U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

 DAVIS-BACON 

 ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS 

 PROCESS 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

CONTRACT CLAUSE STIPULATED AT 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(ii)

 (Reiterated in the FAR at 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-6) 

CONFORMANCE/ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION REQUEST 

PROCESS – CONTRACTING AGENCY ROLE 

CONFORMANCE REQUEST CHECKLIST 

CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS 

AND WAGE RATES 

 REFERENCE CASES 

 APPRENTICES, TRAINEES, HELPERS, AND WELDERS

 FOREMEN, TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES

 SPECIALTY AND GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS 

 STANDARD FORM 1444 – “REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF 

ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATES” 

SAMPLE CONFORMANCES 

WAGE ANALYSTS LIST 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

CONTRACT CLAUSE STIPULATED AT 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(ii) 

(Reiterated in the FAR at 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-6)

 (A) The contracting officer shall require that any class of laborers or mechanics 

which is not listed in the wage determination and which is to be employed under 

the contract shall be classified in conformance with the wage determination. The 

contracting officer shall approve an additional classification and wage rate and 

fringe benefits therefor 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 utilized 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) 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 . . . shall be sent by the contracting 

officer to the . . . Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, . . . Department 

of Labor, . . . [for approval, modification or disapproval with respect to each 

proposed classification and wage rate]. 

 (C) 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 shall refer the 

questions, including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of 

the contracting officer, to the Administrator. . . . 

 (D) The wage rate (including fringe benefits, where appropriate) determined pursuant 

to subparagraphs (1)(B) or (C) of this paragraph, shall 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.” 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

CONFORMANCE/ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION 

REQUEST PROCESS 

CONTRACTING AGENCY ROLE 

Pre-Bid/Pre-Award

Look at the Wage Determination: 

 ◊ Compare classifications on the wage determination with anticipated work to be 

performed to identify missing classes that may be needed. 

 ◊ If virtually all the work is to be performed by a missing classification, use Standard 

Form (SF) 308 to request an appropriate predetermined wage rate for incorporation 

in the bid specifications. 

Tell contractors about the possible need to request additional classes and rates after 

award: 

 ◊ Ensure that Davis-Bacon clauses are in the solicitation, including the conformance 

criteria. 

 ◊ During pre-bid/pre-award conferences discuss criteria to alert contractors on how 

requests for additional classifications and wage rates will be evaluated. 

 ◊ In response to phone inquiries regarding missing classifications, refer to the 

conformance criteria in the contract clause. 

 ◊ Call the WHD for guidance where questions/disputes arise regarding proper 

application of Davis-Bacon wage determinations to specific upcoming projects. 

After-award

Identify Additional Classes that May Be Needed: 

 ◊ Discuss the wage determination and conformance criteria in pre-construction 

conference. 

 ◊ Review certified payrolls for classes not listed on the wage determination. 

 ◊ Conduct on-site inspections/employee interviews and identify additional classes. 

 ◊ Consider subcontractor inquiries about missing classifications/rates. 

 ◊ Consider complaints by employees/unions/competitors. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

Work with the contractors and other affected parties to help develop the conformance 

request: 

 ◊ Provide request form (SF-1444 or similar) to the contractor. Instructions on how to 

complete the form are pre-printed on the form. (The SF-1444 can be downloaded 

from the “Library” section on the WDOL website (http://www.wdol.gov) and it is in 

the FAR at 48 C.F.R. § 53.301-1444. 

 ◊ Consider the views of affected parties: 

 ◊◊ Prime contractor 

 ◊◊ Subcontractor (if applicable) 

 ◊◊ Employee(s) (if known) 

 ◊◊ Union representative (if the employees are represented by a union) 

 ◊ Review contractor request for additional classes and rates accordance with 

conformance criteria and ensure that all required information is furnished. 

 ◊◊ Work to be performed is not performed by a classification already listed on 

the applicable wage determination. 

 ◊◊ Rate bears a reasonable relationship to other rates in the wage 

determination. 

 ◊ Be sure that the criteria for the approval of additional classifications and wage 

rates have been followed. 

 ◊ Determine whether affected parties are in agreement or have dispute(s). 

 ◊◊ Attempt to resolve disputes in accordance with conformance criteria, if 

possible. 

 ◊◊ Develop agency recommendation and documentation of disputes (if any). 

Submit conformance request for DOL review and ruling: 

 ◊ Include the following: 

 ◊◊ Completed SF-1444 (or similar form or letter). 

 ◊◊ Related documentation and agency recommendation. 

 ◊◊ Copy of contract wage determination(s), to expedite processing. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

 ◊ To submit by e-mail, please scan the completed form and all supporting documents 

into a ‘pdf’ file and attach to the email. Include the Contracting Officer's name, 

address, telephone, and email address. Submit the email to: 

mitchell.beverly@dol.gov. 

Communicate with DOL after submitting conformance request, as appropriate: 

 ◊ Lack of a DOL response within 30 days does not mean that the request has been 

approved. Contact DOL either by mail or by phone (see the WHD Branch of 

Construction Wage Determinations analyst listing at the end of this section) for a 

status of request. 

 ◊ Respond to DOL requests for additional information needed to process the request 

as promptly as possible. 

Communicate DOL determination to the contractor and other interested parties: 

 ◊ The DOL determination should be provided to interested parties (for example, the 

general/prime contractor, subcontractors, employees, employee representative(s), 

any of whom may have an interest in a possible appeal of the ruling.) 

Advise the contractor and other interested parties of the reconsideration and appeal

process: 

 ◊ Disputes concerning application of a determination regarding a request for 

additional classifications and wage rates may be brought to the WHD Administrator 

under the 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(9) reiterated at FAR 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-14) for a 

ruling pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 5.13. An interested party may appeal a final ruling of 

the Administrator pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R. Part 7. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

CONFORMANCE CHECKLIST FOR CONTRACTING AGENCIES

Agency officials should provide the following information when requesting additional 

classifications and wage rates: 

 1. The Contract Number, Project Number or HUD Identifying Number. 

 SF 1444: Block 5 

 2. The bid opening date (if advertised). 

 SF 1444: Block 6 

 3. The award date of the contract. 

 SF 1444: Block 7 

 4. The date the contract work started (if started). 

 SF 1444: Block 8 

 5. Prime/General contractor. 

 SF 1444: Block 3 

 6. Subcontractor (if any). 

 SF 1444: Block 10 

 7. The project location: city, county, and State. 

 SF 1444: Block 12 

 8. Brief description of project work. 

 SF 1444: Block 11 

 9. Contract Wage Decision No(s). 

 SF 1444: Block 13 

 Modification No. (for each if multiple decisions). 

 Date of modification (for each if multiple decisions). 

 10. Proposed classification(s); description of duties if other than a basic trade. 

 SF 1444: Block 13a 

 (Note: See separate instructions for apprentices, trainees, helpers, welders, 

 foremen, technical workers and supervisory employees.) 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

 11. Proposed rates: 

 ◊ basic hourly rate(s). 

 SF 1444: Block 13c

 ◊ fringe benefits (if any). 

 SF 1444: Block 13c 

 12. Documentation that the interested parties are in agreement or their views regarding 

dispute. SF 1444: Blocks 14, 15, 16 for contractors, employees, representatives, 

respectively. 

 ◊ Contractor(s) signatures 

 SF 1444: Block 14 and 15 

 ◊ Employees’ or representative signature (if known when the request is 

submitted). 

 SF 1444: Block 16 

 (If the contractor is party to a collective bargaining agreement, the union 

representative may sign for the employees or the collective bargaining 

agreement may be submitted.) 

 ◊ If there are parties in disagreement, documentation of their views should also 

be attached. 

 13. Agency signature and recommendation. 

 ◊ Contracting officer/agency signature. 

 ◊ No action will be taken on the request if the agency does not sign and provide 

its agreement/disagreement regarding the request, or its position regarding a 

dispute between other parties. 

 14. Agency contact person's name, address and phone number (clearly legible please). 

All proposed additional classification/conformance actions must be submitted to the WHD 

for review. The W HD may approve, modify, or disapprove any proposed additional 

classifications. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 

ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND WAGE RATES 

This is the detailed process for determining whether a request for an additional classification and wage rate can be approved. The criteria to be applied are: 

 (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 utilized 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. 

 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii) 

To the extent that the contracting officer/agency follows this process, DOL processing of 

requests for approval of conformance actions can be expedited, and complications 

minimized in the event of reconsideration and appeal actions. Where this process is not 

followed by the contracting agency, delays can be anticipated in DO L processing of the 

additional classification requests, and reconsideration and appeals of such cases may occur. 

 Note: Review separate guidance for helpers, apprentices, trainees, welders, working foremen, technical 

and supervisory employees, see separate guidance, on pages 18-19, below. 

Step 1: Is the requested classification already listed in the contract wage determination 

for the appropriate county and type of construction? 

 If so, the classification and rate listed in the wage determination apply. 

Step 2: Can a classification in the contract wage determination – for the appropriate 

county and type of construction – perform the work? 

 See chart, pp. 19-20, below, that lists some of the additional classes, often 

requested, that are commonly performed by general classifications that 

may already be listed in the applicable wage determination. 

 Note: If multiple wage schedules are included in the contract, reference is 

to work performed by classification(s) already in the wage schedule that 

applies to the portion of the project for which the additional classification 

is requested. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

Step 3: If yes, is the wage determination classification that may apply a union or nonunion rate? 

 (A) If the classification in the applicable wage determination lists a union 

rate (the identifier above the classification will indicate the union source 

of the rate), then only information from the union segment of the industry 

for the type of construction in the area is relevant to determining whether 

the requested classification should be denied and the classification listed 

on the wage determination used for the work. 

 (B) If the classification in the applicable wage determination lists a 

 non-union rate (indicated by a “SU . . .” identifier above the relevant 

classification listing), then a non-union rate has been determined to be 

prevailing for the given type of construction in the area, and only the 

practices of non-union contractors in the area may be used as a basis for 

determining whether the requested classification should be denied and the 

classification listed on the wage determination used for the work. 

 (C) If more than one classification in the applicable wage determination may 

perform the work, determining whether one of those classifications should 

used, and the requested classification denied, depends on an examination 

of each in accordance with steps 3(A) and 3(B). 

Step 4: Is there evidence that the duties in question were performed by employees in 

the relevant sector of the construction industry on similar construction in the 

area prior to award of this contract? (See Fry Brothers Corp., WAB Case 

No. 76-6 dated June 14, 1977, and American Building Automation, ARB Case 

No. 00-067, dated March 30, 2001, (and cases cited therein). A brief synopses 

of these cases are provided below (See Reference Case Nos. 1 and 4). 

 For example: 

 ◊ If, for a building construction project, the contract wage determination 

contains a union rate for the classification that may perform the duties in 

question, is there any evidence that union contractor employees 

performed the same duties on building construction in the county during 

the year prior to award of this contract? 

 ◊ If, on a highway construction project, the contract wage determination 

contains a non-union rate for a classification that may perform the duties 

in question, is there evidence that non-union contractor employees 

performed the duties in question on a highway construction project in the 

area during the year prior to award of the contract? 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

Step 5: If there is such evidence, the request for the additional classification must be 

denied, as a classification already in the contract wage determination performs 

the work for which the additional classification was requested. 

 Example A - The wage determination classification/rate are union: 

 ◊ If the classification in the wage determination that may perform the duties 

in question is a union rate, and if union worker(s) can be shown to have 

performed the duties in question on similar construction in the same area 

prior to award of the contract in question, then in light of the first 

criterion for approval of an additional classification, the request for the 

additional classification must be denied. 

 NOTE: 

 A claim that the applicable union agreement applies to such work is 

normally not an adequate basis for denying the additional 

classification request. Specific information identifying project(s) 

on which the union workers performed such work and 

identifying the contractor who employed them on such project(s), 

is needed to establish that the work in question was performed by a 

classification in the contract wage determination. 

 Such data is evidence of a local area practice that the union 

classification listed in the wage determination had been used to 

perform the duties in question (it need not be a prevailing 

practice). If there is evidence that the duties have been performed 

using the union classification in the wage determination, then the 

work in question must be classified in accordance with the union 

classification in the contract wage determination, and at least the rate 

specified there, including fringe benefits, shall be paid to all workers 

performing work in the classification under the contract from the first 

day on which work has been performed in the classification. 

 If there is no evidence that the duties in question were performed by the 

classification in the contract wage determination, move to step 6, below. 

 Example B - The wage determination classification/rate are non-union: 

 ◊ If a non-union rate is listed for the classification in the contract wage 

determination that may perform the duties in question (for the given type of 

construction and county), this indicates that a non-union rate has been 

determined to be prevailing for the given type of construction in the area, 

and the practice of union contractors in the area may not be used as a basis 

for denying the request for the additional classification. Information from 

non-union contractors is relevant. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

Step 6: If the duties of the proposed classification are not performed by a classification 

on the wage determination, it must then be determined whether or not the rate 

requested bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates already in the 

applicable contract wage determination schedule for the given county and 

 type of construction.

 (A) Generally, requests for additional classifications at wage rates below the 

unskilled laborer wage rate should not be approved. 

 (B) Skilled craft classifications should not be approved at wage rates below 

those already listed for other skilled crafts (excluding laborers, truck 

drivers, and power equipment operators – see Tower Construction, WAB 

Case No 94-17, dated February 28, 1995; reference case no. 2, below). 

 (C) Rates for additional laborer, truck driver, and power equipment operator 

classes should normally be compared with other laborers, truck drivers, and 

power equipment operators, respectively. (See Tower Construction, WAB 

Case No 94-17, dated February 28, 1995; reference case no. 2, below.) 

 (D) If the contract wage determination includes rates for skilled craft(s) below 

the unskilled laborer rate, the relation of the requested rate to rates listed for 

related crafts may be relevant. (See M Z. Contractors Co., Inc., WAB Case 

No. 92-06, dated August 25, 1992, and Swanson’s Glass, WAB Case 

No. 89-30, dated April 20, 1989; reference case nos. 3 and 5, below). 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

REFERENCE CASE NO. 1 

Fry Brothers Corp., WAB Case No. 76-6 (June 14, 1977) 

Pursuant to the WAB decision in Fry Brothers Corp., WAB Case No. 76-6 dated June 14, 

1977, the proper classification for work performed on a particular Davis-Bacon covered 

project by laborers and mechanics is that classification used by firms whose wage rates were 

found to be prevailing in the area and incorporated in the applicable wage determination. 

Accordingly, in view of the Fry Brothers Corp. decision, the classification practices utilized 

in the appropriate sector for such construction projects in the area in question must be used to 

determine the proper classification for work on this project. 

Note: The above synopsis is provided for information purposes only. The full text of the 

decision can be obtained from the ARB. and it is available at: 

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libdba.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

REFERENCE CASE NO. 2 

Tower Construction, WAB Case No 94-17 (February 28, 1995) 

In this case, the WAB confirmed the Administrator's ruling concerning the appropriate rate 

to be approved for certain additional classifications, in accordance with the “reasonable 

relationship” requirement – the third criterion for conformability. 

The additional classifications requested by the contractor in this case were: acoustical 

ceiling installer, painter, soft floor layer and drywall finisher, all of which are skilled 

construction trades. The Administrator ruled that the lowest approvable rate was the rate 

listed in the contract wage determination for the lowest skilled classification – excluding 

consideration of the rates listed for power equipment operators, laborers and truck drivers. 

The Board ruled as follows: 

 We have long recognized as reasonable, in the ordinary circumstance, Wage and Hour's 

policy of conforming rates for missing skilled classifications to a level no less than the 

lowest rate for a skilled classification in the wage determination. . . . In administering 

the conformance process Wage and Hour further groups classifications within the broad 

category of power equipment operators and distinguishes them from other skilled 

classifications since the operators are a ‘separate and distinct subgroup of construction 

worker classifications.’. . . Thus, when conforming omitted power equipment operator 

rates, Wage and Hour only looks to listed equipment operator rates for determining a 

reasonable relationship. Conversely, omitted skilled classifications are not conformed 

at operator rates. The unique skills and duties of power equipment operators are 

sufficiently distinguishable from the skills of mechanics in skilled construction trades, 

such that the Administrator's rejection of the equipment operator rates was well within 

the discretion granted her under the regulation. . . . 

The Board further noted that the contract wage determination in this case also listed a truck 

driver classification and noted that truck driver skills are more akin to those of power 

equipment operators, that the truck driver rate was below that listed for an unskilled 

laborer, and that the Administrator also excluded that truck driver rate from consideration 

in determining the appropriate conformed rate for the skilled crafts in question. The Board 

concluded that: 

where a rate within the clearly distinct equipment operator group is the ‘floor’ for a 

wage determination, it is reasonable to exclude those rates from consideration and 

conform missing skilled classifications to the next higher level for a skilled trade. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

In this case, the Board also reiterated important positions it had stated in prior rulings, to 

the effect that: 

 a party seeking conformed classifications and rates ‘may not rely on a wage 

determination granted to another party regardless of the similarity of the work in 

question.’ Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc.. WAB Case No. 94-12 (Sept. 30, 

1994) slip op. at pp. 7-8.” 

and further that: 

 a contractor could not prospectively rely on Wage and Hour’s prior approval of rates for 

application to a contract performed at the same location. E&M Sales, Inc., WAB Case 

No. 91-17 (Oct. 4, 1991). 

Note: The above synopsis is provided for information purposes only. The full text of the 

decision can be obtained from the ARB. and it is available at: 

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libdba.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

REFERENCE CASE NO. 3 

M.Z. Contractors Co., Inc., WAB Case No. 92-06 (August 25, 1992) 

The WAB remanded this matter to the WHD for further proceedings after the Acting 

Administrator had approved the addition (conformance) of an “insulator” classification, for 

pipe insulation work, at a wage rate equal to the rate listed on the wage determination for 

“laborers.” The WHD approval was in accordance with the policy of approving 

conformance of a proposed rate for a skilled classification of worker so long as the proposed 

rate was equal to or exceeded the lowest rate for a skilled classification already contained in 

the contract wage determination. (The painters' rate in the wage determination was lower 

than the laborers’ rate). The Board approved this general WHD policy “as applied in the 

ordinary circumstances,” but rejected its application to the present case where almost all the 

skilled classifications in the determination had wage rates substantially higher than the 

laborers’ rate. The Board indicated that in this case it was appropriate for the WHD to 

select the particular method to determine what conformed rate would meet the third 

regulatory criterion requirement of bearing a reasonable relationship to the wage rates 

contained in the wage determination. 

Note: The above synopsis is provided for information purposes only. The full text of the 

decision can be obtained from the ARB. and it is available at: 

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libdba.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

REFERENCE CASE NO. 4 

American Building Automation, ARB Case No. 00-067 (March 30, 2001) 

In this case, the ARB concluded that the WHD Administrator properly denied a request for 

the addition of a “Building Automation and Controls Technician” (BACT) classification. 

The Administrator determined that the work of the proposed BACT classification was 

performed by another classification already found within the wage determination, and the 

ARB affirmed the Administrator’s denial of the conformance request supported by the 

record. 

The subcontractor who requested that classification asserted that the work involved did not 

fall squarely within any single trade classification in the wage determination and that such 

workers had to be knowledgeable in all of the traditional trades, including electrical, 

mechanical, telecommunications and networks. The Davis-Bacon wage determination in the 

contract in question included a union wage rate for the plumber classification. Believing that 

the work to be performed by the proposed BACT classification might fall within the work 

performed by employees classified as plumbers, the WHD inquired into trade jurisdiction 

practices under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the Plumbers’ local union. 

The union provided a copy of its collective bargaining agreement and documentation of 

several construction projects where this work had been performed by workers classified and 

paid as plumbers. Based on this data, the Administrator determined that the first criterion for 

establishing a new classification under the conformance process was not satisfied. 

In its decision affirming the Administrator’s determination, the ARB noted that “[a] 

conformance request does not call for a de novo evaluation of prevailing local practices or 

wage rates, questions that might be appropriately raised in a pre-award request for review 

and reconsideration of a wage determination under 29 C.F.R. §1.8” and that: 

[I]t is well-established that in a conformance situation the Division is not required to 

determine that a classification in the wage determination actually is the prevailing craft 

for the tasks in question, only that there is evidence to establish that the classification 

actually performs the disputed tasks in the locality. [Prior ARB decision and cases cited 

therein referenced]” 

Note: The above synopsis is provided for information purposes only. The full text of the 

decision can be obtained from the ARB. and it is available at: 

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libdba.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

 REFERENCE CASE NO. 5 

Swanson’s Glass, WAB Case No. 89-20 (April 29, 1991) 

In this case, the WAB affirmed the WHD Administrator’s denial of a request for the addition 

of a glazier classification on the ground that the contractor’s proposed rate did not bear a 

reasonable relationship to the rates on the wage determination. The proposed wage rate was 

substantially lower than the wage rate for roofers – the lowest paid skilled classification on 

the applicable wage determination, and also substantially lower than the hourly rate in the 

wage determination for laborers. 

The WAB further characterized the petitioner’s argument that the proposed glazier wage rate 

was “in conformity with the prevailing wage rate for glaziers for this locality” as essentially 

challenging the applicable wage determination, and emphasized that “the Board has 

consistently ruled that in order for a challenge to a wage determination to be timely, the 

challenge must be made prior to contract award (or start of construction if there is no contract 

award).” 

The contractor’s contention that the contracting officer approved its proposed rate was also 

rejected. The WAB noted that the conformance regulations do not give the contracting 

officer final approval, and even if the contracting agency had described its actions as 

authoritative approval, erroneous contracting agency advice does not bar the DOL from 

requiring payment of the appropriate rate. 

In this case, the Board also states that the WHD’s failure to deny the requested classification 

within the 30 day timeframe contemplated by the regulations is not determinative, as that 

regulation is not jurisdictional, the conformance regulations do not specify that the failure of 

the Administrator to act within 30 days is effectively the Administrator’s approval or 

acquiescence in the proposed classification or wage rate, and the 30-day time period 

referenced in Section 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(B) does not provide a basis to presume that in the absence 

of a response from the Administrator, the requested classification and wage rate had been 

approved. 

Note: The above synopsis is provided for information purposes only. The full text of the 

decision can be obtained from the ARB. and it is available at: 

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libdba.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

 APPRENTICES, TRAINEES, HELPERS, AND WELDERS

Apprentices and Trainees

◊ Additional classifications and wage rates are not needed for bona fide apprentices 

and trainees working on Davis-Bacon covered contracts. Rates for apprentices and 

trainees are not listed on Davis-Bacon wage determinations. Apprentices or 

trainees are permitted to work at less than the wage rates listed in the contract wage 

determination for the work they perform only if they meet the requirements of 29 

C.F.R. Part 5, section 5.5(a)(4), such as being registered or certified in an 

appropriate apprenticeship or training program. (See FAR at 48 C.F.R. § 22.401 

Definitions, “Laborers or mechanics,” paragraphs (1) and (2), and 48 C.F.R. 

§ 52.222-6.) 

Helpers

◊ Generally, helpers may not be approved unless the duties performed are clearly 

defined and distinct from those of the journeyman classification and from the 

laborer, the use of such helpers is an established prevailing practice, and the term 

“helper” is not synonymous with “trainee” in an informal training program. The 

conformance process cannot be used to add a “helper” classification where work to 

be performed by the helper is performed by a classification in the wage 

determination. 29 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(n)(4) and 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A). 

Welders

◊ Additional classifications are not generally needed for welders. Welding is 

commonly considered incidental to the work of employees for whom 

classifications are issued. Thus, it is appropriate for welders to be classified in the 

same classification as the employees who are performing the duties to which the 

welding work is incidental (for example, ironworkers, plumbers, sheet metal 

workers, etc.). However, welders may sometimes represent a separate subclassification. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

FOREMEN, TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES

An individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity, 

as defined in Regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 541, is not a “laborer” or “mechanic” as these 

terms are defined under the Davis-Bacon Act. 

◊ However, if a supervisory employee who is not exempt from coverage under that 

regulation spends more than an incidental amount of work as a laborer or 

mechanic, the hours spent in these activities would be subject to the Davis-Bacon 

labor standards. 

◊ For example, if a working foreman spends more than 20 percent of the time 

performing laborer or mechanic duties at the job site, the hours spent in these 

activities should be paid at least the hourly rate specified in the contract wage 

determination for the appropriate laborer or mechanic classification(s). 

29 C.F.R. § 5.2(m). 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

SPECIALTY AND GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS 

Additional classification requests/conformances are often requested for the following 

specialty classifications. These specialty classifications should not be approved if the duties 

are performed on similar construction in the area by general classifications that are listed on 

the contract wage determination. 

 SPECIALTY CLASSIFICATION

 (Often requested by contractors) 

 GENERAL CLASSIFICATION 

 (may perform the specialty duties) 

Drywall (sheetrock) installers Carpenters 

Drywall finishers/tapers Painters 

Alarm installers 

Sound and communication workers/installers 

Electronic technicians 

Lightning protection installers 

Low voltage installers 

Electricians 

HVAC mechanics (heating, ventilation 

 and air conditioning mechanics) 

Refrigeration mechanics/workers 

Furnace installers 

Burner repairmen 

Sheet metal workers 

Plumbers 

Pipe fitters/steam fitters 

Electricians 

Pipe wrappers/insulators 

Mechanical (system) insulators 

Asbestos workers/ 

 heat & frost insulators 

Batt insulation installers 

Blown insulation installers Carpenters Laborers 

Asbestos abatement workers (removal from 

 pipes and boilers that will be reinsulated 

Asbestos workers/heat and frost 

insulators 

Asbestos abatement workers (removal does not include removal from pipes and boilers that 

 will be reinsulated) 

Laborers 

Metal building assemblers/builders/erectors Iron workers 

Laborers 

Sheet metal workers 

Carpenters 

Fence erectors Ironworkers 

Laborer 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

 SPECIALTY CLASSIFICATION

 (Often requested by contractors) 

 GENERAL CLASSIFICATION 

 (may perform the specialty duties) 

Rebar workers 

Rodman (performing rebar work) 

Steel setters 

Steel or iron tiers 

Ironworkers (reinforcing) 

Cement workers 

Laborers 

TV-grout operators Power equipment operators 

Laborers 

Truck drivers 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

STANDARD FORM 1444 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

WAGE ANALYST LISTING 

State Analyst Phone (202) Team Leader Phone (202)

Alabama Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Alaska Telisa Walter 693-0697 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Arizona Telisa Walter 693-0697 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Arkansas Anjanette Twiggs 693-0697 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

California Stephanie Busi 693-0059 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Colorado Telisa Walter 693-0697 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Connecticut Paul Rabinowitz 693-0692 Forest Randall 693-0740 

District of 

 Columbia Laima Ciguzis 693-0528 Forest Randall 693-0648 

Delaware Stephanie Busi 693-0059 Terry Sullivan 693-0740 

Dredging Laima Ciguzis 693-0528 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Florida Cynthia Taylor 693-0652 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Georgia Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Guam Cynthia Taylor 693-0652 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Hawaii Telisa Walter 693-0697 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Idaho Amanda Herrmann 693-0647 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Illinois Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Indiana Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Iowa Jeff Gaskins 693-0560 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Kansas Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Kentucky Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Louisiana Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Maine Paul Rabinowitz 693-0692 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Maryland Laima Ciguzis 693-0528 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Massachusetts Paul Rabinowitz 693-0692 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Michigan Jeff Gaskins 693-0560 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Minnesota Jeff Gaskins 693-0560 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Mississippi Cynthia Taylor 693-0652 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Missouri Jeff Gaskins 693-0560 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Montana Telisa Walter 693-0697 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Nebraska Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Forest Randall 693-0740 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 

WAGE ANALYST LISTING (Continued)

State Analyst Phone (202) Team Leader Phone (202)

Nevada Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Forest Randall 693-0740 

New Hampshire Paul Rabinowitz 693-0692 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

New Jersey Stephanie Busi 693-0059 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

New Mexico Telisa Walter 693-0697 Forest Randall 693-0740 

New York Amanda Herrmann 693-0647 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

North Carolina Stephanie Busi 693-0059 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

North Dakota Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Ohio Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Oklahoma Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Oregon Amanda Herrmann 693-0647 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Pacific Islands Cynthia Taylor 693-0652 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Pennsylvania Stephanie Busi 693-0059 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Puerto Rico Paul Rabinowitz 693-0692 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Rhode Island Laima Ciguzis 693-0528 Forest Randall 693-0740 

South Carolina Stephanie Busi 693-0059 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

South Dakota Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Tennessee Cynthia Taylor 693-0652 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Texas Jamie Conyers 693-0400 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Utah Telisa Walter 693-0697 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Vermont Paul Rabinowitz 693-0692 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

Virginia Laima Ciguzis 693-0528 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Washington Amanda Herrmann 693-0647 Terry Sullivan 693-0648 

West Virginia Anjanette Twiggs 693-0159 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Wisconsin Jeff Gaskins 693-0560 Forest Randall 693-0740 

Wyoming Telisa Walter 693-0697 Forest Randall 693-0740 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PREVAILING WAGE RESOURCE BOOK 2010 DB CONFORMANCES