Document: 347 U.S. 171 74 S.Ct. 438 98 L.Ed. 594 UNITED STATESv.BINGHAMTON CONST. CO., Inc. No. 65. Argued Dec. 1, 1953. Decided March 8, 1954. Rehearing Denied April 5, See 940, 625. Mr. Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner. Jerome Beaudrias, Yonkers, N.Y., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case is before us on writ certiorari to Court Claims. The question presented whether schedule minimum wage rates included in a Government construction contract, as required by Davis-Bacon Act,1 representation or warranty prevailing contract area. We hold that it not. 2 Act requires wages workmen project shall be 'not less' than 'minimum wages' specified furnished Secretary Labor. 'shall based upon will determined Labor prevailing' corresponding work similar projects area.2 also provides penalties, including termination if found contractor paying less rate.3 3 respondent, company, was successful bidder flood control Chemung River at Elmira, New York. On January 31, 1941, request Corps Engineers, submitted project. set hourly rate $1.00 carpenters and $.50 laborers. 29, Engineers issued an invitation bids.4 Pursuant Act, supra, Secretary's specifications prior computation its bid.5 May 14, respondent's bid $232,669.30 accepted written executed, incorporating subject only formal approval Government. provided respondent pay those stated * *'; breach this provision, authorized terminate contract.6 June 3, formally approved; received notice proceed with work. 4 October 22, 1940, local carpenters' union had notified contracting officer scale would increased from $1.125 1941. 4, some three weeks bids involved here, another agency, Federal Works Agency, inclusion federal housing Elmira. $.55 laborers $.625. 5 In performance paid then effect—$1.125 $.625 16, protested unable obtain demanded adjustment compensation, theory affirmative area entitled rely bid. denied relief dismissed appeal.7 6 Respondent thereupon brought action Claims, seeking damages alleged misrepresentation well other relief. court specifically investigation have revealed were higher schedule.8 Nevertheless, allowed recovery $7,363.22, consisting difference between ($1.00 laborers) Labor's determination Agency ($1.125 laborers).9 held misrepresented—although inadvertently—the Elmira area, since, bid, made could ascertained fact. Respondent, held, 'as latest determination—as when done.'10 granted review11 because obvious importance decision administration Act. 7 itself confers no litigable rights contract.12 language legislative history plainly show not enacted benefit contractors, but rather protect their employees substandard earnings fixing floor under projects.13 Congress sought accomplish result directing determine, basis locality, appropriate each correctness open attack judicial review.14 8 Claims nevertheless awarded ground Government, through falsely represented short answer such representation. Neither nor refers 'prevailing' rates. speaks 'wage specifications.'15 turn speak applicable locality.'16 reference appears statute itself, which are 'based prevailing.' But provision cannot convert contractor's obligation into more. face, law designed workers. does authorize contemplate any assurance minima fact Indeed, requirement presupposes possibility may Under these circumstances, even assuming rate, reliance computing said been justified. 9 further contends justified different according degree skill project, estopped claim failure make labor costs submitting Because our disposition case, we find unnecessary reach issues. portion judgment review reversed. 10 Reversed. 1931, c. 411, § et seq., 46 Stat. 1494, amended August 30, 1935, 825, 49 1011, 40 U.S.C. §§ 276a—276a—5, U.S.C.A. 276a—276a—5. 276a, 276a: '* That advertised every excess $2,000, United States District Columbia party, construction, public buildings works involves employment mechanics and/or contain stating various classes employed character city, town, village, civil subdivision State performed *; stipulation his subcontractor all directly site full amounts accrued time payment, computed *.' 276a—1, 276a—1. part: 'Investigation Conditions.—Bidders expected visit locality own estimates facilities needed, difficulties attending execution proposed conditions, availability labor, uncertainties weather, contingencies. assume responsibility whatever interpretation, deduction, conclusion drawn examination site. Failure acquaint himself available information concerning conditions relieve estimating successfully performing complete work.' contained following provision: '1—31. Wage Provisions. (a) has classifications anticipated used accordance Article 17 listed below: "Designation rate--hourly Carpenters, journeymen........ Laborers, unskilled............ 0.50 concrete puddlers... 0.50" reads follows: '(a) specifications. '(b) event laborer mechanic covered being aforesaid, may, contractor, right part there prosecute completion otherwise, sureties liable occasioned thereby.' advised respondent: 'There authority office pursuant provisions above cited act (the Act).' Later, refusing reconsider appeal, stated' paragraph 1—31 paid. makes actual scales effect. did your economic ordinary contingencies contemplated terms contract.' 107 F.Supp. 712, 716, 123 Ct.Cl. 804, 810—811: 'If plaintiff's president investigated rates, he per hour, unskilled advance effective Also, inviting Engineer new 1941.' claims recovery. court's petition 78, Term (Certiorari 926, 528.) 731, 836—837, relying Albert & Harrison, v. States, 68 732, 292, 308—309, 331 810, 67 1199, 91 1830. 11 346 809, 23. 12 Compare 276a—2(b), conferring recover amount due schedule. 13 ex rel. Johnson Morley Const. Co., Cir., F.2d 781, 788, Maryland Casualty Co. U.S., Use Benefit Harrington, 305 651, 59 244, 83 421; Gillioz Webb, 99 585; Winn-Senter 75 255, 110 34, 61; cf. Perkins Lukens Steel 310 113, 128, 60 869, 877, 84 1108; Endicott Corp. Perkins, 317 501, 507, 63 339, 342, 87 424. H.R.Rep. 1756, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; S.Rep.No. 1155, 1445, 71st 3d Sess. 14 Alliance 79 730. Cf., related Walsh-Healey Public Contracts 41 35 1108, 15 note 6, supra. 16

Category: 6