U.S. Department of Labor 
Employment Standards Administration 
Wage and Hour Division
Washington. D.C 20210
MAR 21 1989
MEMORANDUM NO. 149
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CONTRACTING AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FROM: PAULA V. SMITH
Administrator
SUBJECT: Exemption from the McNamara-O'Hara Service
Contract Act for Contracts for Maintenance or
Repair of Automated Data Processing Equipment
Contracts entered into by agencies of the Federal government or
the District of Columbia that are principally for the furnishing
of services through the use of service employees are subject to
the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended
("SCA"), 41 U.S.C. 351 et seg., and implementing regulations, 29
CFR Part 4, Labor Standards for Federal Service Contracts. An
administrative exemption from the provisions of the SCA is
codified at 29 CFR 4.123(e) for certain contracts for the
maintenance, Calibration and/or repair of automated data
processing (ADP) equipment and certain other related high
technology equipment under specified conditions. It has been
brought to our attention that clarifying guidance is needed to
achieve consistent interpretations among contracting agencies on
the intended scope of the exemption. The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide such clarifying guidance on the
application of the exemption set forth in 29 CFR 4.123(e).
The codified exemption does not expressly define the types of ADP
equipment that are considered to be within the scope of the
exemption. As originally proposed in 1981, the exemption was
limited to ADP equipment "procured pursuant to Public Law 89-306
(40 U.S.C. 759)," known as the Brooks Act (46 Fed. Reg. 41403,
August 14, 1981). (The Brooks Act is part of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, 40
U.S.C. 751 et seg., which, among other provisions, directs the
General Services Administration to coordinate and provide for the
purchase, lease, and maintenance of ADP equipment by Federal
agencies.) The reference to equipment "procured pursuant to" the
Brooks Act was deleted from the final rule, not because of any
definitional inconsistency between the Brooks Act and the SCA ADP
exemption, but because various exemptions in the Brooks Act would
have had an unintended limiting effect on the scope of the SCA
exemption (see 48 Fed. Reg. 49748-50, October 27, 1983).