U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
December 14, 1962
MEMORANDUM # 46
TO: AGENCIES ADMINISTERING STATUTES REFFERED TO IN 29
CFR, SUTITLE A, PART 5
FROM: E. Irving Manger
Associate Administrator
SUDJECT: Opinion 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
wore furnished you for information and guidance in your enforce-
ment program under these Acts.
We are now enclosing a copy of a recent opinion on
Same general subject, which we are sure will be of further
interest and assistance to you.
Enclosure 






































DB-31 130(b)-3 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
November 28, 1962
The Honorable R. F. Keller
General Counsel
U. S. General Accounting Office
Washington 25, D, C,
Re: T. L. James & Co., Inc.
W. R, Aldrich Co.
Contract DA-34-066-ENG-5278
Amarillo AFB, Texas
Your Reference: B-147602
Our File: E-59-465
Dear Mr. Keller:
Reference is made to your letter and to the subsequent
discussions between representatives of our respective Offices
regarding the contract minimum rates applicable to workers en-
gaged in the installation of electrical (Orangeburg) fiber conduit
at Amarillo Air Force Base under the above-captioned contract.
You will recall that, upon receipt of a complaint
from IBEW Local Union No. 602 of Amarillo, Texas, an investi-
gation was conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the contract-
ing agency here involved. This investigation, including an
extensive area practice survey, established that the work in a
question was compensable at not less than the minimum wage
rate contained in the contract for electricians and their bona
fide apprentices.
In your letter, you state that [i]n the absence
of any evidence that the duct installation called for me-
chanical skills or techniques possessed only by qualified
electrical workers, it appears the requirement that the work
of loading, hauling, placing, joining and installing be per-
formed by mechanics classified as electricians is predicated























The Honorable R. F. Keller       Page 2
solely upon a prevailing local practice." You therefore re-
quest our views regarding the matter to assist in discharging
your "wage adjustment responsibilities under the act".
The Davis-Bacon Act provides that "...the minimum
wages to be paid various classes of laborers and mechanics...
shall be based upon the wages that will be determined by the
Secretary of Labor to be prevailing for the corresponding
classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a
character similar to the contract work...[in the locality]...
in which the work is to be performed...". By virtue of the
above statutory language, the Secretary is required to specify
the classification of work for which each wage rate in de-
termined to prevail on such projects, as well as the wage rate
itself (Comptroller General Decision No. B-132004, June 10,
1957). The authority to predetermine wage rates for specified
classifications of work necessarily presupposes that the
Secretary has the authority and the obligation to recognize
the kind of work comprised by the classification he specifies
in his wage predeterminations. Without such authority, the
Secretary's wage predetermination would be meaningless, and the
express intent of Congress in enacting the Davis-Bacon Act
would be nullified.
The issue as to what work falls within a given prede-
termined classification becomes most important when the Con-
tracting Officer is faced with a compliance judgment in the
course of contract performance as to whether a particular
laborer or mechanic is being properly paid for the actual work
he is performing. In the T. L. James case, for example, the
Contracting Officer was called upon to decide whether contract
labor standards compliance was met when the contractor paid ,
workers installing Orangeburg electrical duct the contract rate
for laborers, when claim had been made that such work in the 
Amarillo area was generally recognized as work falling within
the ambit of the electricians' craft. To decide this question,
it became necessary for the contracting agency involved to
make a detailed area practice study since, as the wage rates
may vary from locality to locality, so too may the craft content
differ in various areas, depending on the actual practices or
standards prevailing in the area on projects of a character
similar.
















The Honorable R, F. Keller        Page 3
On the basis of the local labor standards, that is, the
practices found to be definitely prevailing for this type of work
in the Amarillo area, the Contracting Officer and this Office
concluded that the installation of Orangeburg duct fell within
the kind of work comprising the contract classification of
electricians and electrician' apprentices.
The question of skill or individual training involved
does not appear material to the issue. In any given work clas-
sification, the ability of the individual mechanics will vary.
Likewise, in any skilled craft, there will be included work
items which, viewed apart and by themselves might appear to be
of an unskilled labor nature, but which historically and
actually are recognized in the industry generally as component
elements of the particular trade.
We would like to emphasize, however, that the contract
classification and rate applicable to thin type of work if done
in another area, or even if done in the Amarillo area at a time
subsequent to the time involved in the T. L, James case, could
well result in a determination that much work would fall within
other contract classification, such as lineman, groundman,
pipelayer or laborer, depending on the local labor standards
established by the actual area practices.
We appreciate your concern in this matter and trust
that the foregoing explanation serves to clarify the problem
presented in your correspondence. Meanwhile, you are assured
that we shall continue to make every effort to accurately re-
flect the classifications and corresponding wage rates pre-
vailing in the areas where we are required to make predetermina-
tions, and to assist the contracting agencies in meeting their
and our mutual enforcement obligations by requiring payment at
the appropriate contract rate for the particular classifications
of work performed in those areas by the laborers and mechanics
covered by the Davis-Bacon Act.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Donahue
Solicitor of Labor



















DB-36 10a
108f(1)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
MEMORANDUM #51
To: Earl Street, Regional Attorney        DATE: June 24, 1963
Dallas, Texas
FROM: E. Irving Manger
Associate Administrator
SUBJECT: Brown & Root, Inc.
Lake Pearl Sand & Gravel Company, Inc.
La-Tex Marine Services, Inc.
and Others
Contract No. DA-16-047-CIVENG-60-41
Louisiana
File Nos. E-61-132, E-63-305 & 306
Reference is made to your recent memorandum and to the report furnished
by the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, regarding the application of the
Davis-Bacon Act, the Eight Hour Laws and the labor standards provisions
of the captioned contract to work performed at certain "off-site" facili-
ties in the general area of the covered construction project. Specifi-
cally, you request our ruling as to whether the furnishing of sand and
gravel, here involved, is the work of a subcontractor or a materialman.
If the latter, these activities would not be subject to the labor standard
provisions applicable to the project work.
From the record furnished, it appears that on August 10, 1959, the Corps
of Engineers awarded to Brown & Root, Inc., a contract for the construction
of "Old River Lock" in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, Brown & Root,
in turn, entered into an arrangement with Lake Pearl Sand & Gravel Company,
Inc., on October 5, 1959, whereby the latter firm agreed to furnish the
sand and gravel as required for concrete items under the prime contract.
Ultimately, the materials thus furnished by Lake Pearl were obtained from
three sources. Sand was produced by Central Sand & Gravel Company, Inc.,
at its plant, known as "Paradise Pit*, and was thence trucked, by Coco
Brothers, Inc., to the construction site for stockpiling, Gifford-Hill
and Company, Inc., produced the fine aggregate (3/4") at its Turkey
Creek plant. This material was also transported by Coco Brothers to the
project site for stockpiling. The work performed by these recognized-
producers of sand and gravel at these two facilities, which previously
served and continued to serve the general public, is clearly the work of
materialmen and is not, therefore, covered by the labor standards provi-
sions applicable to the project work.
Lastly, the coarse aggregate (1 1/2") required by the prime contract was
produced at the so-called Stephens-Big Rock Pit by Central sand & Gravel
Company, Inc., for the Big Rock Corporation and later by Big Rock, itself













Earl Street, Regional Attorney         Page 2
under arrangements with Lake Pearl. The pit, which is located some 65
miles from the lock under construction, was obtained by Central on
June 30, 1959. On that date, Stephens Gravel Company, Inc., assigned
to Central its leases, under which it occupied the premises comprising
the pit, and conveyed to that firm, the buildings, vehicles, tools and
equipment situated thereon, for which the assignee agreed to pay the
sum of $125,000.00, in addition to operational royalties. A note
evidencing this indebtedness was secured by a mortgage on the property
thus conveyed. The record indicates further that the Big Rock Corpora-
tion assumed Central's rights and obligations under this conveyance
when it took over the operations at the pit.
Sales to the public from this facility apparently continued following
acquisition of the pit by Central and by Big Rock. While it appears
that such sales were substantially curtailed once these producers began
furnishing materials for the covered work, this merely evidences the
production demands made upon a materials supplier and is not inconsistent
with our finding that the activities of these two firms at the Stephens-
Big Rock Pit constitute those of a materialman.
Deliveries from this facility to the project site continued through the
spring of 1960 without apparent difficulty, but by July of that year
it appeared that Lake Pearl had trouble fulfilling its purchase order
requirements with Brown & Root. The latter firm, being advised of
arrears on the mortgage payments and fearing the collapse of this
activity and the consequent interruption in the flow of aggregate to
the lock, called the parties together. On July 2, 1960, they entered
into an agreement under which Big Rock dedicated its facilities and
equipment to the furnishing of aggregate for this project, at a
guarantied rate of production, Moreover, Brown & Root obtained the
right to supplement this "off-site" work or take it over completely,
with its own forces or with those of others, if performance continued
in an unsatisfactory manner.
The parties performed under this agreement until the middle of July when
Big Rock ceased production at the pit. As a result, Brown & Root
negotiated the additional agreements of August 3, 1960. Under their
terms, Lake Pearl subleased and arranged to operate the Stephens-Big
Rock Pit, having agreed to pay rent to Big Rock and royalties to
Stephens. Brown & Root, in turn, advanced to Lake Pearl approximately



















DB-36
Earl Street, Regional Attorney       Page 3
$24,000.00 which was thereupon paid to Stephens to cover arrears in
mortgage payments on the pit, vehicles and equipment, Accordingly, Lake
Pearl agreed that it would place, at the pit, supervisors who were
satisfactory to the prime contractor, All parties agreed that should
Lake Pearl default in their obligations, Brown & Root, or its designee,
would have the right to operate the pit for the period of time necessary
to fulfill the requirements of the original purchase order.
It appears that on November 2, 1960, in accordance with the provisions of
the July and August agreements, Brown & Root removed Lake Pearl and placed
La-Tex Marine Services, Inc., its subsidiary, in complete control of the
Stephens-Big Rock Pit, to produce the remaining coarse aggregate require-
ments for the covered project. La-Tex, in turn, engaged various independent
trucking firms, including Coco Brothers, Inc., on a day-to-day basis to
haul material from this pit to the construction site. This operation by
La-Tex lasted approximately three months, having terminated on February 15,
1961, when the Corps of Engineers granted Brown & Root permission to change
sources of supply. We are further advised that the prime contract was
completed in December of 1962.
The agreements of July 2, 1960, and August 3, 1960, do not appear to alter
the performance required of Lake Pearl under the purchase order of October 5,
1959. They merely reaffirmed those original obligations (Brown & Root.
Inc. v. Richard Coco. et. al.. W. D, La., Civil Action No. 8166, Inter-
pleader Phase .. Gifford-Hill v. Brown & Root. Inc.. et, al., October 11,
1962), Accordingly, that firm's performance as a materialman continued
unchanged.
It appears, moreover, that La-Tex undertook the production of aggregate at
the Stephens-Big Rock Pit, until an alternate source of materials could
be obtained, only after all reasonable alternatives were exhausted and a
then only to the extent deemed necessary to assure fulfillment of the
terms set forth in the original purchase order of October 5, 1959. Under
such circumstances, these interim activities of La-Tex are not deemed
sufficient to constitute the work of a subcontractor. Accordingly, the
individuals employed by La-Tex at the Stephens-Big Rock Pit are not covered
by the contract labor standards provisions applicable to the project work.
Since these provisions do not apply to the work performed at the "off-site"
facilities here involved, they are considered inapplicable, as well, to
the activities of the independent trucking firms engaged in the transporta-
tion of materials from these facilities to the construction site (Opinion
of the Solicitor, DB-22, March 12, 1962).
















DB-36
Earl Street,   Regional Attorney       Page 4
Your copy of the Corps of Engineers report is returned, as requested.
Kindly advise us when action, consistent with this opinion, has been
taken.
Attachments