U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
July 9, 1963
MEMORANDUM # 52
TO: AGENCIES ADMINISTERING STATUTES REFERRED TO IN 29
CFR, SUBTITLE A, PART 5.
FROM: E. Irving Manger
Associate Administrator
SUBJECT: Opinions on application of the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts.
Enclosed with previous covering memoranda, copies of
opinions on the application of the Davis-Bacon and related Acts
were furnished you for on and guidance in your enforce-
ment programs under those Acts.
We are now enclosing a copy of a recent opinion on
this same general subject which we are sure will be of further
interest and assistance to you.
Enelosure
DB-37




































DB-37
131c (1)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
July 9, 1963
Colonel Chaz M. Holland
Chief, Labor Relations Branch
Contract Management Division
Directorate of Procurement Policy
Department of the Air Force
Washington 25, D. C.
Re: United Communications Company
Contract AF 04(606)-12281
Vandenberg AFB, California
Our File E-63-1189
Dear Colonel Holland:
This has reference to our letter enclosing a telegram from
Mr. D. G. Milne, Business Manager, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 413,.Santa Barbara,
California. This telegram states that certain work under
the United Communications Company contract No. AF 04(606)-12281
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, was being performed
without regard for the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.
The United Communications Company contract is for the exten-
sion or upgrading of base communications systems. It was
awarded in March 1963, covering 14 specific jobs, and was
scheduled for completion in June 1963. Performance was under
the supervision of Ground Electronics Engineering Installation
Agency (hereinafter known as GEEIA) within the Air Force for
engineering, installation and check-out.
Apparently GEEIA had determined that, of the total contract
work, approximately 13%, consisting mainly of trenching,
backfilling, and building manholes, was subject to the "Davis-
Bacon Act. Apparently the remainder of the contract work,






















Colonel Chaz M. Holland      Page 2
consisting in general of cabling, cable splicing and termina-
tion of cables on master panels inside buildings, was not
considered by GEEIA to be subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.
Upon the basis of conferences between representatives of the
Department of the Air Force and the Department of Labor, in-
cluding a careful inspection of activities being performed
under the contract inspection, I have determined that the
work in question is as essentially the same as that performed
by the Western Electric Company at Vandenberg Air Force
Base with respect to which coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act
was determined by my 1etter dated January 31, 1962, to
Mr. Gordon M. Freeman, President of the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, copy attached. This letter
substantially adopted criteria developed by the Air Force
in connection with an number of contracts for the installation
of communications facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
These criteria are also attached.
Under these criteria the outside portion of the work, in-
cluding the installation of cable, splicing, and termination
of cables on master panels inside the building was determined
to be subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. All inside cabling and,
because of special circumstances presented in-the Western
Electric situation, the installation of the Bell system
standard framework and cable racks, were considered not
covered by the Act.
After reviewing the work in question, in the light of the
Department's decisions in such cases, we have reached the a
conclusion that the cable laying, splicing, and termination
of cables on master panels inside the building, under the
United Communications Company contract, constitutes con-
struction, alteration und/or repair of a public work within
the meaning of the Davis-Bacon Act as amended.
While we are not requesting retroactive compliance in this
case because of the particular circumstances involved, it
would be appreciated if you would take the necessary action
to assure compliance with the above determination in future
work of this nature including the work .under the open-end
type contract, AF 04(606)-12375.


















Colonel Chaz M. Holland         Page 3
The application of the Davis-Bacon Act in such cases may
be determined on the criteria attached to my letter of
January 31, 1962, in the Western Electric case. Of course
should the unusual circumstances of the type encountered in
the Western Electric case again arise, the determination in
that case would be applicable.
I trust that this will satisfactorily resolve the problem
presented in this case.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Donahue
solicitor of Labor
Enclosures