the
dispute by a Federal agency pursuant to Sec. 5.5(a)(9), or upon
request of the contractor or subcontractor.
(b)(1) In the event of a dispute described in paragraph (a) of this
section in which it appears that relevant facts are at issue, the
Administrator will notify the affected contractor and subcontractor, if
any, by registered or certified mail to the last known address or by
any other means normally assuring delivery, of the investigation
findings. If the Administrator determines that there is reasonable
cause to believe that either the contractor, the subcontractor, or
both, should also be subject to debarment under the Davis-Bacon Act or
any of the other applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1, the
notification will so indicate.
(2) A contractor or subcontractor desiring a hearing concerning the
Administrator's investigation findings must request such a hearing by
letter or by any other means normally assuring delivery, sent within 30
days of the date of the Administrator's notification. The request must
set forth those findings which are in dispute and the reasons therefor,
including any affirmative defenses.
(3) Upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing, the
Administrator will refer the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge
by Order of Reference, with an attached copy of the notification from
the Administrator and the response of the contractor or subcontractor,
for designation of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct such hearings
as may be necessary to resolve the disputed matters. The hearings will
be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in part 6 of
this subtitle.
(c)(1) In the event of a dispute described in paragraph (a) of this
section in which it appears that there are no relevant facts at issue,
and where there is not at that time reasonable cause to institute
debarment proceedings under Sec. 5.12, the Administrator will notify
the contractor and subcontractor, if any, by registered or certified
mail to the last known address or by any other means normally assuring
delivery, of the investigation findings, and will issue a ruling on any
issues of law known to be in dispute.
(2)(i) If the contractor or subcontractor disagrees with the
factual findings of the Administrator or believes that there are
relevant facts in dispute, the contractor or subcontractor must advise
the Administrator by letter or by any other means normally assuring
delivery, sent within 30 days of the date of the Administrator's
notification. In the response, the contractor or
[[Page 15801]]
subcontractor must explain in detail the facts alleged to be in dispute
and attach any supporting documentation.
(ii) Upon receipt of a response under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section alleging the existence of a factual dispute, the Administrator
will examine the information submitted. If the Administrator determines
that there is a relevant issue of fact, the Administrator will refer
the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge in accordance with
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. If the Administrator determines that
there is no relevant issue of fact, the Administrator will so rule and
advise the contractor and subcontractor, if any, accordingly.
(3) If the contractor or subcontractor desires review of the ruling
issued by the Administrator under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this
section, the contractor or subcontractor must file a petition for
review thereof with the Administrative Review Board within 30 days of
the date of the ruling, with a copy thereof the Administrator. The
petition for review must be filed in accordance with part 7 of this
subtitle.
(d) If a timely response to the Administrator's findings or ruling
is not made or a timely petition for review is not filed, the
Administrator's findings or ruling will be final, except that with
respect to debarment under the Davis-Bacon Act, the Administrator will
advise the Comptroller General of the Administrator's recommendation in
accordance with Sec. 5.12(a)(2). If a timely response or petition for
review is filed, the findings or ruling of the Administrator will be
inoperative unless and until the decision is upheld by the
Administrative Law Judge or the Administrative Review Board.
0
31. Revise Sec. 5.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.12 Debarment proceedings.
(a) Debarment standard and ineligible list. (1) Whenever any
contractor or subcontractor is found by the Secretary of Labor to have
disregarded their obligations to workers or subcontractors under the
Davis-Bacon Act, any of the other applicable statutes referenced by
Sec. 5.1, this part, or part 3 of this subtitle, such contractor or
subcontractor and their responsible officers, if any, and any firm,
corporation, partnership, or association in which such contractor,
subcontractor, or responsible officer has an interest will be
ineligible for a period of 3 years to be awarded any contract or
subcontract of the United States or the District of Columbia and any
contract or subcontract subject to the labor standards provisions of
any of the statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1.
(2) In cases arising under contracts covered by the Davis-Bacon
Act, the Administrator will transmit to the Comptroller General the
name(s) of the contractors or subcontractors and their responsible
officers, if any, and any firms, corporations, partnerships, or
associations in which the contractors, subcontractors, or responsible
officers are known to have an interest, who have been found to have
disregarded their obligations to workers or subcontractors, and the
recommendation of the Secretary of Labor or authorized representative
regarding debarment. In cases arising under contracts covered by any of
the applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1 other than the Davis-
Bacon Act, the Administrator determines the name(s) of the contractors
or subcontractors and their responsible officers, if any, and any
firms, corporations, partnerships, or associations in which the
contractors, subcontractors, or responsible officers are known to have
an interest, to be debarred. The Comptroller General will distribute a
list to all Federal agencies giving the names of such ineligible person
or firms, who will be ineligible for a period of 3 years (from the date
of publication by the Comptroller General of the name(s) of any such
person or firm on the ineligible list) to be awarded any contract or
subcontract of the United States or the District of Columbia and any
contract or subcontract subject to the labor standards provisions of
any of the statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1.
(b) Procedure. (1) In addition to cases under which debarment
action is initiated pursuant to Sec. 5.11, whenever as a result of an
investigation conducted by the Federal agency or the Department of
Labor, and where the Administrator finds reasonable cause to believe
that a contractor or subcontractor has committed violations which
constitute a disregard of its obligations to workers or subcontractors
under the Davis-Bacon Act, the labor standards provisions of any of the
other applicable statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1, this part, or part 3
of this subtitle, the Administrator will notify by registered or
certified mail to the last known address or by any other means normally
assuring delivery, the contractor or subcontractor and responsible
officers, if any, and any firms, corporations, partnerships, or
associations in which the contractors, subcontractors, or responsible
officers are known to have an interest of the finding.
(i) The Administrator will afford such contractor, subcontractor,
responsible officer, and any other parties notified an opportunity for
a hearing as to whether debarment action should be taken under
paragraph (a) of this section. The Administrator will furnish to those
notified a summary of the investigative findings.
(ii) If the contractor, subcontractor, responsible officer, or any
other parties notified wish to request a hearing as to whether
debarment action should be taken, such a request must be made by letter
or by any other means normally assuring delivery, sent within 30 days
of the date of the notification from the Administrator, and must set
forth any findings which are in dispute and the basis for such disputed
findings, including any affirmative defenses to be raised.
(iii) Upon timely receipt of such request for a hearing, the
Administrator will refer the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge
by Order of Reference, with an attached copy of the notification from
the Administrator and the responses of the contractor, subcontractor,
responsible officers, or any other parties notified, for designation of
an Administrative Law Judge to conduct such hearings as may be
necessary to determine the matters in dispute.
(iv) In considering debarment under any of the statutes referenced
by Sec. 5.1 other than the Davis-Bacon Act, the Administrative Law
Judge will issue an order concerning whether the contractor,
subcontractor, responsible officer, or any other party notified is to
be debarred in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. In
considering debarment under the Davis-Bacon Act, the Administrative Law
Judge will issue a recommendation as to whether the contractor,
subcontractor, responsible officers, or any other party notified should
be debarred under 40 U.S.C. 3144(b).
(2) Hearings under this section will be conducted in accordance
with part 6 of this subtitle. If no hearing is requested within 30 days
of the date of the notification from the Administrator, the
Administrator's findings will be final, except with respect to
recommendations regarding debarment under the Davis-Bacon Act, as set
forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(c) Interests of debarred parties. (1) A finding as to whether
persons or firms whose names appear on the ineligible list have an
interest under 40 U.S.C. 3144(b) or paragraph (a) of this section in
any other firm, corporation, partnership, or association, may be made
through investigation, hearing, or otherwise.
(2)(i) The Administrator, on their own motion or after receipt of a
request for a determination pursuant to paragraph
[[Page 15802]]
(c)(3) of this section may make a finding on the issue of interest.
(ii) If the Administrator determines that there may be an interest,
but finds that there is insufficient evidence to render a final ruling
thereon, the Administrator may refer the issue to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
(iii) If the Administrator finds that no interest exists, or that
there is not sufficient information to warrant the initiation of an
investigation, the requesting party, if any, will be so notified and no
further action taken.
(iv)(A) If the Administrator finds that an interest exists, the
person or firm affected will be notified of the Administrator's finding
(by certified mail to the last known address or by any other means
normally assuring delivery), which will include the reasons therefore,
and such person or firm will be afforded an opportunity to request that
a hearing be held to decide the issue.
(B) Such person or firm will have 20 days from the date of the
Administrator's ruling to request a hearing. A person or firm desiring
a hearing must request it by letter or by any other means normally
assuring delivery, sent within 20 days of the date of the
Administrator's notification. A detailed statement of the reasons why
the Administrator's ruling is in error, including facts alleged to be
in dispute, if any, must be submitted with the request for a hearing.
(C) If no hearing is requested within the time mentioned in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, the Administrator's finding
will be final and the Administrator will notify the Comptroller General
in cases arising under the DBA. If a hearing is requested, the ruling
of the Administrator will be inoperative unless and until the
administrative law judge or the Administrative Review Board issues an
order that there is an interest.
(3)(i) A request for a determination of interest may be made by any
interested party, including contractors or prospective contractors and
associations of contractors, representatives of workers, and interested
agencies. Such a request must be submitted in writing to the
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
(ii) The request must include a statement setting forth in detail
why the petitioner believes that a person or firm whose name appears on
the ineligible list has an interest in any firm, corporation,
partnership, or association which is seeking or has been awarded a
contract or subcontract of the United States or the District of
Columbia, or a contract or subcontract that is subject to the labor
standards provisions of any of the statutes referenced by Sec. 5.1. No
particular form is prescribed for the submission of a request under
this section.
(4) The Administrator, on their own motion under paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section or upon a request for hearing where the
Administrator determines that relevant facts are in dispute, will by
order refer the issue to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, for
designation of an Administrative Law Judge who will conduct such
hearings as may be necessary to render a decision solely on the issue
of interest. Such proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the
procedures set forth in part 6 of this subtitle.
(5) If the person or firm affected requests a hearing and the
Administrator determines that relevant facts are not in dispute, the
Administrator will refer the issue and the record compiled thereon to
the Administrative Review Board to render a decision solely on the
issue of interest. Such proceeding must be conducted in accordance with
the procedures set forth in part 7 of this subtitle.
0
32. Revise Sec. 5.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.13 Rulings and interpretations.
(a) All questions relating to the application and interpretation of
wage determinations (including the classifications therein) issued
pursuant to part 1 of this subtitle, of the rules contained in this
part and in parts 1 and 3 of this subtitle, and of the labor standards
provisions of any of the statutes listed in Sec. 5.1 must be referred
to the Administrator for appropriate ruling or interpretation. These
rulings and interpretations are authoritative and those under the
Davis-Bacon Act may be relied upon as provided for in section 10 of the
Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 259). Requests for such rulings
and interpretations should be submitted via email to
[email protected]; by mail to Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20210; or through other means directed by the
Administrator.
(b) If any such ruling or interpretation is made by an authorized
representative of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, any
interested party may seek reconsideration of the ruling or
interpretation by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. The
procedures and time limits set out in Sec. 1.8 of this subtitle apply
to any such request for reconsideration.
0
33. Amend Sec. 5.15 by revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 5.15 Limitations, variations, tolerances, and exemptions under
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4)(i) Time spent in an organized program of related, supplemental
instruction by laborers or mechanics employed under bona fide
apprenticeship programs may be excluded from working time if the
criteria prescribed in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section
are met.
(ii) The apprentice comes within the definition contained in Sec.
5.2.
(iii) The time in question does not involve productive work or
performance of the apprentice's regular duties.
(d) * * *
(1) In the event of failure or refusal of the contractor or any
subcontractor to comply with overtime pay requirements of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, if the funds withheld by Federal
agencies for the violations are not sufficient to pay fully the unpaid
wages and any back pay or other monetary relief due laborers and
mechanics, with interest, and the liquidated damages due the United
States, the available funds will be used first to compensate the
laborers and mechanics for the wages to which they are entitled (or an
equitable portion thereof when the funds are not adequate for this
purpose); and the balance, if any, will be used for the payment of
liquidated damages.
* * * * *
Sec. 5.16 [Removed and Reserved]
0
34. Remove and reserve Sec. 5.16.
Sec. 5.17 [Removed and Reserved]
0
35. Remove and reserve Sec. 5.17.
0
36. Add Sec. 5.18 to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 5.18 Remedies for retaliation.
(a) Administrator request to remedy violation. When the
Administrator finds that any person has discriminated in any way
against any worker or job applicant in violation of Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or
(b)(5), or caused any person to discriminate in any way against any
worker or job applicant in violation of Sec. 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the
Administrator will notify the person, any contractors for whom the
person worked or on whose behalf the person acted, and any upper tier
contractors, as well as the relevant contracting agency(ies) of the
[[Page 15803]]
discrimination and request that the person and any contractors for whom
the person worked or on whose behalf the person acted remedy the
violation.
(b) Administrator directive to remedy violation and provide make
whole relief. If the person and any contractors for whom the person
worked or on whose behalf the person acted do not remedy the violation,
the Administrator in the notification of violation findings issued
under Sec. 5.11 or Sec. 5.12 will direct the person and any
contractors for whom the person worked or on whose behalf the person
acted to provide appropriate make whole relief to affected worker(s)
and job applicant(s) or take appropriate remedial action, or both, to
correct the violation, and will specify the particular relief and
remedial actions to be taken.
(c) Examples of available make whole relief and remedial actions.
Such relief and remedial actions may include, but are not limited to,
employment, reinstatement, and promotion, together with back pay and
interest; restoration of the terms, conditions, and privileges of the
worker's employment or former employment; the expungement of warnings,
reprimands, or derogatory references; the provision of a neutral
employment reference; and the posting of a notice to workers that the
contractor or subcontractor agrees to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act
and Related Acts anti-retaliation requirements.
0
37. Revise Sec. 5.20 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.20 Scope and significance of this subpart.
The 1964 amendments (Pub. L. 88-349) to the Davis-Bacon Act
require, among other things, that the prevailing wage determined for
Federal and federally assisted construction include the basic hourly
rate of pay and the amount contributed by the contractor or
subcontractor for certain fringe benefits (or the cost to them of such
benefits). The purpose of this subpart is to explain the provisions of
these amendments. This subpart makes available in one place official
interpretations of the fringe benefits provisions of the Davis-Bacon
Act. These interpretations will guide the Department of Labor in
carrying out its responsibilities under these provisions. These
interpretations are intended also for the guidance of contractors,
their associations, laborers and mechanics and their organizations, and
local, State and Federal agencies, who may be concerned with these
provisions of the law. The interpretations contained in this subpart
are authoritative and may be relied upon as provided for in section 10
of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 259). The omission to
discuss a particular problem in this subpart or in interpretations
supplementing it should not be taken to indicate the adoption of any
position by the Secretary of Labor with respect to such problem or to
constitute an administrative interpretation, practice, or enforcement
policy. Questions on matters not fully covered by this subpart may be
referred to the Secretary for interpretation as provided in Sec. 5.13.
0
38. Revise Sec. 5.22 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.22 Effect of the Davis-Bacon fringe benefits provisions.
The Davis-Bacon Act and the prevailing wage provisions of the
statutes referenced in Sec. 1.1 of this subtitle confer upon the
Secretary of Labor the authority to predetermine, as minimum wages,
those wage rates found to be prevailing for corresponding classes of
laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to
the contract work in the area in which the work is to be performed. See
the definitions of the terms ``prevailing wage'' and ``area'' in Sec.
1.2 of this subtitle. The fringe benefits amendments enlarge the scope
of this authority by including certain bona fide fringe benefits within
the meaning of the terms ``wages'', ``scale of wages'', ``wage rates'',
``minimum wages'', and ``prevailing wages'', as used in the Davis-Bacon
Act.
0
39. Revise Sec. 5.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.23 The statutory provisions.
Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended and codified at 40
U.S.C. 3141(2), the term ``prevailing wages'' and similar terms include
the basic hourly rate of pay and, for the listed fringe benefits and
other bona fide fringe benefits not required by other law, the
contributions irrevocably made by a contractor or subcontractor to a
trustee or third party pursuant to a bona fide fringe benefit fund,
plan, or program, and the costs to the contractor or subcontractor that
may be reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits
pursuant to an enforceable commitment to carry out a financially
responsible plan or program, which was communicated in writing to the
affected laborers and mechanics. Section 5.29 discusses specific fringe
benefits that may be considered to be bona fide.
0
40. Amend Sec. 5.25 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 5.25 Rate of contribution or cost for fringe benefits.
* * * * *
(c) Contractors must annualize all fringe benefit contributions to
determine the hourly equivalent for which they may take credit against
their fringe benefit obligation.
(1) Method of computation. To annualize the cost of providing a
fringe benefit, a contractor must divide the cost of the fringe benefit
by the total number of hours worked on Davis-Bacon and non-Davis-Bacon
work during the time period to which the cost is attributable to
determine the rate of contribution per hour. If the amount of
contribution varies per worker, credit must be determined separately
for the amount contributed on behalf of each worker.
(2) Exceptions requests. Contractors and other interested parties
may request an exception from the annualization requirement by
submitting a request to the WHD Administrator. Requests must be
submitted in writing to the Division of Government Contracts
Enforcement via email at [email protected] or by mail to
Director, Division of Government Contracts Enforcement, Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Room S-
3502, Washington, DC 20210. A request for exception must demonstrate
the fringe benefit plan in question meets the following three factors:
(i) The benefit provided is not continuous in nature; and
(ii) The benefit does not compensate both private and public work;
and
(iii) The plan provides for immediate participation and essentially
immediate vesting.
(3) Previous exceptions. In the event that a fringe benefit plan
(including a defined contribution pension plan with immediate
participation and immediate vesting) was excepted from the
annualization requirement prior to the effective date of these
regulations, the plan's exception will expire 18 months from the
effective date of these regulations, unless an exception for the plan
has been requested and received by that date under paragraph (c)(2) of
this section.
0
41. Revise Sec. 5.26 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.26 ``* * * contribution irrevocably made * * * to a trustee or
to a third person''.
(a) Requirements. The following requirements apply to any fringe
benefit contributions made to a trustee or to a third person pursuant
to a fund, plan, or program:
(1) Such contributions must be made irrevocably;
(2) The trustee or third person may not be affiliated with the
contractor or subcontractor;
(3) The trustee or third person must adhere to any fiduciary
responsibilities applicable under law; and
[[Page 15804]]
(4) The trust or fund must not permit the contractor or
subcontractor to recapture any of the contributions paid in or any way
divert the funds to its own use or benefit.
(b) Excess payments. Notwithstanding the above, a contractor or
subcontractor may recover sums which it had paid to a trustee or third
person in excess of the contributions actually called for by the plan,
such as excess payments made in error or in order to cover the
estimated cost of contributions at a time when the exact amount of the
necessary contributions is not yet known. For example, a benefit plan
may provide for definite insurance benefits for employees in the event
of contingencies such as death, sickness, or accident, with the cost of
such definite benefits borne by the contractor or subcontractor. In
such a case, if the insurance company returns the amount that the
contractor or subcontractor paid in excess of the amount required to
provide the benefits, this will not be deemed a recapture or diversion
by the employer of contributions made pursuant to the plan. (See Report
of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S. Rep. No. 963,
88th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5.)
0
42. Revise Sec. 5.28 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.28 Unfunded plans.
(a) The costs to a contractor or subcontractor which may be
reasonably anticipated in providing benefits of the types described in
the Act, pursuant to an enforceable commitment to carry out a
financially responsible plan or program, are considered fringe benefits
within the meaning of the Act (see 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B)(ii)). The
legislative history suggests that these provisions were intended to
permit the consideration of fringe benefits meeting these requirements,
among others, and which are provided from the general assets of a
contractor or subcontractor. (Report of the House Committee on
Education and Labor, H. Rep. No. 308, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4.; see
also S. Rep. No. 963, p. 6.)
(b) Such a benefit plan or program, commonly referred to as an
unfunded plan, may not constitute a fringe benefit within the meaning
of the Act unless:
(1) It could be reasonably anticipated to provide the benefits
described in the Act;
(2) It represents a commitment that can be legally enforced;
(3) It is carried out under a financially responsible plan or
program;
(4) The plan or program providing the benefits has been
communicated in writing to the laborers and mechanics affected; and
(5) The contractor or subcontractor requests and receives approval
of the plan or program from the Secretary, as described in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(c) To receive approval of an unfunded plan or program, a
contractor or subcontractor must demonstrate in its request to the
Secretary that the unfunded plan or program, and the benefits provided
under such plan or program, are ``bona fide,'' meet the requirements
set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, and are
otherwise consistent with the Act. The request must include sufficient
documentation to enable the Secretary to evaluate these criteria.
Contractors and subcontractors may request approval of an unfunded plan
or program by submitting a written request in one of the following
manners:
(1) By mail to the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour
Division, Director, Division of Government Contracts Enforcement, 200
Constitution Ave., NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210;
(2) By email to [email protected] (or its successor email address);
or
(3) By any other means directed by the Administrator.
(d) Unfunded plans or programs may not be used as a means of
avoiding the Act's requirements. The words ``reasonably anticipated''
require that any unfunded plan or program be able to withstand a test
of actuarial soundness. Moreover, as in the case of other fringe
benefits payable under the Act, an unfunded plan or program must be
``bona fide'' and not a mere simulation or sham for avoiding compliance
with the Act. To prevent these provisions from being used to avoid
compliance with the Act, the Secretary may direct a contractor or
subcontractor to set aside in an account assets which, under sound
actuarial principles, will be sufficient to meet future obligations
under the plan. Such an account must be preserved for the purpose
intended. (S. Rep. No. 963, p. 6.)
0
43. Amend Sec. 5.29 by revising paragraph (e) and adding paragraph (g)
to read as follows:
Sec. 5.29 Specific fringe benefits.
* * * * *
(e) Where the plan is not of the conventional type described in the
preceding paragraph (d) of this section, the Secretary must examine the
facts and circumstances to determine whether fringe benefits under the
plan are ``bona fide'' in accordance with requirements of the Act. This
is particularly true with respect to unfunded plans discussed in Sec.
5.28. Contractors or subcontractors seeking credit under the Act for
costs incurred for such plans must request specific approval from the
Secretary under Sec. 5.5(a)(1)(iv).
* * * * *
(g) For a contractor or subcontractor to take credit for the costs
of an apprenticeship program, it must meet the following requirements:
(1) The program, in addition to meeting all other relevant
requirements for fringe benefits in this subpart, must be registered
with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration,
Office of Apprenticeship (``OA''), or with a State Apprenticeship
Agency recognized by the OA.
(2) The contractor or subcontractor may only take credit for the
actual costs incurred for the apprenticeship program, such as
instruction, books, and tools or materials; it may not take credit for
voluntary contributions beyond the costs actually incurred for the
apprenticeship program.
(3) Costs incurred for the apprenticeship for one classification of
laborer or mechanic may not be used to offset costs incurred for
another classification.
(4) In applying the annualization principle to compute the
allowable fringe benefit credit pursuant to Sec. 5.25, the total
number of working hours of employees to which the cost of an
apprenticeship program is attributable is limited to the total number
of hours worked by laborers and mechanics in the apprentice's
classification. For example, if a contractor enrolls an employee in an
apprenticeship program for carpenters, the permissible hourly Davis-
Bacon credit is determined by dividing the cost of the program by the
total number of hours worked by the contractor's carpenters and
carpenters' apprentices on covered and non-covered projects during the
time period to which the cost is attributable, and such credit may only
be applied against the contractor's prevailing wage obligations for all
carpenters and carpenters' apprentices for each hour worked on the
covered project.
0
44. Revise Sec. 5.30 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.30 Types of wage determinations.
(a) When fringe benefits are prevailing for various classes of
laborers and mechanics in the area of proposed construction, such
benefits are includable in any Davis-Bacon wage determination. The
illustrations contained in paragraph (c) of this section demonstrate
how fringe benefits
[[Page 15805]]
may be listed on wage determinations in such cases.
(b) Wage determinations do not include fringe benefits for various
classes of laborers and mechanics whenever such benefits do not prevail
in the area of proposed construction. When this occurs, the wage
determination will contain only the basic hourly rates of pay which are
prevailing for the various classes of laborers and mechanics. An
illustration of this situation is contained in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c) Illustrations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification Rate Fringes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bricklayer..................... $21.96 $0.00.
Electrician.................... 47.65 3%+$14.88.
Elevator mechanic.............. 48.60 $35.825+a+b.
a. Paid Holidays: New
Year's Day, Memorial
Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Veterans'
Day, Thanksgiving Day,
Christmas Day and the
Friday after
Thanksgiving.
b. Vacations: Employer
contributes 8% of
basic hourly rate for
5 years or more of
service; 6% of basic
hourly rate for 6
months to 5 years of
service as vacation
pay credit.
Ironworker, structural......... 32.00 12.01.
Laborer: Common or general..... 15.21 4.54.
Operator: Bulldozer............ 15.40 1.90.
Plumber (excludes HVAC duct, 38.38 16.67.
pipe and unit installation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1 to paragraph (c): (This format is not necessarily in the exact
form in which determinations will issue; it is for illustration only.)
0
45. Revise Sec. 5.31 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.31 Meeting wage determination obligations.
(a) A contractor or subcontractor performing work subject to a
Davis-Bacon wage determination may discharge their minimum wage
obligations for the payment of both straight time wages and fringe
benefits by paying in cash, making payments or incurring costs for
``bona fide'' fringe benefits of the types listed in the applicable
wage determination or otherwise found prevailing by the Secretary of
Labor, or by a combination thereof.
(b) A contractor or subcontractor may discharge their obligations
for the payment of the basic hourly rates and the fringe benefits where
both are contained in a wage determination applicable to their laborers
or mechanics in the following ways:
(1) By paying not less than the basic hourly rate to the laborers
or mechanics and by making contributions for ``bona fide'' fringe
benefits in a total amount not less than the total of the fringe
benefits required by the wage determination. For example, the
obligations for ``Laborer: common or general'' in the illustration in
Sec. 5.30(c) will be met by the payment of a straight time hourly rate
of not less than $15.21 and by contributions of not less than a total
of $4.54 an hour for ``bona fide'' fringe benefits; or
(2) By paying in cash directly to laborers or mechanics for the
basic hourly rate and by making an additional cash payment in lieu of
the required benefits. For example, where an employer does not make
payments or incur costs for fringe benefits, they would meet their
obligations for ``Laborer: common or general'' in the illustration in
Sec. 5.30(c), by paying directly to the laborers a straight time
hourly rate of not less than $19.75 ($15.21 basic hourly rate plus
$4.54 for fringe benefits); or
(3) As stated in paragraph (a) of this section, the contractor or
subcontractor may discharge their minimum wage obligations for the
payment of straight time wages and fringe benefits by a combination of
the methods illustrated in paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) of this
section. Thus, for example, their obligations for ``Laborer: common or
general'' may be met by an hourly rate, partly in cash and partly in
payments or costs for fringe benefits which total not less than $19.75
($15.21 basic hourly rate plus $4.54 for fringe benefits).
0
46. Add Sec. 5.33 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.33 Administrative expenses of a contractor or subcontractor.
Administrative expenses incurred by a contractor or subcontractor
in connection with the administration of a fringe benefit plan are not
creditable as fringe benefits. For example, a contractor or
subcontractor may not take credit for the cost of an office employee
who fills out medical insurance claim forms for submission to an
insurance carrier.
0
47. Add subpart C, consisting of Sec. 5.40, to read as follows:
Subpart C--Severability
Sec. 5.40 Severability.
The provisions of this part are separate and severable and operate
independently from one another. If any provision of this part is held
to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any
person or circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the
provision is to be construed so as to continue to give the maximum
effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision is
severable from this part and will not affect the remaining provisions.
Signed this 9th day of March, 2022.
Jessica Looman,
Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05346 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-P
