Two formal hearings were conducted in the matter, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 3-4, 1998, and in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on April 28-29, 1998. The United States Department of Labor, the respondent corporation and Mr. Thomas were all represented by counsel. The parties were given the full opportunity to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Government exhibits 1-19, Respondent exhibits 1-2, and, Joint exhibits 1-2 were admitted without objection at the first hearing. Government exhibits 20-32 and 34-37, and Respondent exhibits 3-5, were admitted at the second hearing. Post-hearing briefs were submitted by the Petitioner and by the Respondents on July 10, 1998.

40 U.S.C. § 276a(a). Construction contracts must contain a stipulation requiring the advertised wages be paid and the applicable wages must be posted at the site.

   The parties stipulated and I find that this forum has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this dispute. (TR 13-14).

   Two contracts between the respondents and two U.S. government agencies are involved:

   1. Contract No. N62472-90-C-0410, "Roof Repair, Naval Marine Corps Reserve Center (NMCRC), Wilmington, DE" for the Wilmington, Delaware, Naval Reserve Center, allegedly covering the period of July 30, 1991-August 10, 1992 (hereinafter the "Naval Reserve" contract)(GX 1); and,

   2. Contract No. F36629-93-C-007 (Roof Repair) for the Pittsburgh Air National Guard allegedly covering the period of July 12, 1993-July 14, 1994 (hereinafter the "Air Guard" contract).

   The Naval Reserve contract project description was:

The work includes the complete removal of the existing slag surfaced, built-up roof membranes, membrane flashings, metal flashings and insulation down to the structural concrete and steel substrates. The provision of new gravel surfaced, 4-ply glass built-up roof membranes, insulation and bituminous and sheet metal flashings and incidental related work.

   The Naval Reserve Contract Solicitation included and provided that the following documents, among others, would form the contract:

1. Labor Standard Provisions (Feb 1990);
2. Contract Clauses - Construction Contracts (Oct 1990);
3. Wage Determination, Secretary of Labor Decision No. DE91-2 (April 12, 1991) including Modification No. 1 (March 8, 1991) and No. 2 (April 12, 1991); and,
4. The Solicitation, Offer and Award (Standard Form 1442).

   The parties further agreed that Contract No. N62472-90-C-0410 for the Wilmington, Delaware Naval Reserve Center, was held by the Respondents for the time period of July 30, 1991 to August 10, 1992 and the dollar amount of said contract was in excess of $50,000. Wage Determination DE91-02 was attached to Solicitations for Contract No. N62472-90-C-0410. The Respondents filed no challenge to said Wage Determination prior to bidding on the contract, however, they have objected to the "wholesale and unnoticed inclusion by DOL of multiple tasks within a single wage rate." The Respondents paid all the above individuals at the hourly rate listed on the Form WH-55 prepared for that individual for the period listed under the column labeled "Year and Workweek Ending" and each individual, except as otherwise noted, worked for the number of hours listed under the column labeled "total" for each workweek listed under the column "Year and Workweek Ending."

   Based on the testimony of Mr. Durbin, the Department of Labor Regional Wage Specialist, and Government Exhibits 5, 36, and 37, I find Mr. Sinkiewicz worked 39 hours the week ending 5/23 and was paid $551.00 for an hourly rate of $14.13. I find he worked 15.5 hours the week of 6/20 as proven by the DOL. The DOL established Mrs. Scarpulla, Porvasnik and Lobue worked as the DOL claimed the week of 6/20. I find Mr. Porvasnik worked as the DOL claimed the week of 6/6. (GX 5, 36, 37).

   The parties agreed that the following individuals were Respondents' employees, during the time period of October 1, 1993 to July 14, 1994, who performed worked under Contract No. F36629-93-C-0007 for the Pittsburgh Air National Guard:

   Those certified payroll records further showed, as early as 5/16/92, that named employees who hauled debris off the roof were classified as "laborers" and paid a wage of $19.00 per hour, those who applied roofing were classified as "roofers" and/or "mechanics" and paid a wage of $28.50 per hour and "kettlemen" were paid a wage of $24.50 per hour. (GX 5, #4).

   On May 17, 1992, Jeffrey Cantwell, President, Falcon Associates, Inc., a subcontractor, certified the proper classification and payment of his employees: Burns, Pederson, Drumwright, Hurst, and, Moore. (GX 5). Likewise, Frank Cannella, a subcontractor who removed gravel, certified the same on May 5, 1992. (GX 5).

   On June 3, 1992, Carl Hutchinson, a Department of the Navy Supervisory Construction Representative, wrote to the Respondents informing them "[A]ll employees connected with the removal of old and the application of new roofing systems shall be classified as roofers." (GX 6).

   Mr. Hutchinson wrote to the Respondents, on June 16, 1992, concerning the latter's reply to the "OIC Letter to Thomas & Sons dated 3 June 1992." (GX 7). He pointed out that the Wage Determination (DE91-2) does not include in its laborer definition a work procedure involving roofs and that the DOL defined "area practice" governs the classification of employees. He also said employees must be reimbursed for erroneous payments listed on the payrolls. (GX 7).

   The Respondents replied to Mr. Hutchinson's June 16, 1992 letter, on June 22, 1992, informing the latter the "problem" regarding Mr. Vannote was resolved and questioning the DOL classification situation. (GX 8). Mr. Thomas admitted having no government documents stating that only roofers may be used on the project or any other project. He had learned the Navy learned of the "roofers only" position through Roofer's Union, Local 30, and asked why bidders had not been so informed prior to bidding. He accused the Navy of having foreknowledge of the DOL requirement at least two years in advance. He ended by informing the Navy he was awaiting written DOL confirmation of the "roofers only" classification. (GX 8).

   The Respondents introduced a letter by Carl Hutchinson, the Navy's Supervisory Construction Representative for the Naval contract, dated June 29, 1992, to the DOL, informing the latter it was withholding $10,000 from the Respondents' contract for possible wage violations, i.e., the classification of employees involved with removal and reinstallation of a roofing system as "laborers". (RX 2). Mr. Hutchinson asked for written documentation concerning the area precedent (practice) of classifying all workers engaged in removal of roofing debris, tearing and/or scraping off of old roofing systems or installation of new roofing systems as "roofers," in order for him to enforce the wage action. (RX 2).

   These documents revealed that the Respondent's workforce included non-roofers when various roofing work was performed, such as, ripping off roof, removing roofing materials and filling dumpsters with it, rolling and mopping-in roof plies, and installing insulation and roofing. They also show that both Vannote and Respondent employees were utilized as laborers and roofers at various times. The reports do not generally illustrate the exact nature of the work performed by each trade.

   "Gravel removers" working for Garden State were used to remove stones. Roofers, asbestos specialists and laborers were on site when asbestos was removed from the roof. On May 29, 1992, the reports show the work performed was "ripping off roof and reinsulating, reroofing and cleaning up work area," yet the workforce included only one roofer (Edward Vollrath) and one kettleman (Victor Siemanawicz) out of a group of eight employees. The reports reflect some work was done in the presence of Carl Hutchinson and Mike Mack. On June 2, 1992, the report shows the work included "ripping off and reinstalling roof" yet no roofers and one kettleman worked. It appears that generally when roofing was ripped-off and replaced or when the four-ply system was installed, both laborers and roofers were on the site. On June 10, 1992, the typed Daily Report shows one roofer worked while the handwritten Daily Report shows six did. On June 12, 1992, the handwritten report shows four roofers/kettleman for cleaning and preparing roof tops, yet the typed version shows only one roofer/kettleman. On June 15, 1992, five roofers/kettleman are reported on the handwritten report but only two roofers/kettleman on the typed.

   It appears whenever "hot tar" was used on the roof, four-ply roof system was applied or stone was being "spotted", "roofers" and a "kettleman" were reportedly used on the site. The reports in late June-early July 1992 regarding "working on metal flashing on south wing" showed no roofers worked. No roofers were used on July 7, 1992, to "complete the lower north wing roof" which included extending the roof edges or on July 13-14, 1992 for "blocking out roof and framing." "Sheet metal" tradesmen were used to install metal flashings and fascia. "Metal-roofers" were used in late July-early August to install fascia, soffit, caulk, installing gravel stops, resecuring mechanical roof equipment, hot tarring edges and adding tapered board to roof edges. No "laborers" were used those days. Roofers were used August 6-7, 1992 to put hot tar on roof edges, install flashings, expansion joints, and roof rings for drains. No "laborers" were used those days. No roofers were used during the final clean-up August 10-14, 1992 and September 18, 1992.

   The Petitioner submitted a "Working Agreement of the United Union of Roofers, Local 30, and the Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association of Philadelphia and Vicinity" for the period of May 1, 1989-April 30, 1993. (GX 15). The collective bargaining agreement is applicable to all workmen performing the work of roofers in the Philadelphia-Wilmington area working for employers having signed contracts with the union. (Articles V, Sections 1, 2 and 4). Article V describes the nature of "roofer's" work encompassed by the agreement and Article XI the minimum hourly wage for doing such work within the jurisdiction of Local 30. Article XIII, Section 4, states, "Journeymen roofers shall handle all roofing material on the job . . . (and) to move, load or unload on the job site all roofing materials and/or roofing equipment except for an occasional piece(s) of equipment delivered to, or received from, the job site before the job begins or after it ends . . ." Article XIV, Section 1, subparagraph (b) provides, "There shall be no less than two (2) roofers on any roofing work . . . except on repair work where only cold material used . . ." Article XIV, Section 1, subparagraph 3, states, "There will be a kettleman in attendance at all times . . . This provision shall not apply to re-roofing . . ."

   Appendix A of the Working Agreement lists the following gross labor cost for journeymen roofers as: $26.18 (increased $1.50 each 5/1) for the period of 5/1/89-4/30/93.

   Article V describes the nature of "roofer's" work provides that the agreement applies to any work upon delivery to the hoist or point of operation (if on ground) in unloading, handling, and applying the following materials:

(a) All Spandrel and through-wall flashing;
(b) All compressed or chemical prepared paper, glass, rubber, plastic, vapor barrier or other substitutions, including dry sheet, and all burlap, ducking, or other fabric, prepared or otherwise, when used for roofing or damp or waterproofing purposes together with all coating thereof;
(c) All bituminous or other damp-resisting and waterproofing preparations when applied with a mop, sprayer, trowel, roller or brush and all primer in connection with roofing or damp or waterproofing work;
(d) All gravel, slag, tile, brick, or wood blocks and all cork, fiberboard, flaxilinum, fibre-felt, fiberglass, or foam glass, any analogous material when nailed or embedded in pitch, tar asphalt, bituminous cement, or any analogous substance, when used as a roofing, damp or waterproofing base or vapor barrier and including insulation when used on inside or outside of walls;
(e) All single-ply roofing, damp-proofing or waterproofing systems, either liquid or sheet applied;

(f) All plastic, slate, and all tar-rock or any analogous type of damp-resisting floor fill or perimeter insulation;
(g) All roofing, damp-proofing and/or waterproofing plastics whether sprayed on, brushed on or applied in any other fashion.
(h) Any and all other materials whose general nature, purpose, and/or method of application are analogous to any of the foregoing.
(i) All work in connection with the removal of roofing debris, tearing off and scraping off of old roofing as well as ripping off all tile work in conjunction with the application of a new roof at the same deck location.
(j) All work in regard to the cutting of holes in a roof and the patching of the same except where done in connection with the installation of an occasional pipe of minimal size or the cutting of occasional holes.
(k) It is specifically understood that the coverage of this agreement includes all work on tankers, kettles, vacuum machine, and other instrumentalities performing similar functions.
(l) Any moisture and/or chemically resistant lining (sheet or fluid applied) installed to contain (or supplement containment) fluids and/or slurries in connection with the following: Reservoirs, ponds, Lagoons, Tanks, Sluices/Troughs/Aqueducts, Pipes and Land Disposal Facilities including Liners and Covers; and
(m) Application of any material used to stop, deter, protect or contain water or moisture.

   The Petitioner submitted the "Constitution & By-Laws United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers" which lists the work performed by roofers, in Article II, Section 5, and states:

All tear-off and/or removal of any type of roofing, all spudding, sweeping, vacuuming and/or cleanup of any kind and all areas of any type where a roof is to be relaid, or any materials and operation of equipment such as kettles, pumps, tankers, or any heating devices that are used on roofing or waterproofing systems coming under the scope of jurisdiction as outlined in Article II.

   Article II, Section 3, describes the work performed and materials used by "composition" roofers:

All forms of plastic, slate, slag, gravel, or rock roofing, including all types of aggregates, blocks, bricks, stones or pavers used to ballast or protect Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA) roofs or roofs of similar construction where the insulation is laid over the roof membrane.
All kinds of asphalt and composition roofing.
All kinds of coal tar pitch and coal tar bitumen roofing and waterproofing.
All priming of roof decks and surfaces that receive roofing and/or waterproofing.
All rock asphalt and composition roofing.
All rock asphalt mastic when used for damp and waterproofing.
All prepared paper roofing.
All mineral surfaced roofing, including 90lb., and SIS, whether nailed, mopped with bitumen, or applied with mastic or adhesive.
All compressed paper, chemically prepared paper, and burlap when used for roofing, or damp and waterproofing purposes, with or without coating.
All substrates used on the roof deck for fireproofing or any materials used as a support for the roofing system over fluted metal decks.
All damp resisting preparations when applied with a mop, brush, roller, swab, trowel, or spray system inside or outside of building.
All damp course, sheeting or coating on all foundation work.
All tarred floors.
All waterproofing of shower pans and/or stalls.
All laying of tile or brick, when laid in pitch, tar, asphalt, mastic, marmolite, or any form of bitumen.
All forms of insulation used as part of or in connection with roofing, waterproofing or damp-proofing.
All forms of protection boards, walkway pads and roof treads used in composition roofing or waterproofing to protect the membrane from damage.
All types of surface coatings, toppings and finishes used on the roof surfaces.
All types of aggregates, stones, bricks, blocks, or pavers used as a ballast or protection for composition and Inverted roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA) roofs.

Section 4. (1) All forms of elastomeric and/or plastic (elasto-plastic) roofing systems, both sheet and liquid applied, whether single-ply or multi-ply. . .

(GX 16).

   The Petitioner submitted a "Roofers' Safety & Health Manual" prepared by the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers. (GX 17). It refers to the hazards of work involving the "kettle," the "tanker", buckets used to carry hot stuff, lifting roofing materials, electrical lines, LP gas, unguarded machinery, hoists, conveyers, ladders, coal tar, asphalt, motor-propelled graveling buggies, power brooms, primer spray pumps, hot air welders, set-up, tear-off operations, hot roof application, slagging and flashing and clean-up. It defines "set-up" as "raising ladder, hoisting roof equipment and materials." "Hot roof application" is defined as "spreading hot, laying insulation, setting felts." "Applying flood coat and gravel; constructing waterproof joints between roof membrane and wall, ducts, etc.," is considered " slagging and flashing." "Clean-up" consists of "lowering equipment, loading materials, etc.

   The Petitioner submitted various chapters of a 1997 "Built-Up Roofing, National Apprenticeship Program" manual prepared by the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers. (GX 18). It describes roofing tools and equipment, including roof and gravel removal equipment; refers to the operation and repair of the equipment, various hoists and conveyors; roofing materials, such as felts, ply sheets, base sheets, vapor barriers, insulation, cap sheets, hot asphalt, sealants, surfacings, aggregate and coatings; planning, preparing; installation of walkways, flashings (usually laid by two persons), curbs, control joints, expansion joints, scuppers, drains, pitch pockets, and penetrations (pipes); step-by-step execution of the roofing work, including roof/gravel removal and installation, emergency repairs, leaks; and, recovery versus replacement of a roof.

   The Petitioner introduced two exhibits showing the hours worked by each underpaid employee for various weeks of the contract, the wage amount actually paid, the amount which should have been paid, the difference between the two wages, the back wages due and a summary of the totals due for all the employees. (GX 36 & 37). The Petitioner's first calculation of $5650 due related to the Naval Reserve contract (GX 36) was increased to $6219.86 (GX 37) based on its resolution of the discrepancies raised by the Respondents.

   Not one roofer was listed on the payrolls between 12/17/93 and 6/3/94, when supervisor John Diaz was first listed as a "roofer." (GX 20). Mr. Diaz was then subsequently listed as a "supervisor/roofer." (GX 20). No "roofers," other than Mr. Diaz were listed on the payrolls after 6/3/94. The contractor's Daily Reports signed by Mr. Diaz, described below, do not identify

Mr. Diaz as a "roofer" at any time.

   The Daily Reports list the following tasks sequentially for the gym and building 419:

Gym: remove metals on top of building 120, gravel stop, fascia; build chute for dumpster; remove and replace squares; shovel snow off roof, repair leak in gym roof; remove & replace drain; completed both canopies, started flashing over cricket on top of weight room; flashed building 120 crickets/vent hatches; build dumpster cute, building 419; load roof; new metal gravel stop, fascia delivered, cleanup & unloaded truck; removed & replaced squares, asbestos removal; load material; clean debris on building; install metal fascia, gravel stop; install crickets; remove & replace roof; remove tar from bath & locker rooms; clean up roof; remove and replace roof; loaded stone on roof; remove/replace coping; clean floors (removed tar); removing & replacing coping and plastering gym bathroom wall; sand gym walls, paint walls, put on 2nd coat clean tar off lobby floor where loader was installed; mobilize to set up on building 419. (GX 27).

Building 419: mobilize to set up on building 419, change plug on kettle motor, fix hose; remove reglet from mason walls, clean track cut wall; start rubberroid front section, cut drive it & padded with fiber board, recant and 2-ply; continued rubberroid, removed old coping, cut it, installed cant 2-ply rubberroid, nailed top of rubberroid; removed cant and ply, removed fiberboards, cut it up, installed nailers, installed cant 2-ply; rain, cleanup, meeting on leak under a/c unit; removed rubberroid, removed cant, cut drive it, installed nailer, recant 2-ply and rubberroid, install termination bar; removed old rubberroid, old cant, installed nailers, cant 2-ply rubberroid and termination bar; fired kettle up, two men cleaned tar from floor; open up & removed rubberroid, temporary sealed, men worked on drywall, building 120; remove temporary seal; remove old cant, remove tons of cement, cut out ply, installed fiberboard to pad, installed cant 2-ply, cleaned metal, removed . . ., clean out track; clean up inside building 419, remove tar from bathroom, locker room hallway (no work on roof); clean metal, pump out water, clean debris around building; remove rubberroid on back wall, removed and installed cant, two men cleaning metal; washed front of building 120 where tar spilled on wall; open up & sealed drains, cleaned up inside, caught water in the panels; washed building 120 section where we loaded material; six men on roof cleaning gravel, three working on roof drains, washing stones; removing ply, putting crickets behind rubberroid, working on drains; wash roof down preparing for graveling, corrected roof area; began graveling; swept back rocks; finished two coats of gravel; cleaned gravel on ground; washed stones on ground; loaded top section for graveling, laid out walk pads, cut back pitch to drains, fixed rubberroid, remove excess bitumen; washed roof area, removed debris, corrected fish moots; pulling hot up by hand, swept back gravel, cleaned stones; loaded stones on roof; cleaned up debris that blew on runway and around building, washed stones, loaded roof with stones; washed stones, replaced coping building 419, remove debris building 120 and put in dumpster; started gravel building 120, washed and loaded stones; cut back areas where scuppers drain, loaded stones; corrected problems lower roof, remove/replace weak spots; pitch lower roof to drain; rubberroid top of building 120, paint hatches & vent, broom excess stones; install stand for fire alarm, started washing building 120; loaded truck, clean gym floors; wash outside building 120, clean up debris around buildings; clean sidewalk behind building 419; returned lumber to 84; started metal closures, remove old coping, install coping & closures, finish power washing concrete and curbs.

   On nearly every day involving only "removal and replacement of roof" at the gym, the only "roofer" listed was Rich Donophan. There were many days when Mr. Donophan was listed as a "laborer," as noted above. (Not one roofer was listed on the payrolls between 12/17/93 and 6/3/94, when supervisor John Diaz was first listed as a "roofer." (GX 20).) One or more roofers were identified on the Daily Reports between 10/22/93 and 11/16/93. No roofers were listed for 11/19/93-11/25/93 when the workers loaded metal, cleaned debris, and, installed metal fascia and gravel stop. After 11/26/93 generally Rick Donophan was identified as the only "roofer" on the job. Rick Donophan was listed on the Daily Reports as a roofer on 12/17/93 and 12/23/93. This discrepancy between the Payroll and Daily Reports shows Mr. Donophan was not paid as a "roofer" for his work described as a "roofer" on at least two occasions aside from the general issue in this case.

   No "roofers" were identified on the Building 419 handwritten Daily Reports between 4/1/94 and 6/15/94 when roofing work was performed. Mr. Diaz discontinued describing the workers' trades on the Daily Reports on 5/26/94. Mr. Diaz never described his trade as a "roofer" on the Daily reports. It appears there was no roof work done between 6/6/94 and 6/15/94. (GX 27A).

   These Daily Reports and Payroll records clearly establish that individuals performed various work on the roofs of both buildings, under the contract, and were neither identified nor paid as "roofers." They also show that workers were utilized and paid as "roofers" and "laborers" at various times. The Daily Reports establish workers were identified and paid as "laborers" when "roofers" work was performed, such as removing and replacing coping, cleaning roof, removing and installing rubberroid, cutting and driving rubberroid, padding with fiberboard, recanting and installing 2-ply roofing material. They also establish that "laborers" were utilized on days when the only listed task was "removal and replacement of roof."

   The Petitioner submitted the 1992-1994 Union Agreement Between the Individual Roofing Contractors of Pennsylvania and the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers' Association, Local No. 37, applicable to Western Pennsylvania, including the site of the contract at issue, Allegheny County. (GX 28, Article III, Section 1). Article IV of the Agreement sets forth the work jurisdiction of "roofers" as including:

All forms of plastic, slate, slag, gravel roofing;
All rock asphalt and composition roofing;
All prepared paper roofing;
All compressed paper, chemically prepared paper and burlap when used for roofing or damp and waterproofing purposes, with or without coating;
All damp resisting preparations when applied with a mop, three-knot brush, roller, swab or spray system in or outside of building;
All forms of insulation used as part of or in connection with roofing, waterproofing or damp-proofing;
All types of aggregates, blocks, or stones used as a ballast for Inverted Roofing Membrane Assembly roofs or roofs of similar construction where the insulation is laid over the roofing membrane;
All sealing or caulking of seams and joints on these elastro-polymer systems to ensure watertightness;
All priming of surfaces to be roofed, damp or waterproofed, whether done by roller, mop, swab, three-knot brush, or spray system;
All applications of protection boards to prevent damage to the dampproofing or waterproofing membrane by other crafts or during backfilling operations;
All handling of roofing, damp and waterproofing materials;
All hoisting and storing of roofing, damp, and waterproofing materials;
All types of resaturants, coatings, mastics, and toppings when used for roof maintenance and repairs;
All tear-off and/or removal of any type of roofing, all spudding, sweeping, vacuuming and/or cleanup of any and all areas of any type where a roof is to be relaid, or any materials and operation of equipment such as kettles, pumps, tankers, or any heating devices that are used on roofing or waterproofing systems coming under the scope of jurisdiction as outlined in Article IV is to be applied.

   The Petitioner introduced the "Constitution and By-Laws, United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers," Adopted October 18-22, 1993. (GX 29). The jurisdiction of the Union set forth in Article II provides the pattern for the jurisdiction claimed by Local No. 37 and the language is nearly identical. Its "jurisdictional" language is nearly identical to the 1988 version set forth previously. (GX 16).

   Mr. Fred Shamonsky, the Contract Administrative Officer, testified that he went over a Pre-performance Conference checklist with the Respondents and provided them with a document entitled "Information on Construction Contracts" which contained explicit information concerning labor standards in Part II. (GX 22 & 23). Part II of the checklist reflects Mr. Shamonsky discussed labor standards, including the correct classification of workers, with the Respondents. (GX 22). In addition to directing the Respondent to report any actual or potential labor dispute to the contracting officer, the "Information on Construction Contracts" document states, under Davis-Bacon Act Applicability:

According to the Davis-Bacon Act, all laborers and mechanics working under Government contract must be at least paid the wage rate and fringe benefits in the U.S. Department of Labor wage determination for the classification of work performed, without regard to skill, except as provided in the clause entitled, ‘Apprentices and Trainees.' For those laborers and mechanics performing work in more than one classification, they may be compensated at the rate specified for each classification for the time actually spent in that classification. The employer's (prime contractor's) payroll records must accurately reflect the time spent in each classification in which work is performed . . .

   On August 13, 1993, Mr. Shamonsky, sent a "Notice to Proceed" with work under the contract to the Respondents. (GX 25). Among other things, it informed them "Labor Standard Provisions applicable to contracts over $2,000.00, including wage rates, apply to work under this contract."

   On December 21, 1993, about mid-way through the contract performance, the contracting officer wrote to the Respondents advising them that the DOL had informed him several subcontractor employees had complained about: (a) nonpayment for work; (b) health insurance deductions; and, (c) "Mis-classifying employees as laborers . . . performing roofing work, however not classified as roofers nor did they receive that rate." Mr. Shamonsky advised funds would be withheld pending resolution of the matter. (GX 26).

   The Respondents replied to Mr. Shamonsky's December 21, 1993 letter, on December 28, 1993. (GX 31). They wrote, "With respect to item c, we are not aware of any misclassification and emphasize that these workers were hired as laborers. Again, we were aware of the situation prior to your letter and had already undertaken action for resolution." (GX 31).

   Christopher Labouseur was employed by the Respondents for about one month, in the summer of 1992, working on the Naval Reserve contract. (TR 21, 27, 38). Mr. Labouseur had worked as a non-union roofer for about four years all over New Jersey before this job. (TR 29). He worked ripping off the old roof and putting on a new roof. (TR 21-22, 29). He worked the "kettle" on the ground after the kettleman was hurt, "prepped" the roof area, put fiber board or insulation down, helped install flashing on the roof or walls above the gym, and like everyone else he observed, helped clean up at the end of each day. (TR 21-22, 24-26, 36). He observed other employees ripping off the old roof and installing the new one. (TR 25). He testified that Mr. Vannote, of Vannote's Roofing, was his supervisor on the site and he worked for Mr. Vannote. (TR 28, 34). He saw Mr. Vannote perform roof work too. (TR 33). He also was supervised by "Patsy" the Respondents' supervisor on the flashings work. (TR 28, 41). Mr. Labouseur testified "a lot of guys were on the roof, about ten." (TR 34-35, 38). He knew three of his coworkers, Ed Vollrath, Gary DeDeux, and Bill Porvasnick before this job. (TR 35). He could not say who used the mop, but he did not. (TR 23-24). Finally, he added he was paid directly by the Respondent in Lakehurst, New Jersey. (TR 39-40).

   Tracy Scarpulla was hired by Bob Vannote as a "roofer" to work the Naval Reserve gym roofing job contract and worked about three to four weeks, in the Spring. (TR 44, 50). He had about seven years experience as a roofer. (TR 47). His job was to "prep" the roof, tear the old roof off and put the new one on. (TR 44-45, 48-50). There were about ten guys on the job all of whom worked on the roof. (TR 47). His coworkers included: Gary DeDrew, Eddy Volrath, Mike, Chris Labouseur, Bob Vannote, and, James Vick, all of whom worked on the roof. (TR 54-55). He spent about three hours a day ripping off the roof but did not mop or install flashing. (TR 45-46, 51). He helped clean up at the end of the day, about an hour on the ground, with the rest of the crew. (TR 46, 53).

   Michael Sinkiewicz was hired by Mr. Vannote to work the Respondents' roofing job. He worked the job about two to three months in 1992. (TR 56-57, 63). He tore off the roof, cut, ripped and replaced roof sections, rolled plies, installed flashings, and cleaned up on the roof and ground at the end of the day. (TR 57-60). It was "pretty much" a group effort where the others rolled tar, cleaned pipe and installed insulation. (TR 61). Out of ten guys, seven to eight worked on the roof, one ran the kettle on the ground, and two ran around. (TR 62, 64). There were moppers, roller, rhinomen, a kettleman, and runners. (TR 65-66). Most, except two who had their own company, worked for Vannote. (TR 64). He never ran the kettle. (TR 65). Mr. Sinkiewicz was paid directly by the Respondents. (TR 67). Patsy and "Rich" were the Respondents' job supervisors, but Patsy did not give him directions. (TR 71). He did not know his work "classification" and never saw a wage rate bulletin there. (TR 67, 70).

   Nine of the Respondents' former employees testified. None of the other employees remembered any employer form presented for signature on pay days encouraging employees to raise any wage grievances with the DOL. Many of the employees had some roofing experience, but most did not and were not union members. Most were aware that "roofers" were usually paid more than "laborers," but since they were satisfied with their wages they did not complain. Most, except Mr. Scapes, never saw any posted "prevailing wage determination" although the contracting officer had posted it in the gymnasium. Most did not work the full term of the contract although at least two worked on both the gym and operations buildings roofs.

   The Respondents' counsel asked each employee about the details of when they were first contacted by the DOL or the contracting agency about this "misclassification/wage" issue. Several testified that the contracting officer (Fred Shamonsky) or a DOL representative had discussed it with a group of employees near the end of the job, had interviewed them and taken written statements from some of them.

   All the testifying employees agreed Earl Hoy was the primary "kettleman," but that many others had tended the kettle as well. Most agreed there were usually two people mopping, one of which was primarily Ron Lowery. Everyone cleaned the gravel which was later spread on the roof and spread or raked the gravel with a machine or rake. All but two, who had prior "roofing" experience, cleaned debris from the roof by carrying it to a chute and sending it down the chute to the dumpster on the ground. Most also cleaned up debris on the ground which had fallen or been thrown to the ground, usually at the end of the work day. At least two of the workers had to clean inadvertently spilled or "tracked" tar off of walls or sidewalks. All the employees agreed that most of the workers (all but one usually) were performing tasks on the roof during the workday. These tasks included: tearing off old rubberroid, paper, tar and insulation; removing the roofing to the decks; carrying bundles to the roof from the ground; bringing hot tar from the kettle on the ground to the roof using a bucket and/or crane in the early stages; carrying the hot tar across the roof; rolling plies of paper; laying rubberroid; mopping hot tar; shoveling gravel into the crane bucket to be lifted to the roof; moving and spreading gravel with a machine or rake; installing flashings and copings; installing a walkway on the roof; repairing leaks or doing "patch work;" and, most operated or light the kettle once or twice. Only one or two operated the crane used to lift materials from the ground to the roof.

   Robert Hutton was employed by the Respondents for about four months to work on the Air National Guard contract during the Fall and Winter of 1993, August or September through January 1994. (TR 352, 358, 360, 370). John Diaz, the Respondent's supervisor organized and assigned the tasks. (TR 357, 364). The work he performed included tearing off the roof, installing flashings and insulation, rolling paper, and running the "mop" with hot tar from "pigs." (TR 352-5). He mopped about two hours a day, but not every day. (TR 364). There were always two people mopping. (TR 368). While on the roof, he would remove debris from the tear-off and send it down a chute from the roof to a dumpster on the ground. (TR 355). At the end of the day he would help clean up debris. (TR 356). He never tended the "kettle." (TR 356). He observed others on the work crew, i.e., Tuffey and Mike, perform similar tasks. (TR 356-7). Mr. Hutton testified he never saw any one working solely on the ground. (TR 356). Like all the other employees, he did not remember any employer form presented for signature on pay days encouraging employees to raise any wage grievances to the DOL. (TR 358). Mr. Hutton had about eight years previous experience as a non-union roofer. (TR 361-2). He saw Robert Leach light the kettle. (TR 363). Bill Jackson was the "kettleman" before Mr. Leach and afterwards, Robert. (TR 364).

   Hugh P. Hootman was employed by the Respondents to work on the Air National Guard contract during the Spring and Summer of 1994. (TR 376, 382-3). Mr. Hootman was a carpenter who had experience installing about twelve commercial and residential roofs. (TR 384). His job was to finish the roof, although he did not remember the number of plies he installed. (TR 396). He said he performed "roofing" tasks, tearing off rubberroid, such as mopping, installing downspouts, fitting flashings, laying rolls of roofing paper and rubberroid, putting rocks (or gravel) down on the roof and installing a sponge-type walkway on the roof. (TR 376, 378, 397). His tools included a carpet knife, hot mop, chalk line, hammer, tape measure to ensure the roofing paper plies were straight, and swab.(TR 377). Mr. Hootman also operated a crane to lift gravel from the ground to the roof. (TR 377). He and others cleaned up debris from the roof. (TR 379). He said there were lots of leaks requiring repair thus he had to tear off and reinstall rubberroid. (TR 380). Although the site was "ship shape," he had to clean up the job site and sidewalks, but not on a daily basis. (TR 400). Mr. Hootman observed others, i.e., Ron Lowery, Frank Robson, Larry, Earl, and Vince, do the same jobs he did, such as spreading tar and rubberroid on the roof and cleaning up. (TR 380-1). He testified usually Earl would tend the kettle. (TR 380, 398). He did not remember any employer form presented for signature on pay days encouraging employees to raise any wage grievances to the DOL. (TR 386).

   Michael Messner was employed by the Respondents to work on the Air National Guard contract during the Fall of 1993 and Spring of 1994, although it might have been August through September 1994. (TR 402, 410). He had no "hot" roofing experience, but Mr. Diaz, Respondent's supervisor who hired him, said he would learn everything he needed to know on his first day. (TR 411). Mr. Messner worked on both the gym roof and the operations building roof. He testified he worked dawn til dusk tearing off the roofs and closing up what they had opened. (TR 402). His tasks included carrying supplies, a lot of tearing off the old roof, removing the debris from the roof via the chute to the dumpster, mopping, rolling paper, install flashing and putting the new roof on. (TR 403-406, 413-415). He, like the others he saw, had to clean up debris both on the roof and on the ground. (TR 406-8, 415). He described the tools he used including a gas power saw. (TR 404). Mr. Messner testified Earl, the kettleman, usually stayed on the ground and that he too had operated the kettle for one and one half days. (TR 408, 417). He said the crew included: Bob, Ronny, Earl, and John Diaz, the supervisor. (TR 409).

   Bernard Kirley was employed by the Respondents for about three weeks to work on the Air National Guard contract during the Fall of 1993. (TR 425, 432). He worked the "tail end" of one roof and started the second. He is a "roofer" and was hired as a "roofer." (TR 425, 431). He assumed he would be paid roofer's wages but did not ask questions because he was glad to get any wage and had thought one worker was fired for complaining. (TR 435-6). His tasks included tearing off and installing roofing. (TR 425, 433-4). The roofing was removed to the deck. His tasks included mopping, rolling out roof plies removing debris from the roof, and cleaning up at the end of the day. (TR 426-7). He observed others do the same and thought most of the others were "roofers." (TR 428). His major task was rolling out the roofing and he would relieve Tuffey mopping occasionally. (TR 426-7, 432-3). He did not remember any employer form presented for signature on pay days encouraging employees to raise any wage grievances to the DOL.

   Frank Robson was employed by the Respondents for about three months to work on the Air National Guard contract during the Spring and early Summer of 1994. (TR 445, 452). While he had learned some roofing at trade school, he had no previous experience. (TR 452). He worked on both roofs. His job included cutting off rubberroid, doing patch work, i.e., filling holes, washing gravel, laying "hot," laying rubberroid, primarily spreading gravel on the roof, fixing downspouts, and once in awhile picked up roofing debris on the ground. (TR 446, 448, 451, 454). He mopped once or twice but never tended the kettle. (TR 450, 454). His coworkers included: Frank, Dave, Jim Lowery, Earl Hoy, and Vince. (TR 449). He observed Dave performing the same types of work as he performed. (TR 450). Just about everyone operated the gravel spreading machine. (TR 449). He testified he spent about 70% of his time on the roofs and 30% of his time getting supplies. (TR 456-7).

   Vincent Shaw was employed by the Respondents to work on the Air National Guard contract for about three months during (February) the Spring and Summer of 1994. (TR 463, 471). He testified his duties included pulling tar in a bucket or roller, mopping hot tar, carrying bundles across the roof, lighting the kettle, rolling paper, installing drains and stainless, spreading and raking rock, washing rock, carrying bundles up to the roof, replacing ceiling pans, painting, working with flashings and coping, hanging drains, replacing "messed up" drywall and ceiling panels, and, removing roof debris via the chute. (TR 464-465, 470-471). He observed other crew members doing the same type of work including carrying tar up to the roof until a pipe was later installed. (TR 467). Mr. Shaw testified there was no one person assigned to perform work on the ground. (TR 467-8). The tools he used included a "zsa-zsa," mop, carrier/bucket, gloves, and drill. (TR 465, 468). Mr. Shaw was primarily involved with the tear off and replacement of specific roof sections after the new roof had been installed. His main job was to lay rocks, put tar down, to roll out the rocks and rake them. (TR 472). On the ground, he would wash rocks, swept the street, and pickup debris thrown down from the roof. He operated the kettle four times or days. (TR 473). He did not remember any employer form presented for signature on pay days encouraging employees to raise any wage grievances to the DOL. (TR 479-482). Mr. Shaw said Mr. Diaz would send Mr. Robson away to get materials when the DOL representative was there. (TR 478).

   Most disturbingly, were Mr. Shaw's answers to the Respondents' cross examination. He testified that John Diaz told the workers what to tell the DOL if they wanted to go to the next job. (TR 483). They were to say that they worked on the ground 90% of the time on the job. (TR 483). Mr. Shaw said he was being paid $18.00 per hour. (TR 479).

   Frank Scapes was employed by the Respondents to work on the Air National Guard contract for three to four months during the Spring and Summer of 1994. (TR 519, 529). He was and is now a "roofer." (TR 531). He was classified as a "laborer" on this job, was paid $18.11 per hour and thought it was the correct prevailing wage. (TR 532). The roof was basically installed when he arrived so he mostly did repairs to the roof necessitated because of leaks and tore off bad sections. (TR 522, 527, 539). His tasks included removing gravel, tearing up and re-doing drains and walls, carrying hot tar, operating the crane, hanging down spouts, repairing bad spots on the gym roof, removing and spreading gravel, mopping only once or twice, throwing debris from the roof, cleaning tar off with solvent, painting, down spout work and, installing rubberroid with a bucket of tar. (TR 520-23, 528). Mr. Scapes said basically everybody "did the same." (TR 525-6). He saw others use the mop if Ron was not there, but he hardly ever touched it. (TR 523). Ron Lowery primarily used the mop for leak repairs. (TR 523, 539). He did very little clean up and did not recall installing flashing. (TR 523-4). He testified that Earl was the only guy on the ground running the kettle and the rest, i.e., Vince, Lowery, and Dave, were on the roof. (TR 526). Mr. Scapes added, "No one had any one specific thing to do." (TR 526). He did not remember any employer form presented for signature on pay days encouraging employees to raise any wage grievances to the DOL.

   Michael Mack was the U.S. Navy contract administration inspector/representative for the Naval Reserve roofing contract. (TR 75). His superior was Carl Hutchinson. (TR 93). He observed the removal and replacement of the roof one to four hours a day, once or twice a week, from March through August 1992. (TR 77, 80-81). Mr. Mack described the Construction Representative's Daily Reports he had prepared. (GX 13; TR 81-82). He identified the Contractor's Daily Reports (GX 14) which the contractor prepared and gave him in stacks. (TR 84-85, 95). He said those reports accurately reflect the work performed. (TR 86). He observed the Respondents had posted the wage rate bulletin in the construction trailer, but Jason Thomas had informed him no roofers were allowed inside. (TR 88, 95). Mr. Mack identified the Respondents' supervisors as: Cager Brown, Jason Thomas, and later Pat Piaggio, all of whom had supervision over Mr. Vannote, the roofing foreman. (TR 88-89). He was aware Mr. Vannote had his own roofing business, but he was on the Respondents' payroll as an employee. (TR 89, 98).

   Mr. Mack and Mr. Hutchinson met with the Respondents, Mr. Thomas, Rich Bednarz, or "Cager," around October 21, 1991. (TR 78). At the meeting, Mr. Hutchinson discussed Davis-Bacon Act compliance and said anyone working on the roof would be classified as a "roofer." (TR 79, 90). He made no notes of the meeting. (TR 98-99). He did not know where the notebooks he used to prepare GX 13 was, most having been tossed out when GX 13 was completed. (TR 100-103). On cross-examination, he admitted having done twenty-five roofing contracts, but did not believe the contract itself stated that everyone working on the roof must be classified as a "roofer." (TR 93-94). Mr. Mack first became aware of the all-encompassing definition of "roofer" at this October meeting. (TR 116).

   Mr. Mack did not consider this job "demolition" work because the contract did not involve replacement of the roof deck itself. (TR 97, 112). He said the kettle was not always minded by the same individual. (TR 106). He observed two individuals operate the kettle, one of which was Chris Labouseur. (TR 107). Under the wage determination, there was a separate classification for the "kettleman" position. Mr. Mack opined that quite a few "kettlemen," in his experience, prior to this contract had been paid "laborers" rates. (TR 110). However, Mr. Mack had just returned from overseas. (TR 111). He did not know what a "pot tender" was. (TR 115).

   Mr. David Harris is the President of Local Laborers' Union 199, Wilmington, Delaware. (TR 119). He is a twenty-six year union member. The Union's jurisdiction covers New Castle County, the site of the Naval Reserve contract. (TR 120). He testified no laborers are involved in roofing work unless the job is a "total demolition." (TR 120). Laborers are not involved in ripping off a roof or cleaning up roof debris either on the roof or on the ground. (TR 121-123). He did not know if the Respondents had contacted his Union about classification of workers. (TR 127).

   Mr. David McBride is the Business Representative and President of the Roofers' Local 30 Union. (TR 312). He is a fifteen year union member. (TR 133). His main duty is the administration of collective bargaining agreements. (TR 132). His Local covers half of Pennsylvania, half of New Jersey, Baltimore-Washington D.C., and Wilmington, Delaware, including New Castle County. (TR 133). He testified if a roofing contract did not involve "total demolition" then it is "roofers'" work to remove an old roof and replace it. (TR 135). He identified the 1989-1994 Roofers' Union Working Agreement (GX 15) and observed Section 2 covers Wilmington, Delaware and Section 7i defines "roof." (TR 136-138). Mr. McBride testified that Section 5 of the document accurately defines roofing work. (TR 138). He identified the Constitution and By Laws of the International Roofers and noted Section 5, page 8, coverage. (TR 139-140). He testified that he had heard the testimony of Mrs. Scarpulla, Mack, Sinkiewicz, and, Labouseur, and the work they described is "roofers'" work. (TR 141). He said the following is roofers' work, in non-demolition roofing jobs: ripping off old roof; shoveling to clean the roof; use of all tools in roof removal; sweeping the roof; laying fiberboard; laying tar; rolling paper and plies; chipping tar; loading; operating the kettle and mop; clean up, and tar removal. (TR 142-144). He added, "we pretty much do it all for removing and replacing roofs. Laborers have no place." (TR 145).

   Mr. McBride described roofers' tools as including: rhinos; wheelbarrows; hand tools; mop carts, etc. (TR 144-145). He reviewed several of the Respondents' Daily Reports for the contract and identified the work as roofers' work except for some "capping" sheet metal and "finishing" work. (TR 146-148). He was not aware whether the Respondents had contacted his Union regarding the union practices. (TR 149). He testified a "kettleman," usually a journeyman roofer, is under his union's jurisdiction even if not on the roof. (TR 163-164). He explained the roofers job is a "independent" and a "skilled" trade. (TR 164-165). Finally, he identified a roofing apprentice training manual (GX 18) and a Roofers' Safety and Health Manual (GX 17). (TR 169-171).

   Jacqueline Phillips-Clark, who has been a prevailing wage monitor and public works specialist for the 25-member Roofing Contractor's Association for five years, testified. (TR 175-6). Her duties include filing grievances for the construction industry and sometimes for members. (TR 175, 185). She testified that there are over 100 signatories to Local 30 Roofers' Union, covering Eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. (TR 176-7, 185). However, the Respondent is not a member of the Association. Pat Moran was her predecessor. She identified GX 19 and GX 15. (TR 177, 179). Section 2, page 6, of the collective bargaining agreement between Local 30 and the Roofing Contractors" Association, accurately describes the jurisdiction and scope of the roofers' union. (TR 179). Section "I," page 7, includes removal and replacement of roofs as within their jurisdiction. (TR 180). She explained tear off in a demolition project is not roofers' work, but the following are: roof clean up; sweeping the roof; hauling debris; applying hot tar; rolling paper/plies; operating the mop; cleaning or chipping tar during the roof job; laying fiberboard; and, cleaning up material fallen from the roof. (TR 181-182). She identified GX 16 as the Constitution and By Laws of the International Roofers' Union. (TR 182). Section 5, page 8, accurately describes the roofers' union jurisdiction. (TR 183). She was not aware whether the Respondents had contacted her offices. (TR 183). However, she did not work there in 1992. (TR 184). The Respondents are not a member of the Association. (TR 193).

   Carl Hutchinson was the supervisory construction representative for the Respondents' re-roofing contract with the Naval Reserve. (TR 205). His duties, at the time, included reviewing all construction contracts and solicitations, assigning contract representatives, conducting pre-construction conferences and visiting contract performance sites, such as the Philadelphia Navy Base and Reserve center, to ensure contract compliance. (TR 206-7, 254). He had 8-15 subordinates. (TR 253). He identified the Naval Reserve contract (GX 1 and 2) and said the contract called for removal of slag, membrane flashing, metal flashing, and insulation and installation of a new roof. (TR 208, 210, 212-215). On cross-examination, Mr. Hutchinson said he visited this job site. Although Mr. James Thomas was not on site, he discussed classification problems with Mr. Bednarz, who he assumed was a company official, an inference Mr.Bednarz did not dispel.

   Mr. Hutchinson used the Pre-Construction Conference Guide (GX 3) as an outline in conducting the pre-construction conference, in August 1991. (TR 218, 260). Mr. James Thomas and Mr. Bednarz attended the pre-construction conference. (TR 219-220). Dave Cook and LTCD Patraca were also present. (TR 261). Mr. Hutchinson made the area practice clear to them. That is, in this contract, all workers on the roof were to be classified as "roofers." (TR 220, 261). On cross-examination, Mr. Hutchinson admitted he was familiar with the area practice years before this contract through his contact with the DOL, roofers' unions, i.e., Local 30, roofing contractor's associations, and experience. (TR 262, 271, 283-4, 321). He went over section 17, page 8 (GX 3), regarding payroll and fringe benefits and classification. (TR 222). His initials appear in block 9 of GX 4, the Schedule of Prices. (TR 224). He identified the Payrolls and Statement of Compliance (GX 5) submitted to him by the Respondents. (TR 226). Normally, he would look for inconsistencies between the payrolls and prevailing wage determination and follow up on discrepancies. (TR 247-249).

   Mr. Hutchinson testified that at an October 1991 meeting regarding a time extension, he reiterated to the Respondent that all workers were to be classified as "roofers" on this job. (TR 228, 306, 319). At a pre-roofing meeting, just before contract performance began, Mr. Hutchinson informed Respondents that all workers doing work on the roof would be classified as roofers. (TR 231, 318). This did not apply to other trades, such as masons, sheet metal workers, or electricians. (TR 291-292). He had also discussed the classification matter with Mrs. Bednarz and Piaggio. (TR 304-5).

   Mr. Hutchinson identified GX 6, his 6/3/92 letter to the Respondents mentioning that the payrolls showed the employees were listed and paid as "laborers" and Mr. Vannote as an owner. (TR 229). Vannote's status and this classification matter were never resolved. (TR 292). GX 6 represented the first contact he had with the Respondents concerning payroll problems. Mr. Vannote is deceased now. (TR 293, 312). He further identified GX 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. (TR 232, 234, 236, 237, 239, 241). He identified LTJG McNiece as the project manager for the contract. (TR 236-7).

    Mr. Hutchinson had contact with the DOL, including Mr. Durbin, concerning its interpretation of regulations. (TR 326). He identified his letter to Mr. Durbin (RX 2) and Mr. Durbin's 7/9/92 (RX 1) response to him. (TR 257-8). On cross-examination, Mr. Hutchinson said the general wage determination for this contract, DE 91-2 was current at the time and said nothing concerning classifying workers as "roofers." (TR 271). Since the Respondents' contract, he has handled 30-40 roofing contracts none of which state all workers on a roof must be classified as roofers. (TR 272). Before 1989/1990 laborers had been allowed, under 10-15 contracts, to do roofing. (TR 285-6). After 1989/1990 he informed contractors of the change which he had learned of in 1989/1990 from Mr. Durbin, DOL.(TR 289). Mr. Hutchinson related his infrequent contacts with Respondents before this contract. (TR 289-291).

   Mr. Walter Skrzynski, Roofers' Local 37, testified he had been the Union business representative for the past six years. (TR 542-3). The jurisdiction of Local 37 covers twenty counties in Western Pennsylvania, including Allegheny County, the situs of the Air Guard contract. (TR 543-4). On cross-examination, he added that the Union has about 250 members and eight signatory firms. (TR 569, 579). He testified that GX 28, page 6, sets forth the Union's area "jurisdiction" and Article IV describes "roofers'" tasks from 1992-1994. (TR 545-6). Local 37 is governed by the Constitution and Bylaws of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, adopted in October 1993. (GX 29; TR 547). Article II of the latter document governs the work jurisdiction of roofers. (TR 548). On cross-examination, Mr. Skrzynski said before the agreement in GX 28, the Union was governed by a substantially identical agreement and that similar jurisdiction had been claimed at least forty-five years. (TR 566). He explained that the term "total demolition" does not apply to replacement of a roof. (TR 549).

   Mr. Skrzynski reviewed the work listed on the contractor's Daily Logs (GX 27), while on the witness stand, and testified other than installing sheet metal, it is covered by "our roofers' jurisdiction." (TR 550-2). Those tasks included: removal of roof material; tear-off; applying tar and mopping "hot;" laying rubberroid; cutting rubberroid; tending kettle; rolling out paper on the roof; washing gravel to use on roof; transporting gravel from the ground to the roof; dumping and spreading gravel on roof; throwing debris from the roof into the chute; cleaning up roof debris on the ground; transporting supplies from the ground to the roof; repairing leaks; sweeping debris from the roof; raking rooks on the roof; carrying tar to the roof; removal and disposal of roof material; fastening insulation; and, cleaning up tar. (TR 554-556).

    Mr. Skrzynski testified that the Roofers' Union is an "unassisted" trade, that is they do not utilize laborers' help. (TR 553, 557). He described the tools of a roofer as including: mops; screw guns; etc. (TR 556-9). Page 2 of the Roofing Apprentice Program (GX 18) accurately describes roofers' tools. (TR 559). He added that roofers' work includes: roof repairs; repairing roof drains; site clean-up; picking up supplies and materials; and, getting tools to the roof. (TR 560-2). On cross-examination, Mr. Skrzynski added that it includes: building chutes; shoveling snow; unloading trucks; and, removing tar if the roofers made the mess, but perhaps not plastering a wall, unless it was damages as a result of a roof leak. (TR 553, 557, 567, 584).

   Mr. Skrzynski testified the Respondents had not contacted his Union regarding this jurisdiction. (TR 564). He said the 2/9/95 letter to the local from Miller-Thomas Gyekis, Inc., (GX 30) was a reply to his request for information from a signatory roofing contractor. (TR 562). On cross-examination, Mr. Skrzynski said the 7/12/90 letter from Mr. Robinson to the Department of Labor (GX 19) reflects the same policy in effect in "our" jurisdiction. (TR 573-5).

   Paul Quarantillo has been the assistant to the business manager, Laborers' Council of Western Pennsylvania, for six years. (TR 594). The Council's jurisdiction covers thirty-three counties in Western Pennsylvania, including Allegheny County. (TR 594). They have about 12,000 members in Pennsylvania and 250-300 collective bargaining agreement signatories. (TR 599). The Council serves as the negotiating hub of fifteen union locals affiliated with it. It is his job to enforce the work jurisdiction of laborers. Mr. Quarantillo said the Laborers claim no jurisdiction in any job involving replacement or relaying of roofs, including repairing leaks and disposing of or cleaning up debris. (TR 595-6). He testified that the Laborers do not claim "jurisdiction" over roofing work because of the history of work in the area of the building trades. Essentially, the two unions agreed to agree. (TR 599, 615-6). This understanding had existed at least since 1976 when he joined the Union. (TR 615).

   Reviewing the Contractor's Daily Logs (GX 27), Mr. Quarantillo testified that none of the work was under Laborers' jurisdiction, except removing tar from tiles and washing tar from walls on final cleanup. (TR 597). He said the Respondents had never contacted him. (TR 598). He did not recall any contact from the Defense Department or the Air Force concerning laborer jurisdiction before 1993, but was contacted by the DOL. (TR 601). The Council provides the DOL with copies of collective bargaining agreements to review for purposes of posting prevailing wage rates.

   Mr. Shamonsky observed work under the contract daily; his office was across from the gym. (TR 633, 687). He saw the workers scraping off insulation and applying new roofing. (TR 633). On cross-examination, he related he saw workers ripping insulation and attending the kettle. He took the latter work to be "roofers'" work, but that was up to the contractor. Upon reviewing the Payrolls, he noticed workers listed as "laborers" whom he had seen performing "roofers'" work although he did not know them by name. (TR 633-5). For example, on 12/23/93, there were no "roofers" listed on the Payroll, but he had seen workers doing "roofing" work. (TR 635, 638). The same was true for 4/14/94, 4/21/94 and 4/28/94-6/6/94. (TR 636-637). He testified that on 6/16/94, 6/23/94 and 6/9/94, Mr. Diaz is listed as a "supervisor/roofer," but that Diaz was not the only roofer working. (TR 637). He asked Mr. Diaz why no roofers were listed on the payroll and the latter referred him to the "office." (TR 639). Mr. Shamonsky also discussed the issue with Mr. Bednarz on October 28, 1993, who informed him he would determine the classifications. (GX 20; TR 639, 730). Mr. Bednarz was listed as the "project manager" on the Payrolls. (TR 730). He also telephoned Mr. James Thomas about the issue but the latter never agreed to change any classification. (TR 640). The handwritten notes for 10/28/93 say a "roofer" was present. (GX 20; TR 676). Mr. Shamonsky could not say whether building a chute was roofers' work. (TR 678-9). He opined "clean up" and painting could be either laborers' or roofers' work. He added, "One man did not install this roof." (TR 724).

   On cross-examination, Mr. Shamonsky testified concerning entries on the Contractor's Daily Log. (GX 27). On 10/22/93 no roofer was listed. (TR 679). On 10/25/93 two roofers, four laborers, and one supervisor were listed, but the Payroll (GX 20) lists only one roofer. (TR 680). On 11/4/93 the Payroll lists two roofers and seven laborers. (TR 681). On 11/4/93 the Log lists two roofers and four laborers with the tasks of shoveling snow and repairing leak in gym roof. (TR 681-4). On 4/14/94 the Payroll shows six laborers, a project manager, owner and supervisor. (TR 684). On 4/13/94 the Log shows six laborers and one supervisor with the tasks of clean up and a meeting regarding a leak. (TR 684-5).

   Mr. Shamonsky explained he performed labor standards interviews once or twice a month. (TR 647-8, 686). He informed Mr. James Thomas and Mr. Bednarz of the results, i.e., misclassification of roofers as laborers. (TR 648). The latter indicated they would take care of it, but back wages were never offered. (TR 649).

   On December 21, 1993, Mr. Shamonsky sent the Respondents a letter describing the "misclassification" of workers he had observed performing roofing work and complained to him. (GX 26; TR 641). He also spoke with Mr. Bednarz weekly, in the fall and Spring. (TR 643). Mr. Shamonsky said GX 31 was the Respondent's reply to his letter which he felt was inadequate. (TR 645-6). He informed Mr. Bednarz he had told the workers to contact the DOL. (TR 646). GX 32 was the letter he sent to Ms. Gannister, the Respondents' former counsel, on March 21, 1995. (TR 647).

   Mr. Shamonsky testified the contract called for relaying roofs. (TR 649). He saw Respondents' employees doing repairs on the gym roof. (TR 649). While the contract did not require "replastering" or cleaning up splattered tar from buildings, that resulted from water damage from the roof and splattering from the roof job. (TR 649-650, 685). He recalled there might have been some painting to repair leak areas. (TR 651).

   Funds in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,239.41) were withheld on the Air Guard contract, according to Mr. Shamonsky. (TR 699).

   Mr. George Durbin, a Department of Labor Regional Wage Specialist since January 1983, testified on behalf of the government. (TR 735). It is his duty to coordinate all prevailing wage activities for the Delaware/Pennsylvania region and oversee a staff that prepares surveys used for wage determinations. (TR 736). He identified the "general" wage determinations in both contracts at issue herein. (TR 737, 740). He explained the Allegheny County and Delaware "roofers'" rates were based on the rate paid by signatories to collective bargaining agreements. (TR 739-740).

   Mr. Durbin explained the difference between a "general" wage determination and a "project" wage determination. (TR 770, 826). Both "general" wage determinations were proper for these contracts. (TR 772-3). Mr. Durbin discussed the dates and coding found on the prevailing wage determinations at length. (TR 783-7, 807-8, 812-813). The wage determinations themselves do not define "area practice." (TR 787-8, 797, 821). On cross-examination, he testified that the DOL examines "area practice" during "enforcement" proceedings; it may not be relevant in determining the prevailing wage rate, however. (TR 798). He admitted DOL does not establish standard job descriptions for wage determinations because duties may vary from region to region. (TR 801).

   Mr. Durbin testified that it is a contractor's responsibility to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act and to do so it needs information about wage rates, whether it's collective bargaining or an average of all rates. (TR 740). This requires an understanding of the workers. (TR 741). The contracting agencies have no responsibility of informing contractors of union practices or the basis of wage determinations. (TR 741-2). The DOL provides guidance concerning such matters. On cross-examination, he said there is always an "area practice" for each trade determined by the market place. (TR 788). He added the "all-roofers" classification issue had been raised country-wide and he suspected, when the Air Guard contract was issued, that it applied in Pittsburgh but had not researched it at that time. (TR 792). He admitted having had contact with the Philadelphia Roofers Union and Local 30 Roofers' Union regarding the Wilmington, DE, contract. (TR 793, 795, 817). He did not know if the DOL informed either agency of the "area practice" before the investigations into the present case. (TR 796, 819). But both agencies were notified of it at some point. (TR 819). He said roofers are an "unassisted" trade. (TR 814). The DOL generally does not and has no burden of advising contractors concerning area practices. (TR 815-6, 820). It would be infeasible for the DOL to do so. (TR 816-817, 820).

   Mr. Durbin identified GX 34, a letter from Mr. Sykes (DOL) to Ms. Gannister, which he had prepared and signed for Mr. Sykes. (TR 743). He testified about an early May 1992 meeting between the Respondents and DOL officials concerning several open Davis-Bacon Act cases and the wage rates in Philadelphia and New York. (TR 744, 803). The meeting had come about because Mr. Thomas had contacted headquarters about continuing investigations involving him. (TR 744). Mr. Durbin's office was asked to resolve Mr. Thomas' concerns. (TR 744). Both classification and procedures for challenging classifications were discussed. (TR 745). The Fry Brothers case tenant, that contractors must follow union practice if the wage determination is based on it, was discussed. (TR 745). Contacting unions and signatory construction firms were discussed as methods to ascertain area practice. (TR 747).

   At a subsequent meeting, in late June 1992, Mr. Thomas articulated his position that since he was a non-union contractor he need not follow union practice. (TR 748-9, 801, 804, 822). Mr. Thomas further complained his contract indicated both "roofer" and "laborer" classifications. (TR 802). Mr. Durbin explained to him that was not applicable and how to properly determine classification. (TR 748, 822). Investigations concerning "misclassification" of workers on several of the Respondents' roofing contracts was discussed. (TR 749-750). At the time, Mr. Durbin reiterated that employees on the Respondents' Lakehurst, Willow Grove and Wilmington, DE, contracts should be classified as "roofers." (TR 751, 795). Again, Mr. Durbin clarified that union practice was to be followed to properly classify employees. (TR 751). However, the Respondents never asked what the Pittsburgh "area practice" was. (TR 821). He added that the Naval Contract here was not for the demolition of a roof, which would permit the use of "laborers." (TR 754).

   Mr. Durbin explained he had calculated the back wages owed in GX 35 (Air Guard) and GX 36 (Naval Reserve). (TR 757, 763-4, 804). He took the hours and wages from the payrolls and calculated the difference. (TR 758). His figures were higher than the Order of Reference because the DOL had amended the amount in October 1997. He explained how he revised the Navy calculations regarding two workers, Mrs. Sinkiewicz and Porvasnick, based on JX 2 and disagreed with the Respondents' position concerning Mrs. Lobue, Scarpulla, and Porvasnick for the week ending June 20th. (GX 37; TR 764-769)(See Stipulated Facts, supra). He verified that Appendices "A" and "B" JX 1 correctly identify the rate of pay and hours worked for each listed employee. (TR 770). On cross-examination, Mr. Durbin pointed out that employees, such as Mrs. Thomas, Bednarz, Diaz, and those paid at rates above "roofers'" rates were not included on the GX 35-37 spreadsheets. (TR 805-6).

   According to Mr. Durbin, DE 91-2 with two modifications is the Davis-Bacon Act wage determination for Delaware "Building and Heavy." The classification for "roofers" is on page 3 and calls for an hourly wage of $21.97 plus $6.57 in fringe benefits. It too is based upon collective bargaining rates. On cross-examination, Mr. Durbin admitted the wage determination has no "alpha codes" to determine which wages are based on collective bargaining rates and which are not. The wage determination has classifications for "pot tenders" and "roofers." The code "LAB00613C" itself on the wage determination does not indicate it is based on collective bargaining agreements. The 6/1/92 date is the date of the collective bargaining agreement from which the wage was derived.

   Mr. Durbin identified the general wage determination in GX and said its purpose was to set the minimum wages and fringe benefits on construction contracts, but not for contractors to use in preparing contract bids. Wage determination PA30001 has a "roofer" classification, on page 13, calling for an hourly wage of $18.39 plus $5.05 in fringe benefits. That wage determination is based on wages paid to roofers under collective bargaining agreements, such as the one for Local 37. The code "ROOF0037C" stands for "roofers" and the Local (union). The union rates are based upon the majority of responses to surveys.

   The DOL argues here that the area practice, in the area of both contracts, is that any person performing work on a roof, under a contract to remove and replace the roof, versus complete "demolition" of a roof, must be classified as a "roofer" and paid the prevailing wage rate, here based upon Union rates. The DOL further argues that the Respondents were repeatedly informed how to handle Davis-Bacon Act matters and disregarded their obligation to their employees.

   The Respondents argue that the government's advice was ambiguous and the Respondents had no intent or disregard warranting debarment. Further, although collective bargaining agreements may have formed the basis of the wage determination and area practices, the contracting public was unaware of them. Specifically, the Respondents say they were not aware of them until completion of the contracts. Finally, they argue, even if the area practice applies, there is evidence a "split" of wages between "laborers" and "roofers" is acceptable to the DOL, which should likewise be accepted by this forum.

   Employees are to be classified and paid according to the work they perform, without regard to the level of skill required. 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1); Fry Brothers Corporation, WAB Case No. 76-06 (June 14, 1977). In order to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act provisions of a contract, workers must be classified according to the classifications used in the locality in which the contract is performed. Emerald Maintenance, Inc. v. U.S., 925 F.2d 1425, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1991) citing Building & Construction Trades's Dept., AFL-CIO v. Donovan, 712 F.2d 611, 614 (D.C. Cir. 1983) and Johnson-Massman, Inc., 96-ARB-118 (Administrative Review Board 1996).

   Where the applicable wage determination reflects collectively bargained wage rates, as in the present case, the classifications of work used by contractors who are signatory to collective bargaining agreements are to be followed under the wage determination. Fry Brothers, supra; More Drywall, Inc., WAB Case No. 90-20 (April 29, 1991); Trataros Construction Corp., WAB Case No. 92-03 (April 28, 1993); see also Prime Roofing, WAB Case No. 92-15 (1993). The compensation practices of employers who are not signatories to the collective bargaining agreement make no difference to proper classification on a Davis-Bacon project. Fry Brothers, supra.

   As the Petitioner points out, in a previous case on this precise issue, the Wage Appeals Board held that ". . . statements by the roofers and the laborers . . . indicated an agreement that . . . roofer(s) perform all tasks in connection with tearing down roofs in a situation where the roof in question is being replaced." Alpine Roofing, WAB Case No.78-22 (1979). That is the case here with the unions in the area of both contracts.

   The Respondents admitted certain of the named employees performed "clean-up,"other maintenance work, and "non-laborers'" work on the roofs on both contracts and were paid "laborers'" wages. As discussed below, however, that work is in fact "roofers'" work according to area practices.

   The Petitioner has conclusively established that the work performed by the Respondents' employees and those of his subcontractors, under both contracts, in removing and replacing the roofing systems, was exactly the type of work performed by "roofers" in both areas. Every former employee who testified performed "roofing" work and should have been classified as a "roofer" for that work. Most of them observed other employees doing "roofing" work when the documentation reflects the latter were classified as "laborers."

   The evidence establishes an "area practice" by the signatories to collective bargaining agreements that the work performed by the Respondents' employees required a classification of those employees as "roofers," not "laborers" and that although the Respondents should have paid the named employees "roofers'" wages, under the prevailing wage determinations, Respondents did not do so. I also specifically find that the testimony of the agency and union officials and union documents establish that the "clean-up," "leak repairs," and other repairs necessitated as a consequence of the roof replacement work was the type of work to be performed by "roofers" under the area practices applicable to both contracts.

   It is particularly troublesome that the Respondents hired experienced "roofers," such as Messrs. Labouseur, Lobue, and Sinkiewicz on the Naval Reserve contract and Messrs. Hutton, Kirley, and Kurtz on the Air Guard contract, and then classified and paid them "laborers'" wages for "roofers'" work. The evidence summarized above shows there were many days when roofers' work was performed under both the Naval Reserve and Air Guard contracts when not one employee was classified by the Respondents as a "roofer". The discrepancies between the handwritten contractor Daily Reports and the typed versions, which always showed fewer roofers than the handwritten versions, is equally troubling. This does not detract from the inappropriateness of misclassifying and under-paying all the named employees. Even more egregious is the corroborated testimony that Respondents' on-site supervisor, Mr. Diaz, successfully threatened employees with loss of their jobs should they tell the truth about the nature of their work.

    The jurisdictional pamphlets and manuals, concerning safety and training, prepared by the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers reflect and corroborate the area practices of classifying the overwhelming majority of the work performed in re-roofing projects as "roofers'" work.

   The first documentary evidence of a series of letters concerning the misclassification issue on the Naval Reserve contract was Mr. Hutchinson's letter of June 3, 1992 to the Respondents. However, Mr. Mack testified that he and Mr. Hutchinson, his superior, met with the Respondents around October 21, 1991 and informed the latter that anyone working on the roof would be classified as a "roofer." Mr. Hutchinson further testified that he had informed the Respondents of the area practice, which he had learned of in 1989-1990, when he conducted the pre-construction conference before actual work was to begin in August 1991. He also provided the Respondents with a Pre-Construction Conference Guide. Item 17a, of the Guide, informs contractors to "[C]lassify all workers in accordance with wage decisions included in the contract document . . ." (GX 3). Mr. Hutchinson corroborated Mr. Mack's recollection of the October 21, 1991 meeting.

   On the Air Guard contract, the classification matter was specifically raised by Mr. Shamonsky's December 21, 1993, letter to the Respondents. (GX 31). Unlike the Naval Reserve contract personnel, Mr. Shamonsky was not aware of the "all-roofers" area practice at the time of the pre-construction conference with the Respondents. He did generally reiterate the Respondents' Davis-Bacon Act responsibilities at the conference. Mr. James Thomas informed him, at that time, that he would be using laborers and roofers for the job. However, Mr. Shamonsky raised the misclassification issue with the Respondents' project manager, Mr. Bednarz, on-site supervisor, Mr. Diaz, and Mr. James Thomas himself as early as October 1993, after observing that the certified payrolls listed employees he had seen performing "roofing" work as "laborers."

   Even if the contracting agencies had acquiesced to the contractor's proposed classification and payment of a lower wage rate, which the record shows they did not, it would not relieve the Respondents from their responsibility of paying the correct rate. Sentinel Electric Co., WAB Case No. 82-9 (April 5, 1984). "The Davis-Bacon Act was intended to protect the rights of the laborers and mechanics employed on the projects, not to protect the contractors from bad advice given by someone without the final authority to make the determination. U.S. v. Binghampton Construction Co., 347 U.S. 171 (1954)." Metropolitan Rehabilitation Corp. Bronx, NY, supra.

   It was incumbent upon the contractor to be certain that its employees were properly classified when performing a Davis-Bacon Act job. By misclassifying and underpaying workers, Respondents proceeded at their own peril. The Matter of Tele-Sentry Security, W.A.B. Case No. 87-43 (June 7, 1989).

   The Department of Labor clearly retains the duty to determine the appropriate wages for particular classes of employees in various geographic areas and, when a dispute arises, to ascertain if employers have properly classified and paid employees based upon local area practices. As previously mentioned, if there is any disagreement concerning wage standards, an elaborate procedure is available to facilitate resolution of the matter. The Respondents' attempt to shift his regulatory and contractual duties to the government and to present that dereliction of duty as a defense is frivolous. In The Matter OF Thomas J. Clements, Inc., WAB Case No. 84-12 (June 14, 1984), 1984 WL 161753 (W.A.B.), excerpt from page 1984 WL 161753, *4 (W.A.B.). It was the Respondents' obligation to properly classify its employees and pay them the appropriate wages. See Emerald Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 925 F.2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

   Seven employees, under the Naval Reserve contract, were paid $19.00 per hour as "laborers" and $24.50 per hour when the prevailing wage determination required payment of $28.50 per hour as "roofers." Twenty-eight employees, under the Air Guard contract were paid $18.11 per hour as "laborers" when the wage determination required payment of $23.44 per hour as "roofers." Since the Respondents did not keep accurate accounts of the hours each employee worked in each classification they must be paid according to the roofers' classification, regardless of whether some of their time on the projects were spent performing tasks which fell into different classifications with lower corresponding wage rates. In Re Trataros, 28 Wage/Hour Cases (BNA) 865, 872 (ALJ Decision 1987), aff'd WAB (1992).

   I find the Respondents owe $5643.88 in back wages on the Naval Reserve contract and $27,079.07 on the Air Guard contract ($4,266.67 of which is due to subcontractor Bill Jackson Roofing employees) all as set forth in detail in Appendix A.

40 U.S.C. § 276a-2(a). This statutory provision is implemented at 29 C.F.R. § 5.12(a)(2).

Thus, the Davis-Bacon Act requires that a firm that has "disregarded its obligations" to its employees shall be debarred for three years. The Board, in G & O General Contractors, Inc., WAB Case No. 90-35 (Feb. 19, 1991) interpreted the Act as containing no language giving the Department of Labor or the Comptroller General discretion to impose a lesser period following the determination that a violation has occurred. Id. at 2, 3. The Board stated further that evidence regarding "mitigating factors" or "extraordinary circumstances" is irrelevant to the issue of debarment.

   Violations of the Davis-Bacon Act do not per se constitute a "disregard of an employer's obligations" within the meaning of Section 5.12(a)(2). See Framlau Corp., WAB Case No. 70-05 (April 19, 1971) slip opinion at 4-5; and Structural Concepts, Inc., WAB Case No. 95-02 (Nov. 30, 1995), slip opinion at 3-4. To support a debarment order, the evidence must establish a level of culpability beyond mere negligence. Id.; P&N, Inc., Thermodyn Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and Gamboa, ARB Case No. 96-116 (formerly WAB Case No. 95-13), 94-DBA-72 (Oct. 25, 1996); see, e.g., P. J. Stella Construction Corp., WAB Case No. 80-13 (Mar. 1, 1984), slip opinion at 5-6 (employer found "grossly negligent"); Vicon Corp., WAB Case No. 65-03 (Dec. 15, 1965), slip opinion at 6-7 ("bad faith or gross carelessness" regarding compliance). Further, a contractor who chooses "to utilize misclassified and thus under paid workers, . . . proceed[s] at its own peril." Thermodyn Mechanical Contractors, Inc., supra, quoting Tele-Sentry Security, Inc., WAB Case No. 87-43 (June 7, 1989), slip opinion at 5.

   The Administrator charges that the Respondents disregarded their obligation to their employees by failing to pay the wage rates listed in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor contained in the contracts. I find the Respondents' behavior more culpable than that. The Respondents, experienced government contractors, had ample notice and knowledge of the "all-roofers" area practice well before entering the first contract at issue here with the Naval Reserve. There is overwhelming evidence that by the time of entering the Air Guard contract it knew that an "all-roofers" area practice prevailed in several areas of the country and in particular several areas where it had contracts involving employment practices which were under investigation.

   At best, the Respondents simply made no legitimate effort to ascertain the area practices, instead purportedly relying on a misguided understanding of the law and contractual requirements, i.e., erroneously assuming it could shift its burden and rely on the contracting agencies' advice or successfully pursue a policy of deliberate ignorance. There is also some suggestion that the Respondents erroneously believed an area practice based on union practice did not apply to it because it was not a union employer. I find both these arguments disingenuous. Further, ". . . blissful ignorance is no defense to debarment." Fontaine Brothers, ARB 96-162 (1997) citing L.T.G. Construction Co., WAB Case No. 93-15 (Dec. 30, 1994).

   The Respondents' actions amounted to much more than mere negligence here. As the Wage Appeals Board has stated, "conduct which evidences an intent to evade or a purposeful lack of attention to a statutory responsibility" supports debarment under the Davis-Bacon Act. L.T.G. Construction Co., WAB Case No. 93-15 (Dec. 30, 1994), slip opinion at 7. Respondents' conduct is of the nature described in L.T.G. Construction, supra. Further, the successful efforts of the Respondent's supervisor to have interviewed employees not answer questions concerning their work, pay and classifications truthfully, under pain of losing their jobs, buttresses the need to debar the Respondents.

   The Administrator seeks debarment of not only Thomas & Sons Building Contractors, Inc., but also of Mr. James H. Thomas, individually and as a corporate officer of Thomas & Sons Building Contractors, Inc. The Administrative Law Judge's acknowledgment in Facchiano Construction Company v. Department of Labor, WAB Case No. 91-06 (August 29, 1991) that "to be of any real effect in insuring future compliance with the requirements of the [Davis-Bacon] Act, a debarment would have to be directed against [company officials]" is equally applicable here. See also, Howell Construction, WAB Case No. 93-12 (1994).

   The Respondents underpaid their employees, as alleged, and willfully disregarded their obligations to their employees, under the Davis-Bacon Act, by misclassifying employees as "laborers" on the two government roofing replacement contracts set forth herein and not classifying and paying them the higher wages of "roofers." The area practices of both contract situs, based upon the practices of signatories to collective bargaining agreements, required classification of workers on roof replacement projects, performing "roofers'" work, as "roofers." In spite of the appearance that some incidental tasks related to the contract performance, such as clean-up, removal of spilled tar, or wall repairs necessitated by tar or water damage, might not require the specialized skills of an experienced roofer, it is clear the area practices required classification of workers performing such work as "roofers." The testimony clearly establishes that roofers are an "unassisted" trade and that the tasks performed by the employees named herein and classified as "laborers" were, in fact, "roofers'" work.