In the document, there is a discussion about the recent updates made to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor (DOL) is the agency responsible for overseeing these regulations, with a specific mention of the Wage and Hour Division. Leading the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation is Amy DeBisschop. The document refers to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on March 18, 2022, outlining updates to multiple sections of the 29 CFR, including parts 1, 3, and 5.

The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) mandates the payment of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits on Federal construction contracts. This requirement applies to contracts that exceed $2,000 and involve the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works. Additionally, the DBRA encompasses various "Related Acts" that extend these prevailing wage requirements to Federal agencies involved in construction projects. While the Department of Labor last updated these regulations in 1981-1982, there has been significant expansion in the scope of the DBA and Related Acts since then.

$217 BILLION IN CONSTRUCTION SPENDING

The DBRA now applies to approximately $217 billion in Federal and federally assisted construction spending annually, impacting around 1.2 million U.S. construction workers. The final rule will take effect on October 23, 2023, with specific applicability dates and exceptions. The DBA is described as a "minimum wage law designed to benefit construction workers," aiming to safeguard local wage standards. The Department has encountered challenges concerning wage determination surveys, outdated wage determinations, and the absence of DBRA contract clauses. In response to the 40,938 comments received on the NPRM, the Department discusses its decision to adopt the proposed changes from the NPRM with some modifications. The Department did not identify significant reliance interests among contractors or other parties in the existing part 1 regulations. Consequently, the Department concludes that the proposed amendments to the regulations do not raise reliance interests that would outweigh the agency objectives.

To ensure regular updates of certain noncollectively bargained prevailing wage rates, the Department revises § 1.6(c)(1). Additionally, the Department revises § 1.3 to grant the Wage and Hour Division Administrator the authority to adopt State or local wage determinations. New anti-retaliation provisions in the Davis-Bacon contract clauses are finalized by the Department. Moreover, the Department enhances and clarifies the cross-withholding procedure for recovering back wages. In order to reduce the need for "conformances" when the Department has insufficient data, § 1.3 and 5.5 are revised. The document delves into the DBRA regulations, which mandate that contractors and subcontractors provide fringe benefits or cash equivalents to workers. While periodic revisions have been made to the regulations by the Department of Labor (DOL), a comprehensive review has not taken place since 1981-1982. The DBRA grants the DOL broad rulemaking authority, and the Davis-Bacon program is administered by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD). The document outlines the three main components of the DBRA program: wage surveys and determinations, contract formation and administration, and enforcement and remedies. Wage surveys and determinations are conducted by WHD, while contracting agencies are responsible for identifying contract clauses and wage determinations.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

The document makes references to several guidance documents, such as the "Manual of Operations" and "Prevailing Wage Resource Book." Amy Debisschop, the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation within WHD, is mentioned. The document delves into the regulations of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), which mandate contractors and subcontractors to provide fringe benefits or cash equivalents to their workers. It provides an overview of the enforcement and remedies available under the DBRA, including the authority to withhold funds from contractors, debarring them from future contracts, and granting them the right to a hearing. The document also highlights the legal responsibility of the Secretary of Labor to establish "reasonable regulations" for contractors and subcontractors. It further discusses the process for determining prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits, which is outlined in 29 CFR part 1.

Moreover, the document explores the proposed changes to the definition of "prevailing wage" in § 1.2, which would revert to the original three-step process for determining the prevailing wage. It delves into the final rule, which aims to update and modernize the regulations at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5. The document brings attention to the use of averages in wage determinations, highlighting that before the 1982 final rule, as low as 15 percent of classification rates were based on averages. It argues that the use of averages contradicts the purpose of the DBRA, which is to safeguard local wage standards. Comments received on the definition of "prevailing wage" and the proposed return to the three-step process and the 30-percent threshold are also discussed. The Department of Labor (DOL) has ultimately decided to adopt the proposed re-definition of "prevailing wage" and return to the three-step process. Furthermore, the document addresses the DOL's current reliance on weighted averages, accounting for 63 percent of classification determinations. It argues that the use of averages goes against the DOL's longstanding interpretation of the term "prevailing" in the DBRA. The document explains the DOL's decision to not use the median wage rate as the "prevailing" rate, as it does not align with the DOL's interpretation of the term.

DEBATE OVER THE DEFINITION OF "PREVAILING WAGE"

The document delves into the ongoing debate surrounding the definition of "prevailing wage" and the use of averages in determining wages. It cites the differing opinions of the Associated General Contractors (AGC) and union representatives on the definition of "prevailing wage." Supporters of the Department's proposal argue that the use of averages contradicts the purpose of the DBRA, as it allows outlier wage rates to influence the prevailing wage. On the other hand, those opposing the Department's proposal argue that only a wage rate paid to a majority of workers truly qualifies as "prevailing." The Department sides with those in favor of the proposal, asserting that the 30-percent threshold aligns with the true meaning of "prevailing." They argue that employing a modal methodology is more consistent with the purpose of the DBRA than using averages. The document also offers insights into the definition of "prevailing" and its application in the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA).

The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, headed by Amy Debisschop as the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, is referenced as the responsible agency. It explores the 30-percent rule, which considers a wage rate as "prevailing" if it is paid to at least 30 percent of workers in a survey response. Additionally, it discusses the majority-only rule, which requires a wage rate to be paid to a majority of workers in order to be deemed "prevailing." The three-step process, which incorporates the majority rule, the 30-percent rule, and the weighted average, is examined as the method used to determine the prevailing wage. The document presents arguments both for and against the 30-percent rule, with some commenters contending that it does not align with the definition of "prevailing," while others assert that it is consistent with the meaning of the term. The Department defends its decision to revert to the three-step process, emphasizing that it better aligns with the true meaning of "prevailing" and offers better protection to workers against the negative impact of outlier wage rates.

THE 30-PERCENT RULE

The document discusses the Department's proposal to revert back to the 30-percent rule for determining the prevailing wage. Supporters of the proposal argue that the 30-percent rule is a reasonable threshold and accurately reflects the wages paid to a significant portion of workers. On the other hand, opponents of the proposal claim that the 30-percent rule leads to less accurate rates that do not truly reflect the wages and benefits in a specific area. The Department disagrees with these criticisms, stating that they stem from different interpretations of the term "prevailing." The document also examines the potential impact of the 30-percent rule on wage rates, noting that any changes should be similar to existing fluctuations.

Furthermore, the document addresses the Department's rationale for not utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for DBA wage determinations. It explains that BLS data lacks certain information such as benefits, county-level data, and construction type breakdowns. The document also discusses suggestions for improving the wage survey process, including the use of certified payrolls, updated and standardized classifications, and allowing contractors to report wage information by individual craft classifications. The Department affirms its decision to return to the 30-percent threshold for determining prevailing wages, arguing that the current reliance on averages conflicts with their long-standing interpretation of the Act. They also refute claims that the D.C. Circuit's Donovan decision prohibits a return to the 30-percent threshold. The Department maintains that it is unnecessary and not preferable to abandon the current Davis-Bacon wage survey process or require adjustments to survey data through regression or statistical analyses.

In addition, the Department rejects comments suggesting that the return to the 30-percent threshold can only be justified by finding that the current majority rule is inherently prohibited by the statute. They have consistently concluded that relying on BLS data to determine prevailing wages instead of conducting Davis-Bacon wage surveys is not ideal. The Department disagrees with ABC's suggestion to adopt the standardized national Standard Occupational Classification system for construction worker classifications in the Davis-Bacon program.

Moreover, the document discusses the Department's decision to revert to the 30-percent threshold for determining prevailing wages, highlighting the reduction in conformances and increased frequency of wage determinations. They argue that these changes will enhance the wage determination program without deviating from the statutory text and purpose of the DBRA. While some commenters advocate for more flexibility in analysis and the use of averages or statistical modeling, the Department disagrees, emphasizing that the prevailing wage should be determined based on "projects of a similar character" and that project-specific reporting ensures accuracy.

The Department also asserts that using BLS data would result in less accurate craft classifications. They acknowledge concerns about potential inflationary effects of the 30-percent threshold but argue that it does not always yield the highest prevailing wage rate. Many commenters argue that prevailing wage requirements generally do not increase overall construction costs, while others claim that the 30-percent threshold will raise costs and render certain projects financially unviable. The document addresses these concerns and refutes arguments against the reversion to the 30-percent threshold. The Department discredits the reliability and accuracy of the 1979 GAO report, the Department's 1981-1982 analysis, and the two CBO reports from 1983 and 1985, asserting that they fail to consider labor market forces or productivity losses.

Ultimately, the Department concludes that the reversion to the 30-percent threshold will not significantly impact contract costs or national inflation rates. They reference several studies that support their position. The document further explores the potential impact of the 30-percent rule on inflation and construction costs, countering CEI's claim that it could contribute to a wage-price spiral by citing the 1983 CBO report, which found no measurable effect on inflation. The Department presents various studies suggesting that wage increases do not lead to significant economy-wide price increases. They argue that the 30-percent rule will not substantially affect inflation due to the relatively small proportion of DBRA-covered contracts in the overall economic output. Additionally, the Department addresses concerns about the rule's impact on the residential construction industry, stating that it is less likely to result in wage rate increases for residential projects and any potential increase in construction costs would not affect housing prices or rents in general. They also dismiss concerns about its interaction with increased infrastructure spending, asserting that the 30-percent rule will not materially affect the results of their analyses. Finally, the Department delves into the legal question of whether it is appropriate to use a methodology aimed at reducing construction costs, given that the DBA was enacted to protect employees from earning substandard wages. They discuss their consideration of whether the 30-percent threshold gives "undue weight" to collectively bargained rates.

The Department notes the shift in their stance since 1982 when they agreed with comments criticizing the 30-percent rule, but now certain commenters are making similar arguments. ABC argues that non-union contractors are more likely to base compensation on skills or productivity,

THREE-STEP PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THE PREVAILING WAGE

The Department also addresses concerns regarding the potential impact on affordable housing development costs, asserting that the 30-percent threshold may not necessarily lead to increased expenses. The document delves into the Department's proposal to return to the three-step process for determining prevailing wages. According to the Department's estimates, the utilization of single prevailing wage rates (modal-based) that are not derived from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) would rise from 12 percent to 36 percent of all wage rates. The impact of the proposed change on fringe benefit rates is also discussed. The document references the 2006 decision of the Administrative Review Board (ARB) in Mistick Construction, which limited the Department's ability to consider wage rates that are functionally equivalent.

To determine the prevailing wage, the Department suggests amending the regulations to allow for the inclusion of functionally equivalent variable rates. The Department receives comments both in favor and against the proposed change, with some arguing that it may distort wage determinations and others asserting that it aligns with the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA). The Department acknowledges the possibility that contractors may have reliance interests in the Department's recent practice but concludes that the value of the functionally equivalent analysis outweighs this concern. Criticisms related to the use of collectively bargained rates are dismissed by the Department, arguing that the functional equivalence analysis does not compromise the "accuracy" of wage determinations. The Department agrees with commenters who support the proposal, claiming that it will reduce reliance on average wage rates and provide a better reflection of local construction wages.

Arguments suggesting that the proposal conflicts with the definition of "prevailing wage" or contradicts the Mistick decision are rejected by the Department. Similarly, the Department disagrees with arguments that the proposal should be rejected because it increases the likelihood of collectively bargained rates being deemed prevailing rates. The Department clarifies that the functional equivalence analysis applies to both collectively bargained and non-collectively bargained rates. Examples of wage differentials that might be considered functionally equivalent, such as rates based on the time of day or day of the week, are provided by the Department. It is explained that the functional equivalence concept does not apply to wage differentials attributable to fundamentally different underlying work. The Department also addresses concerns that identifying functionally equivalent wage rates may disadvantage contractors bound by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).

CBA'S STANDARD RATE AS "FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT"

The Department acknowledges that in certain circumstances, it may not be appropriate to treat market recovery rates and the CBA's standard rate as "functionally equivalent." However, the Department has decided to adopt the change to allow for the consideration of rates as functionally equivalent when determining the prevailing wage. Despite suggestions to further codify that combined fringe and benefit wage rates must be treated as functionally equivalent, or to change the language from allowing the Department to treat functionally equivalent rates the same to requiring it, the Department has declined to do so. To maintain consistency in the language used throughout the rule, the Department agrees to revise the language of § 1.3(e) to refer to "workers" instead of "employees." Additionally, the Department agrees to amend the text of proposed § 1.3(e) to allow a functional equivalence determination to be based on one or more collective bargaining agreements or written policies.

The Department emphasizes the need for flexibility when identifying functionally equivalent wage rates and provides an example of how zone rates have been periodically identified on wage determinations. Furthermore, the Department discusses proposed changes to the definition of "area" in § 1.2, which would allow for the use of various possible geographic units. In order to simplify the process for project wage determinations, the Department proposes adding language to the definition of "area" that would enable the issuance of project wage determinations with a single rate for each classification, using data from all relevant counties where the project will take place. The Department also addresses the proposal to allow for multi-county project wage determinations, which would allow contractors to pay a single wage rate to workers within the same classification on a multi-county project. This proposal has received support from several commenters who believe it would reduce administrative burdens and be beneficial for highway and broadband projects.

While two commenters express concern that the proposal should only be used when appropriate and that wage determinations should accurately reflect local labor markets without undermining the highest rates paid in any included county, the Department assures that the proposal aligns with the purpose of the DBA. To determine whether any wage rate prevails in a given "area," the Department will utilize a three-step process. While one commenter supports making the single-rate project wage determinations mandatory, another opposes the proposal, asserting that the statute requires separate prevailing wages for each subdivision. However, the Department disagrees with this assertion and adopts the language as proposed. The Department also addresses the proposal to use State highway districts as the relevant wage determination area for highway projects. Several commenters support this proposal, noting that it would simplify the process for highway projects spanning multiple counties. Despite opposition from one commenter who argues that the Department lacks statutory authority to interpret "civil subdivision of the State" to include State highway districts, the Department cites the plain text of the DBA and the Wight decision and adopts the proposal.

DEFINITION OF "AREA" TO INCLUDE MULTI-COUNTY PROJECT

The Department engages in a discussion regarding the proposal to revise the definition of "area" to include multi-county project wage determinations and State highway districts. The Department disagrees with the suggestion made by U.S. Senators that the final rule should not adopt the revised definition of "area" due to stakeholders' reliance on the prior definition. Furthermore, the Department deliberates on the proposal to define "type of construction" or "construction type" as the general category of construction established by the Administrator for the publication of general wage determinations. No comments are received regarding the proposal to amend §§ 1.2, 3.2, and 5.2 to remove paragraph designations of defined terms, instead opting to list defined terms in alphabetical order. Additionally, the Department considers the possibility of revising § 1.3(d), which addresses the use of survey data from Federal or federally assisted projects subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements in determining prevailing wages for building and residential construction wage determinations.

Various stakeholders provide comments on the definition of each type of construction, but the Department decides to continue addressing this issue through subregulatory guidance. Furthermore, the Department discusses the proposal to switch the order of § 1.3(b)(4) and (5) to enhance clarity, receiving no comments on this proposal. The Iron Workers suggest codifying Fry Brothers in § 1.3(b)(2), but the Department declines to adopt the recommendation. The document also explores the Department's consideration of revising § 1.3(d) to allow for broader use of Federal project data in establishing prevailing wage rates for building and residential construction. Stakeholders express support for this revision, arguing that it aligns with the purpose of the DBA and increases the amount of usable data. However, others oppose revising § 1.3(d), contending that it would violate the DBA's purpose and lead to inflated prevailing wages.

Ultimately, the Department decides against revising § 1.3(d) and instead continues to consider submitted Federal project data in all instances when calculating prevailing wage rates for heavy and highway construction. The Department asserts that the current regulatory text provides adequate guidance on when Federal project data may be used for determining prevailing wage rates. Additionally, the Department will continue to solicit and receive Federal project data in all Davis-Bacon wage surveys, utilizing such data when there is insufficient private data available.

The Department rejects alternative proposals from stakeholders, arguing that the existing text of § 1.3(d) already allows for the consideration of Federal project data. The document also discusses proposed changes to § 1.3(f) concerning the publication of rates for labor classifications that regularly receive conformance requests. The Department suggests adding new paragraphs to § 1.3, enabling the Administrator to determine Davis-Bacon wage rates by adopting prevailing wage rates set by State and local governments. Furthermore, the Department outlines specific criteria that must be met for the Administrator to adopt State or local prevailing wage rates. The document delves into updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations.

PROPOSAL TO ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ADOPT STATE OR LOCAL WAGE RATES

The responsible agency for the proposal to allow the Administrator to adopt State or local wage rates in certain circumstances is the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Amy Debisschop, the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, oversees this department. In the document, there is a discussion about the support for the proposal from many commenters who believe that it will help maintain up-to-date DBRA wage rates and enhance efficiency. However, some commenters express concerns about the potential for the adoption of excessively high or low wage rates. Despite these concerns, the Department ultimately decides to adopt the proposal, ensuring that safeguards are in place to prevent the adoption of inappropriate wage rates.

The document also addresses the Department's decision not to impose additional limitations on its discretion to adopt State or local wage rates. The Administrator is given the ultimate responsibility to make an affirmative determination regarding the adoption of a State or local wage rate. The Department disagrees with suggestions to prohibit the adoption of State or local wage rates when there is an applicable Federal rate. It also declines to impose restrictions based on the methods used to determine the rates or to adopt a categorical prohibition on the adoption of State or local wage rates lower than Federal rates. The Department believes that the criteria specified in new § 1.3(h) will serve as a safeguard against inappropriate wage rates.

Furthermore, the Department disagrees with the notion that expanding WHD's ability to adopt State or local wage rates will hinder its ability to conduct Federal wage surveys. The document discusses changes to § 1.4, which require Federal agencies to submit annual reports on proposed construction programs. The Department proposes removing the language that limits reporting to occur only "to the extent practicable" and instead advocates for prioritizing areas where updated wage determinations will have the greatest impact. Additionally, the Department suggests that Federal agencies should include notification of any significant changes to previously reported construction programs.

To streamline the process, the Department proposes changing the due date for reports to April 10 and clarifies that reports should be based on existing information. In terms of clarifying the applicability of general wage determinations and project wage determinations, the Department proposes deleting the reference to the terminated Interagency Reports Management Program in § 1.5. It also suggests adding language to § 1.5 to explain that a general wage determination includes wage rates for different classifications of laborers and mechanics. Furthermore, the Department proposes clarifying that agencies may request a project wage determination under specific circumstances and that these requests can be submitted through means other than mail. Lastly, the Department emphasizes that agencies must provide all the requested information in the Standard Form (SF) 308.

Overall, the Department believes that these proposals and changes will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of wage determinations while ensuring appropriate safeguards and considerations are in place.

USE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF WAGE DETERMINATIONS

The document outlines the proposed changes to § 1.6, which aim to provide clarity and effectiveness in the use of wage determinations. The Department intends to reorganize and rephrase the section for better understanding, as well as update the terminology to align with current practices. Specifically, the Department seeks to clarify the utilization of inactive wage determinations and the circumstances under which multiple determinations should be incorporated into a contract.

The document also addresses the application of multiple wage determinations in cases where a construction contract involves work in different "areas" or "types of construction." The Department proposes that the applicable wage determination for each area should be included in the contract. Similarly, for contracts involving more than one "type of construction," the contracting agency must incorporate the relevant wage determination for each type, particularly when the work in that specific type is significant. The Department is open to receiving comments on these proposals.

Furthermore, the Department has received comments regarding the incorporation of multiple wage determinations and has decided to adopt the proposed language regarding the application of various categories of determinations. However, the Department has declined the suggestion to exempt multifamily housing projects from the requirement to include wage determinations from multiple categories. To further clarify and reinforce the responsibilities of contracting agencies, contractors, and subcontractors regarding wage determinations, the Department proposes adding language to § 1.6(b). Additionally, the Department aims to revise the existing language in § 1.6(b) that currently prioritizes "area practice" when resolving questions about "wage rate schedules."

The document highlights the Department's proposal to revise the language in § 1.6(b) to clarify that the Administrator may consider other relevant factors, in addition to area practice, when determining wage rates. This revision is intended to align the Department's regulations with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Moreover, the Department suggests that if the Administrator provides written notice of an error in the wage determination, it may not be used for the contract. The Department also proposes that contracting agencies should incorporate the most up-to-date wage determination annually on the contract's anniversary date. Additionally, when a contract is modified to include additional work or extend its term, the Department clarifies that the most recent wage determination must be incorporated.

MOST UP-TO-DATE WAGE DETERMINATION MUST BE INCLUDED IN EACH TASK ORDER OR PURCHASE ORDER

The document delves into the Department's proposition to mandate the inclusion of the most current wage determination in each task order or purchase order. It is worth noting that the Department did not receive any comments on certain proposed revisions, leading to the adoption of the changes as originally proposed. Furthermore, the document addresses feedback received regarding the proposed changes to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. CC&M and MnDOT express concerns about the potential costs and administrative burden associated with these changes. In response, the Department suggests that contracting agencies can incorporate language into procurement policies and bid documents to account for the timing of updated wage determinations. Additionally, several commenters express their support for the proposed changes, with the UA recommending a clarification to the language to ensure that the requirement applies to both unilateral and mutual exercise of options.

The Department has accepted the proposed changes with minor revisions and clarifications. Although FTBA and NAVFAC SW propose revisions to the proposed changes, the Department declines to adopt these suggestions as they fall beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Similarly, MBA proposes a change to § 1.6(c)(2)(ii) to mitigate the risk of disruptions to multifamily housing projects, but the Department does not adopt this suggestion as it would compromise worker protections. Moreover, the Department introduces additional minor revisions to the proposed regulatory text to allow for alternative updating processes in appropriate circumstances. Lastly, the document highlights the necessity of updating wage determinations on an annual basis, regardless of whether an option is exercised.

INCLUSION OF COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED PREVAILING WAGE RATES

The Department proposes to expand the Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) current practice of updating collectively bargained prevailing wage rates to include updating non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates. The Department clarifies that the contracting agency is responsible for ensuring that the master contract directs the ordering agency to include the applicable updated wage determination in task orders, purchase orders, or other similar contract instruments. The Department discusses the importance of conducting surveys in each area every 3 years to avoid prevailing wage rates becoming out-of-date. The Department adopts the changes to § 1.6(c)(2) as proposed with two minor clarifications. The Department proposes to add a provision to 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1) to provide a mechanism to regularly update certain non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates.

The Department argues that the proposal to update non-collectively bargained rates is consistent with the current regulations and builds upon the current regulatory text at 29 CFR 1.6(c)(1). The Department asserts that periodically updating existing non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates is intended to keep such rates more current in the interim period between surveys. The document includes two tables that show recent annual rates of union and non-union construction wage increases in the United States and ECI changes from 2001 to 2020. The document discusses the Department's proposal to use the Employment Cost Index (ECI) to adjust non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates. The Department argues that the ECI is appropriate for these rate adjustments because it tracks both wages and fringe benefits. The Department notes that it considered using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) but decided against it because the CPI does not track changes in wages or benefits.

The Department proposes to add language to § 1.6(c)(1) to allow adjustments to non-collectively bargained prevailing rates based on ECI data. The Department states that non-collectively bargained rates may be adjusted no more frequently than once every 3 years. The Department anticipates implementing this new regulatory provision by issuing modifications to general wage determinations. The Department received many comments about the proposal, with most expressing general support. Some commenters recommended modifications to the proposal, such as using the ECI only to increase, not decrease, rates, or requiring more frequent updates. Other commenters opposed the proposal entirely, expressing concerns about using nationwide data to adjust rates. The document discusses the Department's proposal to adjust certain non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates on a rolling basis no more frequently than every 3 years. Commenters raised concerns about the proposal, including that it would be less effective and accurate than using BLS data to determine prevailing wages.

The Department declines to adopt the suggestion to limit periodic updates to increases only, as the ECI historically has increased over time. The Department also declines to require that the periodic updates occur more frequently than every 3 years, as this provision will not reduce WHD's incentive to conduct Davis-Bacon wage surveys. The Department disagrees with the premise that it is inappropriate to adjust an underlying wage rate that is allegedly flawed, as the Department's wage survey methodology operates within the authority granted by the DBA. The Department acknowledges that the ECI data it has selected includes wages and fringe benefit information for construction-related occupations nationwide, but argues that these data characteristics are consistent with the DBA's statutory requirements.

The Department agrees with LIUNA that ECI data should only be used for the narrow purpose specified in this proposed rule. The Department notes that various commenters opposed the proposal and urged the Department to use BLS data instead of WHD's wage survey program to determine prevailing wages, but the Department declines to adopt this suggestion. The document discusses the Department's regulations in § 1.7, which address two related concepts: the default "area" for making a wage determination and the procedure for expanding the geographic scope of survey data when there is insufficient data. The Department codified its practice of using the county as the default area for making a wage determination in 1981-1982. If there is insufficient data for a classification of workers in a given county, WHD will progressively expand the geographic scope of data to include surrounding counties, a larger grouping of counties, and eventually statewide data.

The Department proposed changes to § 1.7 to more clearly describe WHD's process for expanding the geographic scope of survey data and to eliminate the current bar on combining wage data from "metropolitan" and "rural" counties. The Department argues that eliminating the bar will allow WHD to account for actual construction labor market patterns and publish more rates for more classifications overall. The Department also discusses § 1.6(f), which addresses post-award determinations that a wage determination has been wrongly omitted from a contract. The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to eliminate the strict prohibition on combining data from rural and metropolitan areas. The Department argues that this change would allow wage determinations to better reflect the complexities of the construction industry. Several commenters, including FTBA, MCAA, and NABTU, support the proposal. Other commenters, such as ABC, NAHB, and IEC, oppose the proposal, arguing that it would result in inflated wages in rural counties. The Department outlines three options for defining "surrounding counties" in order to clarify the grouping procedure: Option 1: Maintain the current group description without further amendment. Option 2: Limit "surrounding counties" to those that share a border with the county for which additional wage data is sought. Option 3: Define "surrounding counties" as a grouping of counties that are all part of the same "contiguous local construction labor market."

The document discusses the Department's decision to eliminate the strict bar on cross-consideration of metropolitan and rural wage data. Commenters disagree on whether the D.C. Circuit's decision in Donovan supports the proposal. The Department argues that eliminating the strict bar will allow for more accurate wage determinations. The Department also discusses the potential inclusion of micropolitan counties in surrounding-counties groupings. The Department disagrees with ABC and NAHB's criticisms of the proposal. 60 The document discusses the Department of Labor's proposal to eliminate the strict bar on cross-consideration of metropolitan and rural wage data. The Department argues that this change will allow for more accurate wage determinations. The Department references two academic papers that illustrate that construction labor markets can be geographically larger than the average occupation's labor market. NAHB criticizes the two academic papers, but the Department disagrees with their criticism.

The Department also addresses comments from opponents of the proposal who argue that the elimination of the strict bar will result in "inflated" wages in rural counties. The Department argues that the GAO Report cited by the opponents is not persuasive, and that the D.C. Circuit's decision in Donovan supports the Department's proposal. The Department also discusses the potential inclusion of micropolitan counties in surrounding-counties groupings. The document begins by addressing arguments against the Department's proposal to eliminate the strict bar on cross-consideration of metropolitan and rural wage data. The Department argues that the concerns about "labor disruption" are not persuasive, as they assume a significant discrepancy between wages in rural and metropolitan counties that is not necessarily accurate.

The Department also argues that the potential for higher prevailing wage rates in rural counties will not "exclude" bidders, as all bidders are required to pay the same wage rate. The Department addresses the argument that the proposal will undermine existing methods of incentivizing rural construction, noting that prevailing wage rates do not operate as a maximum rate that can be paid. The Department discusses the D.C. Circuit's decision in Donovan, which upheld the strict bar, and argues that the decision does not prohibit the Department from coming to a different conclusion now. The Department argues that the strict bar has led to an increasing reliance on data from super group and statewide levels, and that eliminating the bar will allow for more accurate wage determinations. The document discusses the Department's proposal to relax the strict bar on cross-consideration of metropolitan and rural wage data. The Department argues that the proposal is consistent with the legislative history of the Act and with the Department's historical practice prior to the 1981-1982 rulemaking.

The document discusses the three options the Department presented in the NPRM for defining "surrounding counties," with commenters favoring either Option 1 (to leave the description the same) or Option 3 (to include in the regulatory text a definition of "surrounding counties" as a "contiguous local construction labor market"). The Department argues that it is more consistent with the purpose of the Act to maintain sufficient flexibility in the wage determination process so as to adequately consider the heterogeneity of "rural counties." The document discusses the Department's proposal to clarify the use of intermediate and statewide county groupings in § 1.7(c), with some commenters expressing concern about the lack of clarity in the proposal. The Department argues that the proposed changes to § 1.7(c) are clarifying rather than substantive, and that the current regulation already implicitly permits the use of super groups. The Department decides to adopt the language of § 1.7(a) and (b) as proposed in the NPRM, and to retain the reference to "surrounding counties" without further definition in the regulatory text.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to codify the practice of allowing for reconsideration by the Administrator of decisions made by an authorized representative. The Department proposes to amend § 1.8 and § 5.13 to provide for the Administrator's reconsideration of rulings and interpretations issued by an authorized representative. Two comments suggest that the regulations should explicitly provide for a level of review prior to review by the Administrator, and that such review should be conducted by an individual who was not connected in any way with the original decision. The Department retains the language as proposed, allowing for an intermediate level of review without requiring it, and allowing for reconsideration requests to be considered by agency personnel who were or were not involved in the original decision.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise §§ 1.2, 1.5, and 1.6 to reflect that wage determinations are maintained online, without a reference to a specific website. The Department notes that the transition of wage determinations onto SAM was part of the Integrated Award Environment (IAE), and that the Department proposed to use the more general term "Department of Labor-approved website" to avoid outdated website domain references. The Department receives comments requesting that all DBRA relevant information be accessible from a single website, and that the website for viewing wage determinations should be free and without conditions of access. The Department notes that while the suggestion is beyond the scope of the rulemaking, the Department intends to maintain the features of the SAM website.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to add a new § 1.10, titled "Severability," which explains that each provision is capable of operating independently from one another. The Department receives no comments on this proposal and adopts the change as proposed. The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise §§ 1.3 and 5.5 to allow for the listing of classifications and corresponding wage and fringe benefit rates on wage determinations even when WHD has received insufficient data through its wage survey process. The Department proposes that for key classifications or other classifications for which conformance requests are regularly submitted, the Administrator would be authorized to list the classification on the wage determination along with wage and fringe benefit rates that bear a "reasonable relationship” to the prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates contained in the wage determination.

The Department proposes to add language to § 5.5(a)(1) to state that the conformance process may not be used to split or subdivide classifications listed in the wage determination. The Department receives one comment in response to this proposal, which supports the Department's approach. The Department adopts the change as proposed. The document discusses proposed changes to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations, specifically to §§ 1.3 and 5.5. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy DeBisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The Department proposes to add language to the contract clauses at § 5.5(a)(1)(vi), (a)(6), and (b)(4) requiring the payment of interest on any underpayment of wages or monetary relief.

The Department receives a number of comments in response to the proposal, with many commenters expressing support. Some commenters offer suggestions for improvement, such as ensuring that classifications reflect industry standards, revising the wage survey process, and involving stakeholders in the process. The Department responds to these comments, noting that they will consider all relevant factors when resolving questions about classifications, and that the conformance process is responsive to the concerns raised. The Department also addresses concerns about the elimination of contractors' rights to dispute a proposed classification and wage rate, noting that interested parties still have the right to dispute these classifications and wage rates prior to contract award. 72 The document discusses conformance requests, noting that not all requests are frequent, but that the WHD may publish a pre-approved conformed wage rate in certain cases.

The Department adopts changes to part 3 as proposed, along with additional conforming changes to reflect revisions to part 5. The Department discusses the requirements set forth in part 3, noting that they are effective as a matter of law. ABC argues that the Department should use Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data to calculate missing prevailing wage rates, but the Department declines to do so. The Department receives one comment in support of consolidating definitions in a single regulatory section, but declines to make this change. The document discusses the regulations at 29 CFR part 5, which establish rules for the payment of minimum wages and fringe benefits to covered workers. The Department does not believe additional language or changes are necessary and adopts § 5.5(a)(1)(ii) and new § 1.3(f) as proposed.

The Department proposes minor technical revisions to §5.1, and adds a new paragraph to refer to the WHD website. The document discusses the "Anti-kickback" and payroll submission regulations under the Copeland Act, which are set forth in 29 CFR part 3. The Department proposes multiple revisions to various sections in part 3, and proposes to remove § 3.5(e) and simplify language in § 3.5(g). The Department revises definitions to reflect the role of State and local agencies in effectuating Davis-Bacon requirements. The Department proposes to add the District of Columbia to the definition of "Federal agency." The Department proposes to modernize the definition of "building or work" by including solar panels, wind turbines, broadband installation, and installation of electric car chargers. The Department receives multiple comments on these proposed additions, with some in support and others in opposition.

The document discusses comments received in response to proposed changes to the definition of "building or work" to include green energy projects. The Department argues that these projects already fit within the existing definition, and that the proposed changes are simply meant to clarify this. The Department proposes to add language to the definitions of "building or work" and "public building or public work" to clarify that these definitions can be met even when the construction activity involves only a portion of an overall building, structure, or improvement. The Department argues that these proposed changes are consistent with the Davis-Bacon Act and the Department's longstanding policy. The Department receives comments both in support and opposition to these proposed changes, but ultimately adopts the revisions as proposed.

The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBA) regulations. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. Several commenters expressed support for the proposed changes, noting that they clarify that DBA coverage can exist even when the building or work is not owned by the Federal Government. Some commenters suggested additional language to further clarify the definition of "public building or public work." Others disagreed with the proposed changes, arguing that they conflict with the decision in District of Columbia v. Dep't of Labor (CityCenterDC). The Department of Labor refutes these claims, arguing that the CityCenterDC case is distinguishable from the proposed changes. The Department of Labor also disagrees with suggestions to add a threshold for the amount of work that must be performed to trigger DBA requirements.

The document discusses the definitions of "building or work" and "public building or public work" in relation to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBA) regulations. The Department of Labor (DOL) does not agree with suggestions to add a size or dollar threshold to the definition of "public building or public work" because the DBA already imposes a dollar threshold for coverage. The DOL also declines to adopt a suggestion to amend the definition of "building or work" to include references to "site of the work" elements. The document discusses the inclusion of a new subdefinition to the term "construction, prosecution, completion, or repair" to clarify when demolition and similar activities are covered by the DBA. The DOL has long maintained that standalone demolition work is generally not covered by the DBA, but that it is covered under certain circumstances. The document outlines three circumstances in which demolition work is covered by the DBA. Several commenters support the proposed revisions, while others oppose them, arguing that they expand the scope of the DBA. The DOL argues that the revisions are not an expansion of coverage, but rather a clarification of current policy.

The document discusses the definition of "contract" in relation to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor (DOL) is considering expanding the definition of "contract" to be similar to the way it is defined in other Department regulations. The DOL notes that the term "contract" in the DBRA has been interpreted broadly, and that the DBRA has been applied to various types of agreements that meet the common law definition of a "contract." The DOL proposes a new definition of "contractor" to clarify that it applies to both prime contractors and subcontractors, and that sureties may also be considered "contractors" under the regulations. The DOL also proposes a new definition of "prime contractor" to clarify that it is based on the entity's contractual relationship with the government, control over the entity holding the prime contract, or the duties it has been delegated. Several commenters support the proposed definitions, while one commenter seeks clarification on the status of "business owners" in the definitions. The DOL responds that the "business owner" exemption is relevant to whether an individual is a "laborer or mechanic," not whether they are a "contractor."

The document discusses the proposed definition of "prime contractor" and the support it has received from various commenters. Commenters believe the definition will help address violations on DBRA contracts by expanding the Department's ability to recover back wages. Commenters emphasize the widespread labor violations in the construction industry and the lack of meaningful enforcement. The proposed definition of "prime contractor" is similar to the definition of "contractor" in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 9 regulations. The proposed definition also includes the controlling shareholder or member of any entity holding a prime contract, joint venturers or partners, and any contractor that has been delegated all or substantially all of the responsibilities for overseeing and/or performing the construction. More than one entity on a contract can be considered "prime contractors" for the purposes of cross-withholding.

The document discusses the definition of "prime contractor" and the comments received in response to the proposed definition. Some commenters support the definition, arguing that it will help address wage violations and improve compliance with the DBRA. Others oppose the definition, arguing that it will place an undue burden on contractors and discourage them from bidding on DBRA contracts. The Department disagrees with these objections, noting that the definition will clarify which entities are responsible for compliance and incentivize them to ensure subcontractors are in compliance. The Department also addresses concerns about the definition of "subcontractor," clarifying that an individual can be both a subcontractor and a laborer or mechanic.

The document discusses the definition of "laborer or mechanic" and the exemption for "business owners" under the FLSA regulations. The Department clarifies that to be exempt from the DBRA, an individual must be employed in a "bona fide" executive capacity under the FLSA part 541 regulations. The Department also discusses the "business owner" exemption in the FLSA regulations, which allows an employee to fall under the executive exemption if they own at least a 20% equity interest in the enterprise and are actively engaged in its management. The document addresses the proposed change to the definition of "apprentice and helper" to remove references to trainees, as the ETA no longer reviews or approves on-the-job training programs. The Department responds to comments on this proposal, noting that the change will not impact student trainees who are enrolled in programs certified by the Secretary of Transportation. The document also discusses the definition of "laborer or mechanic" as it applies to survey crew members, clarifying that whether a survey crew member is covered by the Davis-Bacon labor standards is a question of fact based on the actual duties performed.

The document discusses the duties of survey crew members, with some commenters emphasizing the physical and manual aspects of the work, while others emphasize the intellectual requirements. The Department clarifies that only survey crew members employed by contractors or subcontractors on a project may be covered laborers or mechanics. The Department acknowledges that survey work performed "immediately prior to or during construction in direct support of construction crews" may differ from survey work performed in other contexts. The Department does not consider duties performed off the site of the work to be an integral part of the work for the purposes of determining whether survey crew members are "laborers or mechanics." Some commenters argue that the Department's view that survey crew members who spend most of their time on a covered project taking or assisting in taking measurements would likely be deemed laborers or mechanics is inconsistent with AAM 39. The Department responds that AAM 39 is not controlling, as the duties performed by survey crew members today are far different from those described in AAM 39. The Department reiterates that whether a survey crew member is covered by the Davis-Bacon labor standards is a question of fact, taking into account the actual duties performed and whether they are "manual or physical in nature."

The document discusses the definition of "laborer or mechanic" and the "learned professional" exclusion in 29 CFR 5.2(m). Several commenters argue that surveyors should be treated as "learned professionals" and therefore excluded from the definition of "laborer or mechanic." The Department acknowledges that licensed surveyors may in some cases be "learned professionals" and thus excluded from the definition of "laborer or mechanic," but that this conclusion may vary depending on state licensing requirements. The Department clarifies that unlicensed survey crew members are generally not considered "learned professionals." The document also discusses the "site of the work" requirement and the Department's proposed revisions to it. The Department is making certain revisions to the proposals in the final rule, including limiting coverage of secondary worksites, clarifying the material supplier exemption, and clarifying coverage of truck drivers. 0 The document discusses the "site of the work" requirement in detail, including the definition of "construction, prosecution, completion, or repair" in 29 CFR 5.2(j)(1).

The document references two regulatory revisions made in 1992 and 2000, which respectively narrowed the geographic scope of the site of the work and broadened the definition to include offsite locations where a significant portion of the building or work is constructed. The document discusses the "material supplier exception" which excludes employees of bona fide "material suppliers" or "materialmen" from coverage under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBA). The document references several court cases that have shaped the Department's interpretation of the "site of the work" requirement, including Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. v. Reich, L.P. Cavett Company v. U.S. Department of Labor, and Building & Construction Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Dep't of Labor Wage Appeals Bd. (Midway). The document outlines four proposed regulatory changes related to the "site of the work" requirement, including revising the definition to further encompass certain construction at secondary worksites, clarifying the application of the principle to flaggers, revising the regulations to better delineate the "material supplier" exemption, and revising the regulations to set clear standards for DBA coverage of truck drivers.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's proposal to expand the definition of "site of the work" to include secondary construction sites where a significant portion of the building or work is constructed. The document references technological developments that have enabled companies to construct entire portions of public buildings or works offsite. The document discusses comments received in response to the proposal, with most labor unions and groups representing union-affiliated employers supporting the proposal, while most employer groups opposing it. Some commenters argue that the proposal exceeds the statutory restriction of coverage to "site of the work" as interpreted in Midway, Ball, and L.P. Cavett. Others argue that the proposal would increase the cost of modular construction projects and imperil the modular industry and its workers. The Department ultimately decides to modify its proposal to narrow the scope of coverage at secondary construction sites.

The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document discusses the definition of "site of the work" and how it applies to offsite construction. The final rule expands coverage to include secondary construction sites that are dedicated exclusively or nearly so to a single DBRA-covered project. The Department is concerned about the trend of offsite construction, which may result in fewer workers earning Davis-Bacon wages. However, the Department agrees with commenters that further analysis is needed to understand the potential economic impact of the proposed rule. The Department is also concerned about potential legal uncertainty surrounding the issue. The final rule is more limited in scope than the proposed rule, in order to address concerns raised by commenters. The Department believes that the final rule will not significantly disrupt the construction industry. The Department will continue to solicit and review information about offsite construction and other trends in construction with Davis-Bacon implications.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to clarify the definition of "site of the work" to include flaggers who work adjacent or virtually adjacent to the primary construction site. Some commenters support the proposal, while others oppose it. Supporters argue that the clarification will ensure that flaggers receive Davis-Bacon protections, and that it is consistent with the original purpose of the DBA. Opponents argue that the proposal expands DBA coverage to flaggers who are not on the site of the work, and that it will increase the regulatory burden and costs on new industries and types of construction projects. The Department disagrees with these arguments, asserting that flaggers are laborers and that their work is integrally related to the construction work at the site. The Department also clarifies the distinction between subcontractors and "material suppliers," and that employees of material suppliers are not covered by the DBA unless they spend a substantial amount of time on the site.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to clarify the definition of "material supplier" in the Davis-Bacon regulations. Many commenters perceive the proposed revisions as making significant changes, but the Department argues that the revisions are largely intended to clarify and reflect existing coverage principles. The Department proposes three criteria for the material supplier exception to apply to an employer, which include that the employer's only obligations for work on the contract or project are the delivery of materials, that the employer also supplies materials to the general public, and that the employer's facility manufacturing the materials is not located at the site of the work. Some commenters object to the proposed rule's requirement that to be a material supplier, an employer must supply products to "the general public," contending that the term is ambiguous.

The Department is eliminating the criterion that the employer must supply materials to the "general public" in order to be a material supplier, and instead clarifies that the employer's facility must have been established before opening of bids or, if it was established after bid opening, may not be dedicated exclusively to the performance of a covered contract. The Department is also clarifying that activities incidental to material supply, such as loading, unloading, and pickup, would not constitute construction activity that would render the material supply exemption inapplicable. The Department is eliminating the 20-percent threshold for purposes of the material supplier/subcontractor distinction, in order to reduce uncertainty and assist bidders and agencies in predicting labor costs. 100 The document discusses the Department's proposal to clarify the coverage of truck drivers under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA). The Department is proposing to amend the definition of "construction, prosecution, completion, or repair" to include "transportation" under five specific circumstances.

The Department is eliminating the 20-percent threshold for material suppliers' drivers who engage in onsite construction work. The Department is also revising the regulations to clarify coverage of truck drivers under the DBRA. Some commenters argue that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in Midway, but the Department disagrees. The Department also disagrees that cases construing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preclude coverage of onsite time for delivery drivers employed by contractors or subcontractors. -102 The document discusses the Department's proposal to clarify the coverage of truck drivers under the DBRA. The Department is proposing to amend the definition of "construction, prosecution, completion, or repair" to include "transportation" under five specific circumstances. The Department is eliminating the 20-percent threshold for material suppliers' drivers who engage in onsite construction work.

The Department is also revising the regulations to clarify coverage of truck drivers under the DBRA. Some commenters argue that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in Midway, but the Department disagrees. The Department also disagrees that cases construing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preclude coverage of onsite time for delivery drivers employed by contractors or subcontractors. The document discusses the Department's decision not to adopt the NPRM's proposal to require compensation for onsite time related to offsite delivery as long as it is not "so insubstantial or insignificant that it cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded."

The Department is instead codifying the current guidance by requiring contractors and subcontractors to pay Davis-Bacon wages to delivery drivers for onsite time related to offsite delivery if such time is not de minimis. The document also discusses the Department's decision not to define de minimis in the regulation, but to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. The document discusses the Department's rejection of AGC's suggestion to expand the de minimis principle beyond the context of truck drivers. The document discusses the Department's proposal to define the term "development statute" and to make conforming changes to § 5.5 to incorporate this new term. The document discusses the Department's proposal to amend § 5.2 to use the term "secondary construction sites" to describe the covered locations at which " "significant portions" of public buildings and works are covered provided all of the conditions discussed above are met and to use the term “primary construction sites" to describe the place where the building or work will remain. The document discusses the Department's proposal to remove the citation to Midway from the definition of the term "construction (or prosecution, completion, or repair)."

The document discusses the Department's proposal to make several linguistic changes to defined terms in § 5.2 to improve clarity and readability. The document discusses the Department's proposal to amend § 5.2 to remove paragraph designations of defined terms and instead to list defined terms in alphabetical order. -104 The document discusses proposed revisions to § 5.5(a)(3) to enhance Davis-Bacon compliance and enforcement by clarifying and supplementing existing recordkeeping requirements. The Department proposes to remove the table at the end of § 5.5 related to the display of OMB control numbers. Many comments support the proposed changes, while some contractor associations express concern that the changes are burdensome. The Department proposes to require contractors to maintain records of worker telephone numbers and email addresses. The final rule includes technical changes and minor revisions to § 5.5, including clarification that the FAR requirement is to incorporate contract clauses by reference.

The Department proposes to clarify that contractors must maintain and preserve basic records and information, as well as certified payrolls. The Department proposes to clarify that contractors must keep records of each worker's correct classification or classifications of work actually performed and the hours worked in each classification. The final rule updates the § 5.5(b) contract clauses by adding a reference to the new anti-retaliation provision and using gender neutral terminology. The final rule also updates § 5.5(b)(2) to reflect the Department's Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustment for 2023. The Department proposes to clarify that records must be preserved for at least 3 years after all the work on the prime contract is completed.

The document discusses the importance of maintaining records of workers' telephone numbers and email addresses for enforcement purposes. The Department argues against allowing subcontractors to maintain records for a shorter period of time, as this would impede enforcement. The document clarifies that contractors must keep records for all workers, regardless of whether they are classified as independent contractors. The Department proposes to revise § 5.5(a)(3)(ii) to clarify that the requirement to submit weekly payrolls applies to all entities responsible for maintaining the payrolls. The Department also proposes to revise § 5.5(a)(3)(ii) to clarify that compliance actions can be accomplished by various means, not just by an investigation or audit. The Department proposes to add language to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii)(A) to allow for electronic submission of certified payrolls. The Department proposes to clarify that a valid electronic signature is sufficient for compliance with the Copeland Act.

Several commenters suggest further revisions, such as requiring electronic payroll software providers to provide access to archived certified payrolls. The Department agrees to add language to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii)(A) to ensure that certified payrolls are accessible for at least 3 years after the work on the prime contract is completed. The document discusses the importance of certified payrolls and the need for contractors to submit them weekly. The Department clarifies that it does not prohibit submission of certified payrolls by email, as long as the payroll has a legally valid electronic signature. The Department adds a new paragraph to § 5.5 that requires contractors and subcontractors to preserve all certified payrolls for 3 years after the work on the prime contract is completed. The Department declines to allow contractors to pay prevailing wages or submit certified payrolls less frequently than weekly, as this is a statutory requirement. The Department makes minor changes to § 5.5(a)(3)(ii)(A) to clarify the prime contractor's responsibility for subcontractor submissions.

The Department declines to require contractors to include addresses and Social Security numbers on electronically submitted certified payrolls, as the current requirement for an individual identifying number is sufficient. The Department adopts the changes to § 5.5(a)(3) as proposed, with minor edits and additional language regarding access to electronic certified payroll submission systems. The document discusses the importance of contractors maintaining records of Davis-Bacon contracts and subcontracts. The Department argues that the requirement to maintain these records is not burdensome, as most contractors already do so for business reasons. The Department rejects the argument that prohibiting contractors from introducing records during administrative proceedings is arbitrary or coercive. The document discusses the proposed requirement for contractors to make available any documents necessary to determine compliance with labor standards.

The Department argues that this requirement is not overly broad, as it is not possible to list every type of record that may be needed to verify compliance. The document discusses changes to § 5.5(a)(4) regarding apprentices, including clarifying the rate of pay, fringe benefits, apprenticeship ratios, and reciprocity. The Department revises § 5.5(a)(4)(i) to better align with the purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act and ETA regulation 29 CFR 29.13(b)(7). The document discusses the proposed rule to require contractors to comply with the apprentice wage and ratio standards applicable to the locality where the work is performed. The Department declines to adopt CC&M's recommendation to apply the more restrictive apprenticeship ratio and wage rate. The Department reorganizes § 5.5(a)(4)(i) to make it clearer and more distinct.

The Department receives comments in support of the proposal to require contractors to apply the apprenticeship ratio and wage rate standards of the locality where the project is being performed. The Department clarifies that the apprenticeship ratio and wage rates under the contractor's registered program would apply in the event there is no program in the project locality. The Department proposes to remove the regulatory provisions regarding trainees and training programs, as ETA no longer reviews or approves on-the-job training programs. The Department proposes changes to the DBRA- and CWHSSA-specific contract clause provisions to clarify that the prime contractor is responsible for any unpaid wages or other liability for contractor or subcontractor violations. The Department clarifies that a prime contractor may be debarred for violating the responsibility provision. The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation.

The document discusses the responsibility and liability of upper-tier subcontractors for violations committed by lower-tier subcontractors. The Department proposed changes to § 5.5(a)(6) and (b)(4) to clarify that upper-tier subcontractors may be responsible for violations committed by lower-tier subcontractors. Many comments were received in support of the proposed changes, with some stating that the changes would increase compliance and protect vulnerable workers. A few comments were received in opposition to the proposed changes, with some stating that the current enforcement mechanisms are working and should not be changed. The Department declined to adopt suggestions to allow upper-tier contractors to rely on certifications from lower-tier subcontractors or to create a "good faith" defense. The Department amended the § 5.5(a)(6) contract clause language to include a requirement that any DBRA-related contract modifications must also be flowed down.

The document discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.5(d) to clarify that contract clauses and wage determinations can be incorporated by reference. The document also discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.5(e) to make effective by operation of law a contract clause or wage determination that was wrongly omitted from the contract. The document discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.6(a)(1) to clarify that the Federal agency must incorporate the required Davis-Bacon labor standards clauses if they were not included in the original contract. The document discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.6(a)(2) to clarify that certified payrolls can be requested by the Department regardless of whether an investigation or other compliance action has been initiated. The document discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.6(a)(3) to clarify the records and information that contracting agencies should include in their DBRA investigations. The document discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.6(b) to clarify that the Department can request certified payrolls from Federal agencies regardless of whether an investigation or other compliance action has been initiated.

The document discusses the Department's proposed changes to § 5.6(c) to protect the identity of workers or other informants who provide information in connection with a complaint or investigation. -118 The document discusses the Department's refusal to adopt NFIB's proposed changes to § 5.6(b)(2) which would have qualified the requirement for private entities to cooperate with Department investigations. The document discusses the Department's refusal to add NFIB's proposed qualification to the confidentiality protections in § 5.6(a)(5) because the qualification is implicit and unnecessary. The document discusses the Department's long-standing position that protecting the identities of confidential informants is essential for enforcement. The document discusses the Department's proposal to add references to monetary relief and interest to the description of restitution in § 5.10.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise § 5.11 to clarify that the Administrator may notify the affected contractors and subcontractors of the investigation findings by means other than registered or certified mail. The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise § 5.12 to clarify that the Administrator may notify the affected contractors and subcontractors of the investigation findings by means other than registered or certified mail. -120 The document discusses the Department's proposal to correct a typographical error in the citation to the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. The document discusses the Department's proposal to correct a reference to § 5.12 with the correct reference to § 5.13. The document discusses the Department's proposal to add new paragraph (c) to existing § 5.25 to codify the principle of annualization.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to rescind and reserve § 5.16, which is a grandfather clause permitting contractors to continue using trainees on Federal and federally assisted construction projects without seeking additional approval from the Department. The document discusses the Department's proposal to make technical, non-substantive changes to § 5.23. The document discusses the Department's proposal to rescind and reserve § 5.17, which pertains to the withdrawal of approval of a training program. The document discusses the Department's proposal to codify the annualization principle, which prevents contractors from using fringe benefit plan contributions attributable to work on private projects to meet their prevailing wage obligation for DBRA-covered work. The document discusses the Department's proposal to provide an exception to the annualization principle for certain fringe benefit plans that meet specific criteria.

The document discusses various comments received in response to the Department's proposal to codify the annualization principle. Several commenters express support for the annualization principle, but argue that the Department should revise the proposed regulation to strengthen the requirement. Some commenters object to the proposed administrative exception process, arguing that it would be burdensome and unnecessary. Other commenters argue that the exception to annualization should only apply to defined contribution pension plans (DCPPs), as no other type of fringe benefit plan would satisfy the exception criteria. In response to these comments, the Department revises the proposed rule to exempt DCPPs from the administrative exception process, as long as they meet the exception criteria. The Department also clarifies that the administrative exception process will only apply to non-DCPP fringe benefit plans that wish to be excepted from the annualization requirement.

The document discusses the annualization principle and the Department's response to comments on the proposed rule. The Department clarifies that the annualization requirement applies to both funded and unfunded plans. The Department also clarifies that the exception to annualization applies to contributions to fringe benefit plans, not the plans themselves. The Department revises the proposed rule to include a more detailed explanation of the criteria for an exception to annualization. The Department declines to adopt recommendations to change the vesting requirements for fringe benefit plans. The Department revises § 5.28 to clarify that unfunded plans must be approved by the Secretary in order to qualify as bona fide fringe benefits. The Department makes several non-substantive technical corrections to § 5.26 and § 5.28.

The document discusses comments received in response to proposed revisions to § 5.28, which would require preapproval of unfunded plans. Some commenters express concern that the revisions would be burdensome to contractors and could conflict with the authority of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Department responds that the revisions do not impose new substantive requirements and that the approval process is consistent with ERISA. The Department also argues that the approval process benefits both contractors and workers. The document discusses proposed revisions to § 5.29, which would clarify when a contractor may take credit for the costs of an apprenticeship program. The Department receives generally supportive comments, but one commenter suggests that the rule should allow for contributions negotiated as part of a collectively bargained agreement.

The Department declines to adopt this suggestion, but modifies the rule to allow for greater flexibility in determining whether contributions to apprenticeship plans are creditable. The document also discusses proposed revisions to § 5.30, which would update the examples of wage determinations to reflect the current format. The Department receives no comments on this proposal and adopts the changes as proposed. -128 The document discusses proposed changes to § 5.31 to reflect the updated illustration in § 5.30(c). The Department receives several comments in response to proposed § 5.33, which would codify the longstanding principle that a contractor or subcontractor may not take credit for its own administrative expenses. Commenters generally agree with the proposal, but express concern about the Department's request for comments on whether and how to address administrative functions performed by third parties. The Department clarifies that it did not propose to make all third-party expenses noncreditable, and that contractors may take credit for third-party expenses directly related to the administration and delivery of fringe benefits. The Department adopts § 5.33 with revisions to clarify its intent and address commenter concerns.

The document discusses § 5.33(a), which states that a contractor may take credit for fees paid to a third-party administrator to perform tasks related to the administration and delivery of benefits. The document clarifies that the DBRA requires a different analysis for whether a contractor may take credit for expenses, and that a contractor's own administrative costs are not part of its workers' wages. The document references the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and SCA (Service Contract Act) regulations, which prohibit contractors from taking credit for business expenses. The document states that the final rule adopts the proposal to codify the policy that a contractor may not take credit for its own administrative costs, and provides examples of noncreditable expenses. The document discusses the rationale for the final rule, which is to distinguish between creditable and noncreditable expenses based on whether they are business expenses of the contractor. The document discusses the proposed anti-retaliation provisions, which aim to discourage contractors from engaging in unscrupulous business practices. The document references the Department's authority to promulgate the anti-retaliation provisions, which stems from 40 U.S.C. 3145 and Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950.

The document discusses cases in which contractors have been debarred for retaliatory conduct or interference with WHD (Wage and Hour Division) investigations. The document references the criminal prosecution of the owner and supervisor of Enviro & Demo Masters, Inc. for witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering. The document proposes new anti-retaliation provisions to be added to all contracts subject to the DBA (Davis-Bacon Act) or Related Acts. The document outlines the protected activities that would be covered by the proposed anti-retaliation provisions, which include notifying a contractor of a violation, filing a complaint, and cooperating in an investigation. The document discusses the need for anti-retaliation provisions to supplement debarment as an enforcement tool and to provide compensation to workers who have been discriminated against. The document references the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act, which makes it a crime to induce workers to give up compensation. The document proposes two new regulatory provisions concerning anti-retaliation, as well as updates to several other regulations. The document outlines the proposed remedies for violations of the anti-retaliation provisions, which include back pay, benefits, and equitable relief. The document discusses the comments received in response to the proposal, with most supporting the anti-retaliation provisions and a few opposing them.

The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document addresses anti-retaliation provisions: Several commenters support the proposal, noting that it will help protect workers and maximize economic benefits. Some commenters oppose the proposal, arguing that it is duplicative of other whistleblower protection laws, would increase costs for small firms, or exceeds the Department's authority. The Department ultimately adopts the anti-retaliation provisions with minor additions, arguing that they are not duplicative and fall within the Department's authority. The document also discusses remedies for retaliation: The Department believes the remedies in the final rule are adequate, but adds front pay in lieu of reinstatement as an option. The Department declines to add "predicted lost pay" as a remedy, as it is speculative and far-reaching.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's authority to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and related statutes. Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 is cited as the source of this authority. The document references multiple court cases that affirm the Department's authority. The document discusses the anti-retaliation provisions in the final rule: The Department argues that the provisions are permissible and consistent with other remedies for retaliatory conduct. The Department disagrees with commenters who argue that the lack of explicit statutory authority prohibits the Secretary from regulating such behavior. The document discusses the process for addressing wage determinations that have been wrongly omitted from a contract: The current regulations are problematic and can lead to delays in recovering back wages. The Department proposes revisions to address these issues.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to include language in a new paragraph at § 5.5(e) to provide that the labor standards contract clauses and appropriate wage determinations will be effective "by operation of law" in circumstances where they have been wrongly omitted from a covered contract. The Department argues that this proposal will ensure that workers on covered contracts receive prevailing wages, regardless of any mistakes made by executive branch officials. The document discusses the similarities between the proposed operation-of-law provision and the Christian doctrine, which allows for required contractual provisions to be effective by operation of law even if they were not included in the contract. The document also discusses the differences between the proposed operation-of-law provision and the Christian doctrine, noting that the Department's proposal offers more consideration for contractor equities. The document discusses the Department's efforts to reduce the likelihood of erroneous omission of contract clauses and wage determinations, including conducting trainings and issuing guidance documents. The document discusses the Department's proposal to adopt changes to §§ 1.6, 5.5, and 5.6 to address longstanding enforcement challenges. The document references Amy Debisschop as the Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation within the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.

The document discusses various comments and concerns raised by different stakeholders in response to the Department's proposal to include the operation-of-law provision at § 5.5(e). Some commenters argue that the Department lacks the authority to implement the proposed rule, citing the explicit requirement in the DBA for contracting agencies to insert the contract clauses in covered contracts. Others express concern that the operation-of-law provision would not give contractors sufficient notice of the applicability of DBA requirements, which could lead to inadvertent noncompliance. Some commenters worry that the provision would increase costs to contractors, which could be passed on to the government. The Wiley Rein partners suggest that the Department should adapt the SCA regulation codified at 29 CFR 4.5(c) for use in the DBRA rule, or alternatively, that the operation-of-law provision should only be effective after a determination by the contracting agency or the Department that the DBRA applies to the contract at issue. Several commenters express support for the operation-of-law provision, noting that it will streamline enforcement and protect workers from being underpaid.

The Department ultimately agrees with those commenters that supported the implementation of the provision as proposed in the NPRM, and argues that the provision is not significantly different from the current incorporation and enforcement procedures. The document discusses the Department's response to comments and concerns raised by various stakeholders about the operation-of-law provision. The Department disagrees with the suggestion that the provision does not comport with procedural due process, arguing that contractors are already put on notice of the DBRA requirements through the language of § 5.5(e). The Department also argues that the operation-of-law provision will not materially increase costs to contractors or the government, as it will only be invoked in a small number of cases. The Department addresses concerns about the impact of the provision on subcontractors, noting that the provision only applies to prime contractors and that any residual effects on subcontractors will be minimal. The Department responds to comments that argue the provision is not legally permissible, asserting that the mandatory nature of the DBA's requirement to include contract clauses is the basis for the operation-of-law provision.

The Department argues that contractors will have sufficient notice of the applicability of DBA requirements through the regulation itself and the administrative procedures that allow contractors to challenge rulings. The document discusses the Department's response to concerns raised by the FTBA and the Wiley Rein partners about the NPRM's interpretation of the Call Henry decision. The Department argues that the FTBA's assertion that the Call Henry decision only discusses operation of law with regard to section 4(c) of the SCA is inaccurate. The Department also disagrees with the Wiley Rein partners' suggestion that the Coutu decision casts doubt on the Department's reference to the Christian doctrine. The Department argues that the operation-of-law provision in the final rule is consistent with the Coutu decision, and that the distinctions between the final rule and the Christian doctrine address the concerns that the Coutu Court raised. The document discusses the Department's reasoning for proposing the operation-of-law provision, noting that it will alleviate concerns about contractors' reliance on wage determinations and the potential for private parties to evade the Department's review of coverage determinations. The document references several cases and regulations that support the Department's reasoning.

The document discusses the Department's response to concerns raised by various commenters about the operation-of-law provision. The Department argues that the provision will not lead to an increase in bid protest litigation or expand the authority of the Court of Federal Claims. The Department also addresses concerns about the potential for False Claims Act litigation, arguing that the FCA's scienter requirement will limit the number of cases that could arise. The Department discusses the suggestion to replace the operation-of-law provision with a post-award procedure similar to the SCA regulation at 29 CFR 4.5(c), but ultimately rejects this suggestion. The Department argues that the operation-of-law provision will not create an end-run around the administrative procedures set up by contracting agencies and the Department. The document also discusses the compensation requirement, noting that the FAR will provide the applicable law for direct Federal procurement contracts.

The document discusses the applicability date of the rule, noting that the provisions of parts 3 and 5 of the final rule are generally applicable only to contracts entered into after the effective date of the final rule. The document discusses the proposed revision to § 3.11 to conform to the "operation of law" provision in § 5.5(e). The document discusses the proposed new provision at § 5.5(d) to clarify that the clauses and wage determinations are equally effective if they are incorporated by reference. The document discusses the proposed new operation-of-law paragraph in § 5.5(e) which makes all of the contract clauses required by § 5.5(a) effective by operation of law even when they have been wrongly omitted from a covered contract. The document discusses the proposed changes to § 1.6(f) to clarify that the requirements apply equally to projects carried out with Federal financial assistance as they do to DBA projects. The document discusses the proposed amendment to § 1.6(f) to refer to the wage determinations that must be newly incorporated as "correct" wage determinations instead of "valid" wage determinations. The document discusses the proposed amendment to § 1.6(f) to add to the reference in the current regulation to "supplemental agreements" or "change orders" as the methods for modifying contracts post-award to incorporate valid wage determinations.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise § 1.6(f) to allow contracting agencies to take action to correct missing or incorrect wage determinations. The document references the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, as the responsible agency, and mentions Amy Debisschop as the Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document discusses the Department's proposal to include new language at § 1.6(f)(3)(v) to clarify that the agency must suspend further payments or guarantees if the recipient refuses to incorporate the specified wage determination. The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise § 5.6(a)(1) to include language expressly providing a procedure for determining that the required contract clauses were wrongly omitted from a contract. The document discusses the Department's proposal to add an additional paragraph, (a)(1)(ii), to § 5.6(a)(1) to clarify that the agency must incorporate the clauses or require their incorporation.

The document discusses the Department's proposal to harmonize the DBA and Related Act debarment-related regulations by applying the longstanding DBA debarment standard and related provisions to the Related Acts as well. The document references Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, which provided that the Secretary of Labor was empowered to “prescribe appropriate standards, regulations, and procedures, which shall be observed by these agencies." The document discusses five changes to the Related Act debarment regulations: Adopting the DBA statutory debarment standard Adopting the DBA's mandatory 3-year debarment period for Related Act cases Permitting debarment of "responsible officers" under the Related Acts Clarifying that under the Related Acts as under the DBA, entities in which debarred entities or individuals have an “interest" may be debarred Making the regulatory scope of debarment language under the Related Acts consistent with the scope of debarment under the DBA The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise § 5.6(a)(ii) to ensure that agencies take every available step to ensure that workers on covered contracts are paid the prevailing wages that Congress intended. The document discusses the Department's proposal to revise the debarment regulations to promote consistent enforcement of the Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions and to clarify the debarment standards and procedures for the regulated community, adjudicators, investigators, and other stakeholders. The document discusses the Department's proposal to adopt the DBA "disregard of obligations" debarment standard as the sole debarment standard.

The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document proposes applying the "disregard of obligations" standard to Related Act cases in order to hold contractors accountable in a more consistent manner. The document references several cases in which the "disregard of obligations" standard was applied, including P.B.M.C., Inc., Ray Wilson Co., and Jamek Eng'g Servs., Inc. The document also references cases in which the "aggravated or willful" standard was applied, including J.D. Eckman, Inc., A. Vento Constr., and Fontaine Bros., Inc. The document argues that applying the "disregard of obligations" standard to all cases would improve compliance and enforcement, provide greater consistency and clarity, and eliminate confusion and litigation.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's proposal to revise the debarment provisions of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The Department proposes to make 3-year debarment mandatory under both the DBA and Related Acts, and to eliminate the provision allowing for early removal from the debarment list. The Department argues that the current regulations create confusion and inconsistency, and that the proposed changes would provide clarity and promote consistency. The document references several cases in which debarment for less than 3 years was found to be warranted, but argues that this has not improved the debarment process or compliance. The Department also proposes to revise the regulations to expressly state that responsible officers of contractors and subcontractors may be debarred if they disregard obligations to workers or subcontractors. The document references several cases in which responsible officers were debarred under both the DBA and Related Acts.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's proposal to revise the debarment provisions of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The Department proposes to make 3-year debarment mandatory under both the DBA and Related Acts, and to eliminate the provision allowing for early removal from the debarment list. The Department argues that the current regulations create confusion and inconsistency, and that the proposed changes would provide clarity and promote consistency. The document references several cases in which debarment for less than 3 years was found to be warranted, but argues that this has not improved the debarment process or compliance. The Department also proposes to revise the regulations to expressly state that responsible officers of contractors and subcontractors may be debarred if they disregard obligations to workers or subcontractors. The document references several cases in which responsible officers were debarred under both the DBA and Related Acts. The Department proposes to revise the regulatory language specifying the scope of Related Acts debarment to mirror the language specifying the scope of DBA debarment. Commenters generally agree that the proposed changes would provide clarity and enhance compliance with the DBRA labor standards provisions. Some commenters object to the Department's authority to change the debarment standard for Related Acts, and argue that the proposed changes would be burdensome for small and midsize contractors.

The document discusses comments received in response to the Department's proposal to harmonize the DBA and Related Act debarment standards. Some commenters argue that the proposal is ambiguous and does not provide enough guidance on how responsible officers will be determined or what constitutes a substantial interest in a debarred company. The Department argues that the current dual debarment standard is not arbitrary or capricious, and that the heightened standard for Related Act debarment may have been chosen to accommodate the regulated community's relative inexperience with Related Act work. The Department cites a case in which the court affirmed the Department's authority to debar contractors for willful or aggravated violations of Related Acts. The Department argues that the proposed changes will improve consistency and effectiveness of enforcement, and will advance the objective of providing more uniform and adequate protection for workers.

The Department argues that the dual debarment standard has not always improved consistency of enforcement and administration, and that the proposed changes will make the debarment process easier to understand and more consistent. The Department discusses the history of the Related Act debarment provisions, and argues that the proposed changes are necessary to achieve the objectives of Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950. The Department argues that the "disregard of obligations" standard is not new, and that the proposed changes will not be a radical change, but will simply apply the longstanding DBA debarment provisions to all DBRA debarments. The Department argues that the "disregard of obligations" standard is not ambiguous, and that the case-by-case approach will be fairly administered and readily understood by the regulated community.

The Department argues that contractors are responsible for knowing the law and complying with DBRA labor standards requirements, and that debarment is warranted even for first-time violators. The Department provides examples of actions or omissions that could constitute a debarrable disregard of obligations to workers or subcontractors. 57 The document discusses the importance of contractors and subcontractors understanding and adhering to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The document references cases in which contractors were debarred for violating the DBRA, including cases in which contractors paid employees less than prevailing wages, misclassified workers, or omitted workers from payroll. The document clarifies that unintentional violations that are merely negligent would not warrant debarment, but that bad faith or gross negligence can constitute a disregard of obligations. The document discusses the illegality of "kickbacks" and the importance of contractors submitting weekly statements about wages paid to each worker. The document provides examples of actions that would constitute a disregard of obligations, such as failing to read DBRA provisions, not keeping proper records, or not including DBA provisions in subcontracts. The document discusses the difference between violations that constitute a disregard of obligations and those that are willful or aggravated.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's decision to harmonize the debarment standards for the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Related Acts. The document explains that the Department is adopting the "disregard of obligations" standard for debarment under the Related Acts, which is the current standard for the DBA. The document argues that this change will reduce repeat violations by contractors and subcontractors, as they will face the possibility of debarment for a broader range of actions and inactions. The document discusses the Department's authority to make this change, citing Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, which authorizes the Department to adopt regulations that promote consistent enforcement and more efficient administration of the DBRA. The document discusses the history of debarment as an enforcement tool, noting that it was added to the DBA in 1935 to address the problem of repeat violators.

The document discusses the Department's decision to codify case law about debarment of "responsible officers" in Related Act cases, as well as the Department's position about debarment of entities in which debarred parties have an "interest." The document discusses the Department's debarment procedures, which provide contractors and responsible officers with due process protections. The document discusses the importance of clarifying that the DBA's labor standards requirements apply even when there is no employment relationship between a contractor and worker. The document references case law that supports this principle, noting that the DBA applies to all workers on a project regardless of any label or lack thereof. The document proposes changes to the regulations to reinforce this principle, including adding a definition of "employed" in part 1 and clarifying the definition in part 3. The document also proposes changing references to "employment" in the regulations to refer to "workers," "laborers and mechanics," or "work." The document discusses comments received on the proposal, with most supporting the changes and arguing that they will help address the widespread misclassification of employees as independent contractors. The document responds to one comment that opposed the changes, asserting that they would expand joint employer liability, by explaining that the changes are meant to reinforce an already established principle.

The document discusses the importance of withholding funds from contractors in order to ensure that workers are paid the prevailing wage and overtime. The document references specific sections of the DBRA, DBA, and CWHSSA that allow for withholding. The document proposes regulatory revisions to reinforce the current withholding provisions. The document discusses the use of single-purpose LLCs and joint ventures in government contracting, noting that this has increased in recent decades. The document argues that the regulations need to be amended to allow for cross-withholding in these cases, in order to close an enforcement gap. The document discusses the history of cross-withholding, noting that it was first allowed in 1982. The document proposes changes to the cross-withholding contract clause language in order to clarify and strengthen the Department's ability to cross-withhold. The document responds to a comment that opposed the changes, asserting that they would expand prime contractor liability, by explaining that the liability is based on statutory language rather than joint employment.

The document discusses proposed changes to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor (DOL) is the responsible agency for these regulations. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document proposes changes to the withholding clauses in § 5.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) of the DBRA regulations. The proposed changes would allow for cross-withholding from contracts held by different legal entities, in order to ensure that workers are paid the prevailing wage. The document argues that the proposed changes are necessary to prevent contractors from using single-purpose entities or joint ventures to avoid paying workers the prevailing wage. The document references case law that supports the use of cross-withholding in these circumstances. The document also proposes changes to § 5.9 to clarify that cross-withholding is only appropriate if the withholding provisions are incorporated into the contract. The document responds to comments in support of the proposed changes, noting that they are necessary to ensure that workers are paid the prevailing wage and to prevent law-abiding contractors from being undercut. The document responds to comments opposing the proposed changes, arguing that cross-withholding is authorized by the DBRA.

The document discusses comments from various stakeholders regarding the proposed changes to the DBRA regulations. Some commenters argue that the DBRA does not allow for cross-withholding, and that legislative action is required to clarify the policy. Others argue that cross-withholding could violate the "Purpose Statute" and the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Department of Labor (DOL) rejects these claims, arguing that the DBRA does not specify from which contract funds should be withheld, and that cross-withholding is consistent with the common-law right of "offset." The DOL also argues that cross-withholding is necessary to ensure that workers are paid the prevailing wage, and cites case law in support of this position. Some commenters express concern about the due process implications of cross-withholding, and suggest that the regulations should prohibit funds from being withheld until the Administrative Review Board (ARB) has reviewed and approved the proposed withholding. The DOL disagrees with these concerns, and argues that cross-withholding does not violate any statutes governing the use of appropriated funds.

The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document addresses concerns about cross-withholding, which is a mechanism to satisfy a contractor's DBRA underpayment liability. One commenter argues that cross-withholding violates the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Purpose Statute, and the "anti-augmentation principle." The document refutes these claims, arguing that cross-withholding is authorized by law and does not involve any impermissible transfer or augmentation. The document also addresses concerns about due process for contractors, arguing that the withholding process provides ample due process.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's (DOL) priority to funds withheld for violations of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA). The DOL clarifies that it has priority over competing claims to withheld funds, including those from a contractor's surety, contracting agency, trustee, assignee, successor, or claims under the Prompt Payment Act. The document also discusses the scope of withholding, noting that it is broad and includes the full amount of unpaid wages and monetary relief. The document clarifies that funds may be suspended when a contractor fails to submit certified payroll or provide required records. The document makes several changes to the proposed rule, including clarifying edits to the withholding contract clauses and adding language to specify that suspension of funds must occur until funds are withheld as necessary.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's (DOL) priority to funds withheld for violations of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA). The document references the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) as the responsible agency, and mentions Amy Debisschop as the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document discusses the rationale for the DOL's priority to withheld funds, noting that it would be "inequitable and contrary to public policy" to allow other claims to take precedence. The document discusses various court cases that support the DOL's position, including cases that establish that withheld funds are not property of the contractor-debtor's bankruptcy estate. The document discusses the proposed language in the contract clause that would prioritize the DOL's claims over other competing claims, noting that the final rule adopts the changes as proposed.

The document discusses the addition of a new subpart C, titled "Severability," which would contain a new § 5.40, also titled "Severability." The document discusses the DOL's position that the various provisions within part 1 and part 5 are generally able to operate independently from one another. The document discusses the applicability date of the final rule, noting that it will generally apply only to contracts that are entered into after the effective date of the final rule. The document discusses the importance of plain language and the use of gender-neutral terminology. The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The document references the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, as the responsible agency, and mentions Amy Debisschop as the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation.

The document discusses the applicability date of the final rule, noting that it will generally apply only to new contracts entered into after the effective date of October 23, 2023. The document discusses exceptions to the applicability date, including for contracts that are changed to include substantial covered work, for contracts where an option to extend the term is exercised, and for certain ongoing contracts. The document discusses the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Department's obligation to consider the impact of paperwork and information collection burdens on the public. The document discusses the Department's information collection requirements, including the Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll and Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans. The document discusses the final rule's additions and revisions to § 5.5(a)(1) and § 5.28. The document discusses the requirement for contractors and subcontractors to maintain and preserve Davis-Bacon contracts, subcontracts, and related documents for 3 years after all the work on the prime contract is completed.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's (DOL) information collection requirements related to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The document references two information collections: the Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll (OMB control number 1235-0008) and Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans (OMB control number 1235-0023). The document discusses the requirement for contractors and subcontractors to maintain records related to contracts and subcontracts, including bids, proposals, amendments, modifications, and extensions. The document discusses the importance of accurate recordkeeping for transparency and accountability in the construction industry. The document discusses the Department's proposal to add a recordkeeping requirement to retain telephone number and email address, noting that this information should be available to DOL and contracting agencies upon request. The document discusses the Department's proposal to prohibit the use of conformances to "split, subdivide or otherwise avoid application of classifications listed in the wage determination." The document discusses comments received on the proposed rule, with some commenters expressing support for the proposed changes and others expressing concern about the potential burden on contractors.

The document discusses the Department's response to comments, noting that the final rule adopts the changes as proposed. The document discusses the Department's analysis that the final rule creates a slight increase in paperwork burden associated with the Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll and no increase in burden to the Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans. The document discusses the Department's determination that the final rule is a "significant regulatory action" within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. -175 The document discusses the Department of Labor's (DOL) updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The document references Executive Order 13563, which requires agencies to consider costs and benefits when making regulatory changes. The document discusses the Department's decision to return to the "three-step" method for determining the prevailing wage. The document discusses the Department's decision to revise § 1.6(c)(1) to provide a mechanism to regularly update certain non-collectively bargained prevailing wage rates based on the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The document discusses the impact of the rule on contractors and workers, noting that only a subset of firms will be substantively affected. The document discusses the Department's analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule, estimating that the rule will cost $39.3 million in the first year and $7.3 million annually over the first ten years.

The document discusses the Department's goals in updating the DBRA regulations, including providing greater clarity, enhancing their usefulness, and addressing outstanding challenges. The document discusses specific changes the Department is making to the DBRA regulations, including returning to the definition of "prevailing wage" used from 1935 to 1983, revising the delineation of wage survey data, and reducing the need for "conformances." The document discusses the Department's decision to strengthen enforcement by making effective any contract clauses or wage determinations that were wrongly omitted from contracts. The document discusses the number of firms and workers potentially affected by the rule, estimating that 92,800 firms and 1.2 million workers could be impacted. The document outlines the methodology used to estimate the number of potentially affected workers, which is based on the approach used in the 2021 final rule "Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors." The document discusses the methodology used to estimate the number of firms impacted by the Related Acts, estimating that between 152,900 and 184,500 firms could be affected. The document discusses the methodology used to estimate the number of workers impacted by the Related Acts, estimating that 883,900 workers could be affected. The document discusses the methodology used to estimate the number of workers impacted by the rule in the U.S. territories, estimating that 6,100 workers could be affected.

The document discusses the demographics of the construction industry, noting that the majority of workers are male and Hispanic. The document provides demographic data on registered apprentices, noting that the majority are male and white. The document discusses the costs associated with the final rule, estimating that the total costs will be $7.3 million over the first ten years. The document discusses the regulatory familiarization costs associated with the final rule, estimating that it will take an average of four hours for a human resources staff member to review the rule. The document discusses the implementation costs associated with the final rule, noting that they are higher than those in the proposed rule due to a larger estimate of the time required to review the regulation.

The document discusses the implementation costs associated with more frequently updated rates, estimating that the Department of Labor (DOL) will publish new wage rates from an average of 7.8 wage surveys per year. The document notes that some firms will not incur additional implementation costs because they already pay updated prevailing wage rates regularly. The document discusses the regulatory familiarization costs associated with the final rule, estimating that it will take an average of four hours for a human resources staff member to review the rule. The document discusses the implementation costs associated with the final rule, noting that they are higher than those in the proposed rule due to a larger estimate of the time required to review the regulation. The document discusses the construction costs and inflation associated with the final rule, noting that the impact on wages will be marginal and the direct employer costs will be manageable. The document discusses other provisions of the rule, including the adoption of state and local government prevailing wage rates and the clarification of the scope of coverage under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA).

The document discusses the provision to allow the Department of Labor (DOL) to combine rural and metropolitan county data in order to determine prevailing wage rates. The document discusses the provision to allow the DOL to publish prevailing wage rates even when there is insufficient data. The document discusses the provision to allow the DOL to adopt state and local prevailing wage rates under certain conditions. The document clarifies existing policies, such as the definitions of "building or work" and "public building or public work." The document discusses the provision to expand the definition of "site of the work" to include certain secondary worksites. The document discusses the provision to require contract clauses and wage determinations to be effective by operation of law in covered contracts.

The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) regulations. The Department of Labor (DOL), Wage and Hour Division is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document discusses the potential impact of the revision to the definition of "prevailing wage" and the provision to update out-of-date SU rates using the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The document discusses the potential administrative burden on agencies, but anticipates that the total amount of time involved would not be significant. The document discusses the potential for limited transfers to workers in the form of increased wages. The document discusses other provisions, such as the requirement for contracting agencies to incorporate the most recent revision(s) of any applicable wage determination(s) on each anniversary date of the contract's award. The document includes a retrospective analysis of the impact of the 30-percent threshold on wage determinations for several occupations in recent years.

The document discusses the results of the retrospective analysis, which differ depending on the state and construction type. The document contains multiple tables detailing the prevalence of calculated prevailing wages in an analyzed subset, by publication rule, by classification, and by construction type. Table 6 shows the change in fringe benefit rates for various crafts, including cement masons, laborers, plumbers, roofers, bricklayers, and electricians. Table 7 shows the prevalence of calculated prevailing wages by construction type, including heavy, highway, residential, and building construction. The document discusses the impact of changing from the current to the new definition of "prevailing" on wage rates and fringe benefit rates. Table 8 summarizes the difference in calculated prevailing wage rates using the three-step process compared to the current process, disaggregated by craft. Table 9 summarizes the difference in calculated prevailing wage rates using the three-step process compared to the current process, disaggregated by construction type.

The document discusses the impact of updating out-of-date prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates, which would result in transfers of income to workers on Davis-Bacon projects. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the responsible agency for the regulation. Amy DeBisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document references the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OEWS) data as a general estimate of wages paid to certain categories of workers. The document discusses the use of the BLS Employment Cost Index (ECI) to update wage rates. Table 10 provides summary statistics of the per hour transfers to workers that may occur due to updating out-of-date non-collectively bargained Davis-Bacon wage rates. The document discusses potential cost savings for both contractors and the Federal Government as a result of the rule.

The document discusses the potential benefits of the rule, including improved government services, increased productivity, and reduced turnover. It references multiple studies that suggest that bidding for municipal contracts remains competitive or even improves when living wage ordinances are implemented. The document also discusses the Department's clarifications throughout the rule, which will make it clear which contract workers are covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA). The document references various studies that suggest that union workers are more productive than non-union members, and that higher wages can lead to increased productivity. The document acknowledges that the literature cited does not directly consider changes in the DBRA prevailing wages, but argues that the general findings may still be applicable.

The document discusses the potential benefits of the rule, including improved government services, increased productivity, and reduced turnover. It references multiple studies that suggest that bidding for municipal contracts remains competitive or even improves when living wage ordinances are implemented. The document also discusses the Department's clarifications throughout the rule, which will make it clear which contract workers are covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA). The document references various studies that suggest that union workers are more productive than non-union members, and that higher wages can lead to increased productivity.

The document acknowledges that the literature cited does not directly consider changes in the DBRA prevailing wages, but argues that the general findings may still be applicable. The document discusses the need for rulemaking and the objectives of the final rule, which include updating and modernizing the regulations at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5. The document references the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which require Federal agencies to consider the impact of their proposals on small entities. The document discusses the potential impact of the rule on small businesses, noting that the Department does not have data to identify the number of firms that will experience changes in payroll costs. The document discusses the Department's response to comments from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and other small business commenters, noting that the Department has increased the time estimate for rule familiarization.

The document discusses the Department's decision not to expand coverage to prefabrication companies, material suppliers, or truck drivers, but to codify existing policy with minor changes. -195 The document discusses the Department of Labor's updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The document references the Wage and Hour Division as the responsible agency, and Amy Debisschop as the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document discusses the methodology used to estimate the number of potentially affected small businesses, which ranges from 101,700 to 127,800. The document discusses the impact of the rule on small businesses, estimating that direct employer costs will total $39.3 million in Year 1, with average annualized costs of $7.3 million over 10 years.

The document discusses the rule's changes to recordkeeping requirements, which include a longer retention period and the requirement to maintain worker telephone numbers and email addresses. The document discusses the rule's clarifications to existing policies, such as the definitions of "building or work" and "public building or public work," the applicability of the "material supplier" exemption, and the extent to which demolition activities are covered by the DBRA. The document discusses the rule's revision of the definition of "site of the work" to include certain secondary worksites, which could lead to more small firms being required to comply with Davis-Bacon labor standards.

The document discusses the Department of Labor's decision to revise its discussion of alternatives to the rule in order to provide greater clarity in the DBRA regulations. The document discusses the potential impact of the rule on small businesses, noting that the number of newly covered entities will be small and that the rule does not significantly expand the scope of Davis-Bacon coverage. The document discusses the Department's decision to narrow the scope of coverage at secondary construction sites in order to alleviate the cost concerns of small businesses. The document discusses potential alternatives to the rule, such as relaxing recordkeeping requirements, but the Department has decided against these alternatives in order to promote effective compliance and enforcement. The document discusses the rule's compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, noting that the rule is not expected to exceed the threshold for an unfunded Federal mandate.

The document discusses the rule's compliance with Executive Order 13132, noting that the rule does not have federalism implications. The document discusses the rule's compliance with Executive Order 13175, noting that the rule does not have Tribal implications. The document includes two appendices: one listing surveys included in the prevailing wage demonstration, and the other outlining the Department's wage determination protocols. The document begins by defining key terms such as "area," "construction type," and "United States or the District of Columbia." It discusses the process for determining wage rates and fringe benefits, including the use of data from various sources such as contractors, labor organizations, and public officials. The document outlines the process for obtaining and compiling wage rate information, including the types of information that the Administrator will consider. It discusses the Administrator's authority to adopt State or local wage rates under certain circumstances. The document also discusses the requirement for Federal agencies to report their construction programs to the Administrator on an annual basis.

The document discusses the publication of general wage determinations and the procedure for requesting project wage determinations. It outlines the requirements for submitting a request for a project wage determination, including the need to provide detailed information about the project and the classifications needed. The document discusses the validity and expiration of wage determinations, noting that general wage determinations remain valid until revised, superseded, or canceled. It outlines the circumstances under which a revised wage determination is effective with respect to a particular contract or project. The document also discusses the responsibility of contracting agencies to identify and incorporate appropriate wage determinations into bid solicitations and contract specifications. It addresses the process for revising wage determinations, noting that revisions may be made to keep them current or to reflect changes in prevailing wage rates.

The document discusses the requirement for contracting agencies to incorporate the most recent revision of wage determinations into contracts on each anniversary date of the contract's award. It outlines the circumstances under which the Department of Labor may grant an exception to this requirement. The document discusses the process for incorporating updated wage determinations into task orders, purchase orders, or other similar contract instruments. It addresses the requirement for agencies to correct wage determinations that contain clerical errors. The document discusses the process for incorporating a wage determination after contract award or after the beginning of construction if the agency has failed to incorporate a wage determination or has used an incorrect wage determination. It outlines the process for terminating a contract or withholding funds if a recipient or sub-recipient of federal assistance refuses to incorporate the required wage determination.

The document discusses the process for making a wage determination when current wage data is not available. It addresses the process for requesting reconsideration of a wage determination or a decision by the Administrator. The document discusses the "anti-kickback" regulations under the Copeland Act and the application of these regulations to contracts subject to federal wage standards. -205 The document discusses updates to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts regulations. The Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division is the responsible agency. Amy Debisschop is the director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation. The document defines various terms, such as "building or work," "construction, prosecution, completion, or repair," "public building or work," and "agency." It outlines the obligation of contractors and subcontractors to submit weekly statements regarding wages paid. It also sets forth the circumstances and procedures for making payroll deductions.

The document specifies permissible methods of payment. It discusses the requirement for contractors and subcontractors to preserve payroll records for three years. It also outlines exceptions to these requirements, such as for contracts under $2,000 or when the Secretary of Labor grants an exemption. The document defines additional terms, such as "Administrator," "agency," "Federal agency," "Agency Head," "apprentice," and "helper." It discusses the requirement for contracts to include the regulations in this part, but notes that the requirements are effective by operation of law even if they are not included in the contract. It outlines the process for applying for approval from the Secretary of Labor to make payroll deductions. It revises the authority citation for part 5 and revises § 5.1 to clarify the purpose and scope of the regulations. It revises § 5.2 to provide definitions for "building or work," "construction, prosecution, completion, or repair," and "contract." It also defines "contracting officer," "contractor," and "Davis-Bacon labor standards."

The document defines additional terms, such as "development statute," "site of the work," "material supplier," "prime contractor," "laborer or mechanic," and "public building or public work." It discusses the definition of "wage determination" and the application of the wage determination in accordance with § 1.6. It revises § 5.5 to include new contract clauses, such as minimum wages, wage rates and fringe benefits, and frequently recurring classifications. It also revises the definition of "subcontractor" and clarifies the definition of "wages." -The document discusses the process for withholding funds from a contractor in order to satisfy liabilities for wage violations. It outlines the criteria for conformance of an additional classification and wage rate. It specifies the process for referring questions to the Administrator for determination. It discusses the requirements for record-keeping and certified payrolls, including the information that must be included and the length of time records must be kept. It also discusses the requirements for fringe benefits and apprenticeship programs.

The document discusses the ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers that is allowed on a job site, and the wage rates that must be observed. It outlines the process for submitting records to the Department of Labor, and the consequences for failing to do so. It discusses the requirements for equal employment opportunity, and the sanctions for non-compliance. It also outlines the process for subcontracting, and the responsibilities of the prime contractor. Finally, it discusses the anti-retaliation provisions of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The document begins by outlining the requirement for contractors to maintain regular payrolls and other basic records for three years after the completion of a contract. It specifies the information that must be included in these records, such as worker classification, hours worked, and wages paid. The document also requires that these records be made available for inspection by the Department of Labor. It then discusses the requirement for agencies to ensure that the clauses required by § 5.5 are included in contracts, and the consequences for failing to do so.

The document goes on to discuss the enforcement responsibilities of federal agencies, which include investigating contracts for compliance and interviewing workers. It also outlines the process for suspending or withholding funds from contractors who are not in compliance with the labor standards provisions. Finally, the document discusses the confidentiality requirements for workers who make complaints or provide information during investigations. The document begins by outlining the process for resolving disputes concerning payment of wages, including the different ways in which a dispute can be initiated. It discusses the possibility of cross-withholding funds from different contracts held by the same contractor. The document then outlines the process for requesting a hearing to dispute the Administrator's findings, and the procedures for such a hearing. It goes on to discuss the process for restitution in cases where workers have been underpaid or suffered monetary damages. The document also outlines the process for debarment proceedings, including the standard for debarment and the procedure for requesting a hearing. Finally, the document discusses the process for determining whether a debarred party has an interest in another firm.

The document begins by outlining the process for requesting rulings and interpretations on wage determinations and rules. It then discusses the process for requesting reconsideration of a ruling or interpretation. The document goes on to discuss the limitations, variations, tolerances, and exemptions under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. It then outlines the process for remedying retaliation against workers or job applicants. The document discusses the scope and significance of the Davis-Bacon fringe benefits provisions, and the effect of these provisions. It goes on to explain the process for calculating the rate of contribution or cost for fringe benefits, and the requirements for unfunded plans. The document discusses the definition of fringe benefits under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, and the requirements for unfunded plans. It outlines the process for requesting approval of an unfunded plan from the Secretary of Labor. The document discusses the types of wage determinations and how fringe benefits may be listed on wage determinations. It outlines the ways in which a contractor or subcontractor can meet wage determination obligations. The document discusses the administrative expenses of a contractor or subcontractor, and which costs are creditable towards wage obligations. Finally, the document includes a severability clause.

[View source.]