What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
The GEIS CONSTRUCTION CO., and United States Guarantee Company, Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES of America, for the Use of TOM IGEL COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 13021.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 24, 1957.
William J. Lohr, Columbus, Ohio (Robert Dow Hamilton, Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
Joe F. Asher, Columbus, Ohio (Vernon L. Stouffer, Calland, Stouffer & Asher, Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for ap-pellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellee furnished materials and labor to a subcontractor employed on a government project. The appellant was the prime contractor. The subcontractor went into receivership, and the appel-lee thereafter filed the present action under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b to recover the balance owing for labor and materials. This appeal is from the district court’s judgment against the appellant general contractor for the amount owed appellee under its contract with the subcontractor.
Appellant contends (1) that the ap-pellee failed to file his claim with appellant within ninety days after performing the last work under the contract, thus losing the right to recover under the statute, and (2) that the district court erred in refusing to admit evidence to show that the contract price exceeded the reasonable value of the materials furnished and services performed by the ap-pellee.
Whether the appellee performed work under its subcontract within ninety days before it filed its claim was a question answered in the affirmative by a jury, upon a special interrogatory framed by the appellant. The jury’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.
It was not error for the district court to exclude evidence of the actual value of the services performed and to enter judgment for the amount due under the contract, in the absence of any showing of fraud or collusion between the appellee and the subcontractor.
The judgment is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 2