U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
MAY 19 1962
MEMORANDUM # 37
TO : AGENCIES ADMINISTERING STATUTES REFERRED TO IN 29
CFR, SUBTITLE A, PART 5.
FROM : James R. Beaird
Assistant Solicitor
SUBJECT: Opinions on application of the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts.
Enclosed with previous covering memoranda, copies of
opinions on the application of the Davis-Bacon and related Acts
were furnished you for information and guidance in your enforce-
ment programs under those Acts.
We are now enclosing a copy of a recent opinion on
this same general subject, which we are sure will be of further
interest and assistance to you.
Enclosure





































DB-23 131-d
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
April 16, 1962
Colonel Raymond J. Disher
Chief, Contract Management Division
Directorate of Procurement Management
Department of the Air Force
Washington 25, D. C.
Re: Boeing Aircraft Company
Minuteman Missile Facilities
Contract No. AF 04(647)-714
Malmstrom AFB, Montana
E-62-890
Dear Colonel Disher:
This is in reply to your letter and enclosures of February 5,
1962 and February 21, 1962, regarding a complaint filed with this
Office by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that
the Department of the Air Force failed to require that the provisions
of the Davis-Bacon Act be made applicable to certain items of work
under the above specified contract relating to Minuteman Missile
Facilities. Similar complaints were also made by other labor or-
ganizations, individually, and by the Building and Construction Trades
Department, AFL-CIO.
The enclosures to your letters set forth certain facts with
respect to the overall project and provide charts showing the nature
of the work involved. The project has been divided into two general
categories: phase one, that identified as the construction phase, in-
cluding all work in connection with the support facilities; and phase
two, that designated as the manufacturing and supply of the missiles,
including incidental control and service equipment. You advise that
the work covered by phase one above is being accomplished by gen-
eral construction-type contractors under contracts handled by the
Corps of Engineers and subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. Phase two
work is scheduled to be accomplished through the above specified
Air Force contract awarded to the Boeing Company, a manufacturing
and supply-type firm.



















We have carefully reviewed each of the work items shown on
the five charts and individually described in the accompanying lists
These charts show the following structures and facilities:
1. LF Support Building
2. Launcher Control Center
3. Launcher Equipment Room
4. LCC Support Building
5. Launcher
On each of these charts the items in phase 2, reserved for the
Boeing Company, are shown in brown and, in one case, in red, or
are indicated by the ACO as assigned to Boeing regardless of color.
You have stated that, with one possible exception, all items shown
for installation by the Boeing Company are either portable equip-
ment or else are simply installed by placing on the floor and in some
cases by bolting to I beams through pre-drilled holes. To the ex-
tent necessary, cables connecting the equipment are prefabricated
off the site and terminate in cannon-type molded pin and socket con-
nections. Other cabling is of the plug-in type. Cables with pin and
socket connections are interchangeable, can be replaced without the
use of tools and are simply placed in cable trays previously installed
by the construction contractor and then are connected at the socket.
Some of the work involves placing minor fixtures or connections of
various kinds in their proper position. A complete description of
all major elements of installation as shown on the charts, is con-
tained in a report for the Department of Labor dated January 29, 1962,
copy attached.
The Air Force has pointed out that the collective bargaining agree-
ment between the Boeing Company and the International Association
of Machinists provides that any work under the Boeing Contract which
may be subject to the Davis-Bacon Act will be performed by Boeing
employees at wage rates predetermined in accordance with the Davis-
Bacon Act. They have also pointed out that, according to the Boeing
Company, on one wing of 150 missiles the total construction industry
work is estimated as 6, 738, 788 man-hours, while the total Boeing
assembly and installation work is estimated as only 218, 096 man-
hours. These considerations have, of course, no bearing on this
determination under the Davis-Bacon Act because they do not affect
what constitutes construction, alteration or repair within the meaning
of that Act.


















-3-
Since there are two types of contracts involved in this complaint,
the first for construction and the second for supplying materials and
equipment to the Federal Government, it is necessary to examine the
relationship between and proper application of both the Walsh-Healey
Public Contracts Act and the Davis-Bacon Act to the types of activities
which are in dispute. The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act applies,
by its terms, to all contracts for the manufacture or furnishing of ma-
terials, supplies, articles and equipment in any amount exceeding
$10, 000. The requirements of this statute as to prevailing minimum
wage rates, the eight hour day and the forty hour week with time and
one-half for overtime would clearly apply to the Boeing Contract in this
case. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consult the Rulings and In-
terpretations under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act in order
to determine the extent and nature of this coverage where, as here,
some of the activities under the supply contract involve installation
at a construction site.
Rulings and Interpretations No. 3 issued under the Walsh-
Healey Public Contracts Act Part 1, Section 6 entitled "Contracts
Involving Construction", reflect the relationship between that Act
and the Davis-Bacon Act, where job- site installation of equipment
or materials are involved, as follows:
" If such a contract involves more than an incidental
amount of erection or installation work it may also be
subject to the Davis-Bacon Act with respect to such
work if the site of such work is known at the time the
invitation to bid is issued. Examples of such contracts
are those for the manufacture or furnishing and instal-
lation of elevators or of generators requiring pre-
pared foundations or housing. "
Thus, even though the Davis-Bacon Act may apply to job-site
installation or erection under a contract in an amount exceeding
$2000 for "construction, alteration or repair . . . . of a public
work of the United States", this Act does not wholly apply to such
installation or erection under supply contracts subject to the Walsh-
Healey Public Contracts Act. Delivery and incidental installation
required by these contracts are considered an integral part of manu-
facturing and furnishing and, where both involve no more than a
minimal amount of job-site activity, the Davis-Bacon Act has not
and should not be applied to these contracts.

















-4-
Bearing in mind these interpretative guidelines, attention can
now be properly directed toward the question of whether all of the
items to be installed by the Boeing Company under its supply con-
tract, as shown on the charts and in the attached report, involve
"More than an incidental amount of erection or installation work . .
. . . . . subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. "
A careful study and review of each one of these items, as
generally described above, leads to the conclusion that all operations
are simple in character, involve no structural or engineering opera-
tions and each individually take a minimum of time. Under these
circumstances, it could not properly be determined that this work
represents more than incidental installation within the purpose and
intent of the language quoted above. Therefore, this work would not
be subject to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.
One possible exception to this conclusion involves the actuator
assembly illustrated on the Launcher chart. It is our understand-
ing that this actuator has the purpose of opening the silo door when
the missile is fired. It cannot be used to close the door. At times,
when the door must be opened or closed for maintenance or other
purposes, a portable electric mule is brought from a storage place
and positioned on steel tracks to be used to slide the door back and
forth. The actuator is operated by means of an explosive device, dis-
charged automatically as a part of the firing sequence, moving the
actuator downward, thereby opening the door at the time of firing.
This appears to be an unusual piece of equipment, without precedent
and establishing no precedent, useable only once, intimately con-
nected with and vital to the discharge of the missile.
The attached "Report for the Department of Labor" describes the
actuator installation as follows:
"The actuator is manufactured off the site. It will be
brought to the site of work, lowered into place atop a
steel ring mount, placed by a Corps of Engineers
general contractor's forces and attached by means of
bolts. The upper linkage of the actuator operates by
means of a cable running to a pulley structure perma-
nently attached to the heavy concrete silo door by a
Corps of Engineers general contractors forces."



















-5-
While nothing in the above description indicates that more than
incidental installation is involved, nevertheless, the full circum-
stances of actual installation of this unusual device are not dis-
closed in detail by the report. Here again the same tests must be
applied and if a careful study and review leads to the conclusion
that the necessary work is simple in character, involves no structural
or engineering operations and takes a minimum of time, then no more
than incidental installation work is involved. These are the guides
which the contracting agency should follow in accordance with long-
standing interpretations, Reorganization Plan 14 of 1950 and the terms
of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.
It must be emphasized that our conclusions in this case, are based
on the facts presented with respect to the instant contract and under
the circumstances affecting this work at this time. It does not, and
is not intended to, extend to any contract for modification of facilities,
or to additional contracts to be let in the future which may involve
different factual considerations.
It is also emphasized this decision is confined to the opera-
tions defined in phase 2 as reserved for the Boeing Company. It
does not relate to changes or alterations in work already performed,
as a part of phase one, by employees of construction contractors.
Any such changes or alterations or adjustments must be considered
separately on the basis of the particular facts and may well be subject
to the Davis-Bacon Act.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Donahue
Solicitor of Labor
Attachments




























CONTRACT SUPPORT DETACHMENT 18
WESTERN CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REGION
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
MALMSTRUM AIR FORCE BASE MONTANA
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: RWH018A             29 Jan 1962
SUBJECT: Report for Department of Labor - Davis Bacon Applicability on
MINUTEMAN Program at Malmstrom AFB, Montana
TO: WCMR (RWPS)
AFSC (SCMKM-l)
AFSPM-CM-2-PD
IN TURN
1. Section I - The Davis Bacon Act covers "contracts for construction,
altering and repair, including painting and decorating".
2. The Air Force contract Nr AF 04(647)-714, awarded to the Booing
Airplane Company, requires that the contractor perform "assembly and
test" of a weapon system (133A) for the Installation, servicing and
firing of certain ballistic missiles. The construction phase, including
all work in connection with the supporting facilities, is being accom-
plished through the Corps of Engineers, US Army, by contracts awarded
to general construction type contractors, The second phase calling
for the manufacturing and supplying of the missiles themselves and the
control and servicing equipment incident thereto is to be accomplished
through AF contracts awarded to the Boeing Company and other manufacturers
and suppliers.
3. Section II - Regulation 5, Title 29, Subtitle A, Code of Federal
Regulations, provides that the federal agency responsible for contracts
and their performance-shall have responsibility for the administration
and enforcement of certain applicable labor regulations. The Department




























of Defense in carrying out its overall responsibility for the activities
of the military departments has provided in its Armed Services Procure-
ment Regulations for certain minimum actions to be taken by the military
departments and their contractors in observance of applicable labor
regulations. The Air Force, through its Air Force procurement instruct-
tions, has further implemented the ASPR regulation to provide that
a. Contractors performing work shall first go to the appropriate
Contracting Officer for a determination of applicability of the various
regulations and
b. That the Contracting Officer will make such a determination
and make known the results of his determination to the contractor before
any of the work in question is actually done.
4. Acting under this responsibility an Air Force Team reviewed all
tasks to be performed under the above contract for possible Davis Bacon
application. This Team discussed each task in detail with Boeing rep-
resentatives who were familiar with the manner in which each task is to
be performed, and received from Boeing a commitment that all tasks would
be performed as stipulated. The team then visited the Boeing Plant in
Seattle. There they were conducted through various fabrication operations.
They next visited the mock-up of the support facilities where they saw
all the equipment in question put in its proper place. Finally they
made a tour of an actual MINUTEMAN silo, in which real components were
set up as if for an operational site and observed prefabricated, cannon-
2

































type molded pin-and-socket electrical connectors, completely manufactured
flexible ducts and adapters, storage batteries, generators assembled
and mounted on skids and the rest of the equipment named on the accomp-
anying charts and lists. The Team asked questions about each item
until satisfied as to its proper disposition under the Davis Bacon Act,
5. A large number of such tasks were determined by the Administrative
Contracting Officer to come under the provisions of the Davis Bacon
Act, in approaching the problem, the Air Force Team first separated
weapon systems equipment tasks from supporting facilities equipment
tasks. In making his determination the Administrative Contracting
Officer stuck rigidly to the line of delineation thus established. The
results of the Air Force's determination were recorded on accompanying charts
illustrating equipment tasks and corresponding lists on which the tasks
were shown as being either covered or non-covered by the Davis Bacon Act.
Such charts and lists have been widely distributed to interested parties.
Although the action calling for this report was initiated by the IBEW,
the Air Force has since been advised by the President of the Building
Trades Department, AFL/CIO that that Department is objecting to all
tasks listed as non-Davis Bacon, alleging that they are in fact Davis
Bacon covered works
6, Section III Some of the tasks may be less clearly non-covered
work, Therefore the Air Force has selected some of them for more detailed
treatment, as follows:
3

































a. Actuator assembly illustrated on launcher Chart. The actuator
is an explosive-motivated device whose function it is to open the silo
door in the actual firing of the missile which it must do in the space
of approximately five seconds or less. The actuator is manufactured
off the site. It will be brought to the site of the work, lowered into
place atop a steel ring mount, placed by a C/E general contractor's
forces and attached by means of bolts. The upper linkage of the actuator
operates by means of a cable running to a pulley structure permanently
attached to the heavy concrete silo door by a C/E general contractors
forces. The Air Force determined that the work of handling the actuators
fastening it in place and linking it to the permanently attached pulley
structure is only incidental to the manufacture and supplying of this
equipment.
b. Service Elevator Cage shown in the Launcher Chart. The service
elevator cage is a tool used to service the missile. When necessary
it is brought out of its storage place, lowered over the side of the
silo hole by a maintenance worker, lowered and raised and moved about
as necessary, after which it is again removed from the site and restored
to its storage place.
c. Portable Tractor (Electric Mule) and Power Control Unit shown
in the Launcher Chart. The electric mule and its power control unit
are used occasionally as needed when the missile is to be serviced or
maintenance work is to be done on it. It is brought from a storage
place and put in place on steel tracks permanently affixed by a C/E
4
































general contractor's forces, and is used to roll back the silo door,
when the maintenance work is completed, the silo door is rolled back by
means of the mule and its control unit; the mule and control unit are
then removed and placed back in storage, it is a tool used as needed
as is the service elevator or cage. The Air Force determined that the
work of placing both elevator cage and electric mule in service was
maintenance work and the work of handling them was merely incidental
to their manufacture and supply.
d. Electronic Equipment Consoles shown in various chart Illustra-
tions. These consoles contain electronic circuitry manufactured in a
plant and after testing, shipped to the site of the work. The consoles
and their equipment are integral entitles in every respect in the same
way that an adding machine, calculating machine or electronic computer
are. Their use depends upon power being supplied from a prefabricated
cable to a cannon-type molded pin-and-socket connector. The manufacturer
will bring the consoles to the supporting facilities, will place the
consoles in position on steel eye beam bases attached to the floor by
C/E general contractor's forces. The consoles will be attached by bolts
through pre-drilled holes to the bases.
e. The Telephone Sets and Jacks shown in the LCC support illustra-
tion, are standard commercial plug-in types as are in use everywhere,
f. The Cables Shown in Launcher Equipment Room Picture. These
cables are prefabricated (manufactured) in the manufacturer's plant and
brought to the site of the work by the manufacturer. The ends of the
cables terminate in cannon type molded pin-and-socket connections, They
5































are laid in place on trays Installed by the C/E general contractor's
forces or subcontractors and their terminal ends connected by simply
joining them to their appropriate equipment and power supply source connectors.
These cables are Interchangeable with others of similar capacity and length
and can be replaced with a minimum of effort and also without tools.
7. We should mention at this point that the battery switch boxes shown
in the Launcher Equipment Room illustration are used only in the special
test project installation at the manufacturer's plant and will not be
used in the Malmstrom AFB installation.
8. The primary power used is in all cases brought to the facility by
a C/E general contractors sub contractor's forces and terminated by
them at boxes installed by them on the walls of the facility.
9. The batteries to be installed are specially manufactured in a manu-
facturing plant. They are not large and not heavy so that two men can
carry each one easily. They sit in place directly on the floor of the
facility. They are not mounted or bolted to the facility and their use
requires that only snap-on connectors be put in place.
10'. The generator shown is a completely manufactured unit mounted in
the factory on a skid and set onto a predesignated space of the facility
on steel rails Installed by the construction contractor forces,
11. The following applies to all of the work determined to be not covered
by the Davis Bacon Act.
6


































a. The handling and placing of such equipment is incidental to
their manufacture, supply and use,
b. The furnishing of such equipment was not for use on construction.
c. The work of fabricating such equipment is performed off site in
a manufacturing plant.
d. Missile weapon systems and their associated equipment are in
fact manufactured in various locations other than the site of the work
and as such are non-covered. All such equipment, their handling and
Installing involve pieces which are complete fabrications in themselves,
require no construction activity to put them into operation and may be
removed and/or replaced without impairing the structure in which they
are used or components of that structure and without affecting the archi-
tecture, strength, stability, size or function of the support facility
in which they are used,
12. When an office or factory building is constructed, under Davis Bacon,
it is turned over as a shell to its users, who equip it with desks,
office machines, cabinets full of supplies, telephones, etc. Such
equipping is not required to be done under Davis Bacon.
13. In the case of MINUTEMAN, the equipment manufacturer is as justified
in moving in electronic cabinets as supply cabinets; in bringing in pre-
fabbed cable, as extension cords; in setting batteries as in setting
desks; in Installing intercoms as installing telephones; in installing

7

































computers as installing office machines; where in both cases, no con-
struction work is performed. In MINUTEMAN's case, all fabrication work
has been performed offsite, at a contractor's plant. The utility of the
building is not affected by the equipment's presence, or absence,
14. Finally the AF considered the following facts to be pertinent:
a. Mandays (estimated) spent on construction phase  760,000.
b. Mandays (estimated) spent in manufacture - 825,000.
c. Mandays (estimated) spent on installation of equipment - 5,900.
The above figures are AF estimates derived from Corps of Engineers and
Boeing records and show graphically that the work protested as being
entirely subject to Davis Bacon provisions, (item 14cs above) represents
less than 1% in relation to the construction effort also less than 1%
of the manufacturing effort. The checkout (testing, validating) by
Boeing will take many thousands more mandays of effort, but we have
not attempted to assemble the actual figures for this report. Clearly,
the installation is only incidental to the manufacture and supplying
of the weapons system equipment.
CLAYTON R HAUSCHILD
Administrative Contracting Officer ,
8





































Determination of Davis-Bacon Act Applicability in
Relation to Assembly and Checkout Work for Which
Boeing Airplane Company is Assigned Responsibility
for MINUTEMAN Program Malmstrom AFB
The undersigned has determined that work so designated on the lists
and charts. Labeled 2B-11071-20-R1, -21-, -22-, -23-, -24-, and dated
December 15, 1961, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
contraction, alteration and/or repair within the meanings described
in the Davis-Bacon Act.

     GRAPHIC  SIGNATURE














































Number of Tasks to be performed by Boeing employees at site
as compared with number of tanks to be sub-contracted to the
building trades crafts.
No. of Bldg.
Tasks Boeing Trades
Launch Control Center    No. of tasks 42    Boeing 25    Bldg. Trades 17
(Chart 20)
Launch Facility Support  No. of tasks 27    Boeing  4    Bldg. Trades 23
(Chart 21)
Launch Control Center Support Bldg.  No. of tasks  44  Boeing 11  Bldg. Trades  (Chart 22)
Launcher                 No. of tasks 26    Boeing 15    Bldg. Trades 11
(Chart 23) 
Launcher Equipment Room  No. of tasks 41    Boeing 23    Bldg. Trades 18
(Chart 24)
TOTALS 
No. of Tasks 180 .
Boeing 78.
Building Trades 102
Dec. 15, 1961
T. F. Neblett




































LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER
December 15, 1961
Page 1 of 2
NOMENCLATURE   CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY    DAVIS-BACON APPLICABILITY
E. V. Electric Control Panel  C. of E.  Contract Yes
Battery Disconnect Switch  BC  No
C2 Canister BC No
Survival Kit BC No
Fire Extinguisher BC  No
Freezer - Cooler w/oven C of E  Contract Yes
Cable Protector Frame Box AF EHG  Yes
Shield Water Tank C of E Contract Yes
Power Panel L.C.D.B. C of E  Contract  Yes
Shock Isolation Panel C of E Contract Yes
intrasite Connectors BC No
Shock Isolators C of E Contract Yes 
Air Bottles C of E Contract Yes
Environmental Control Ducts AF AAF Yes
Electric Rack Cooling Flex Ducts and Adapters BC No
Space Heater  C of E Contract Yes
Wire Trays  C of E Contract Yes
Command Control Console BC No
CCC - Operator's Seat  BC  No
Second - Command Control Console  BC  No
emergency Light BC No
Second - Operator's Seat BC  No
Status Display Panel BC  No






























LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER
Page 2 of 2
NOMENCLATURE CONTRACT RESPCDESIBILITY DAVIS-BACON APPLICABILITY
X-G Set  BC  No
Storage Battery BC No
Power Supply Group BC  No
Telephone Jack Assembly  BC  No
Data Processing Equipment Digital  BC No
Termination Equipment Hardened Cable  BC No
Headset, SIN BC No
Survival Light  BC No
HF/SSB BC No
465L Telephone Equipment BC No
Primary Alert System BC No
465L Rack 1, 2, 3, and 4 BC No
Rack Assembly, Top Hat, LF/UHF Radio System  BC  No
Toilet C of E Contract Yes
XO2 Unit C of E Contract No
Emergency Air Handling Unit AF AAF No
A. C. Exhaust Duct  C of E Contract No
Electro Surge Arrestor Panel AF EHG No
Splice Case AF EHG No



































LAUNCH FACILITY SUPPORT BUILDING
December 15, 1961
Page 1 of 1
NOMENCLATURE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY DAVIS-BACOM APPLICABILITY
Diesel Exhaust C of E Contract Yes 
Sound Trap C of E Contract Yes
Expansion Tank C of E Contract Yes
Removable Cover (2 places) C of E Contract Yes
Brine Chiller Unit AF AAF Yes
Outside Air Intake C of E Contract Yes
Diesel Day Fuel Tank C of E Contract Yes
Filter Box C of E Contract Yes
Fresh Air Intake C of E Contract Yes
Auxiliary Pump C of E Contract Yes
Liquid Level Indicator C of E Contract Yes
Pump C of E Contract Yes
E and V Control C of E Contract Yes
Cable Pressurization Unit AF EHG Yes
Distribution Panel L.D.A. C of E Contract Yes
Future Repeater Racks BC No
Generator Cranking Panel C of E Contract Yes
Engine Exercise Recorder C of E Contract Yes
Automatic Transfer Switch C of E contract Yes
Battery Charger C of E Contract Yes
Telephone Lighting Panel L.A C of E Contract Yes
Telephone BC No
Gross Fault Indicator BC No
Diesel Generator Set C of E Contract Yes
SIN Telephone Term. Rack BC NO
Brine Chiller Exhaust Louvre C of E Contract Yes
Back Draft Damper C. of E Contract Yes


























LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER SUPPORT BUILDING
December 13, 1961
Page l of 2
NOMENLATURE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY DAVIS-BACON APPLICABILITY
Lighting Panel C of E Contract Yes
H & V Control Panel #2 C of E Contract Yes
Service Sink C of E Contract Yes
Expansion Tank C of E Contact Yes
Water Heater C of E Contract Yes
Dryer SAC
Washer SAC
H & V Control Panel #1 C of E Contract Yes
H & V Sensor Amplifier #1 C of E Contract Yes
H & V Sensor Amplifier #2 C of E Contract Yes
Sound Trap C of E Contract Yes
Roof Ventilator C of E Contract Yes
Brine Cooler Package AF AAF Yes
Lighting Panel L.C.B. C of E Contract Yes
Battery Charger C of E Contract Yes
Generator Control Panel C of E Contract Yes
Diesel Day Fuel Tank C of E Contract Yes
Muffler Inst. C of E Contract Yes
Diesel Generator C of E Contract Yes
Intake Filter C of E Contract Yes
Instrument Ground Plate C of E Contract Yes
Telephone Equipment BC No
Telephone Term Cabinet C of E Contract Yes
SIN Telephone Terminal Rack BC No
Intercom Terminal Cabinet C of E Contract Yes 
Jack Assembly, SIN/LCF BC No
Fuel Pump C of E Contract Yes


























LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER SUPPORT BUILDING
Page 2 of 2
NOMENCLATURE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY DAVIS-BACOM APPLICABILITY
Eng. Cranking Panel C of E Contract Yes
Pull Box C of E Contract Yes
Distribution Pane1 L.C.D. C of E Contract Yes
Cable Press Unit AF EHG Yes
Elevator C of E Contract Yes
SIN VHF Transceiver BC No
VHF Radio Remote control BC No
Telephone Set, Wall type SIN/LCRF BC No
Telephone Set SIN/LOG BC No
Fault Locator Panel BC No
VHF 2-Way Radio BC No
Boiler C of E Contract Yes
Expansion Tank C of E Contract Yes
Sink and Disposal Unit C of E Contract Yes
Range and Oven C of E Contract Yes
Refrigerator C of E Contract Yes
Cabinets and Shelves C of E Contract Yes
Freezer C of E contract Yes




































LAUNCHER    December 15, 1961
Page 1 of 1
NOMENCLATURE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY DAVIS-BACON APPLICABILITY
Closure Cables BC No
Closure Lock Switch BC No
Monorail for work Cage C of E Contract Yes
Elevator and work Cage BC No
Ladders C of E Contract Yes
Security Device BC No
Rocker Arms BC SUB Yes
Upper Support Brackets BC SUB Yes
Missile Base & Trunions BC Sub Yes
Suspension Rods BC Sub Yes
Lower Support Brackets C of E Contract Yes
Spring and Jack BC Sub Yes
Security Device BC No
Sump Pump C of E Contract Yes
Azimuth Drive 'J' Box BC Sub Yes
Actuator Supports BC No
Ballistic Actuator BC No
G & C Umbilical BC No
Skirt Umbilical BC No 
Umbilical Retract BC No
Closure Pulley Assembly BC No
Main 'J' Box BC No
Pulley Structure CotE Yes
Power Control Unit BC No
Portable Tractor BC No
Maintenance Tract C of E Contract Yes




























LAUNCHER EQUIPMENT ROOM
December 15, 1961
Page 1 of 2
NOMENCLATURE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY DAVIS-BACON APPLICIBILITY
Emergency Air Supply Fan C of E Contract Yes
G & C Cooling Tanks & Supports C of E Contract Yes
G & C Cooling Connectors BC No
Shock Suspension System (Typ.) C of E Contract Yes
Wire Trays C of E Contract Yes
Sequence & Monitor Cabinet BC No
SON DPE Cabinet BC No
Intrasite Cabling & Connectors BC No
Air Ducting AF AAF Yes
SCN CTE Cabinet BC No
Power Supply Set No. 2 BC No
Power Supply Set No. 1 BC No
A.C. Distribution & Test Control Panel C of E Contract Yes
Equip. Environmental Control Ducting AF AAF Yes
Battery Switches BC No
Main 'J' Box BC No
Security Device BC No
G & C Cooling Cabinet BC No
G & C Coupler Cabinet BC No
Battery (IES) BC No
Battery Cabling BC No
Motor - Generator Set BC No
Air Conditioning Control Panel C of E Contract Yes
Azimuth Marker BC No





























LAUNCHER EQUIPMENT ROOM
Page 2 of 2
NOMENCLATURE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY DAVIS-BACON APPLICABILITY
Autocollimator Bench C of E Yes
Theodolite Targeting Set BC No
Autocollimator BC No
Alignment Mirrors BC No
Inter-Phone Jacks BC No
Air Ducts C of E Contract Yes
Air Conditioning Remote Control Panel C of E Contract Yes
Air Conditioning Equipment C of E Contract Yes
Security Device BC No
Intra-Site Cables BC No
Electromagnetic Surge-Arrestor AF EHG Yes
SON Cable Splice C of E Contract Yes
Hardened SCN Cables C of E Contract Yes
EMP Enclosure C of E Contract Yes
Launch Tube Heater & Equipment C of E Contract Yes
Ballistic Closure Actuator BC No
Launch Tube Air Supply Duct C of E . Contract Yes