U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 85
NOV 28 1961
MEMORAND M # 29
TO: AGENCIES ADMINISTERING STATUTES REFERRED TO IN 29
CFR, SUBTITLE A, PART 5.
FROM: James M. Miller
Assistant Solicitor
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 information 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.
Enclosure





































DB-13
P. 132(c)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR       10b
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
Nov 6 1961
Rear Admiral R. L. Moore, Jr.
Acting Chief of Bureau
Bureau of Ships
Department of the Navy
Wahington 25, D. C.
Re: Your f11e 12720
Ser 720-1083
Philco Corporation
Contract N08sr-80904
Federal Electric Corporation
Contract NOBar-80908
San Diego, California
Our files: E-61-595-613 & 614
Dear Admiral Moore
This is with reference to your letter and enclosure
of May 31, 1961 regarding the application of the Davis Bacon
Act to work performed by the Philco Corporation, and by the
Federal Electric Corporation, on the above identified con-
tracts. These were awarded by the Resident Industrial
Manager, USN Repair Facility, San Diego, California.
You indicate that, in your opinion, the work in-
volved in these contracts does not constitute construction,
and, with the exception of three holes in a concrete wall for
water pipe, electrical conduit, and sheet metal duct, merely
involved the assembly and installation of equipment in build
ings already constructed. You further indicate that, in your
opinion, both contracts were properly determined not to be
subject to the provisions of the Davis Bacon Act.
From the description of work set forth in the attach-
ments to your letter, it Appears that all major items of equip-
ment were furnished by the Government. It further appears that




















Rear Admiral R. L. Moore, Jr.        Page 2
the labor costs involved on each of the contracts exceeded
$2,000. We understand that these contracts were competitively
bid by several qualified contractors who normally bid and per
form similar work in the San Diego Area.
It is true that, unless a substantial amount of cons
struction to involved, installation work, as such, to not
normally considered to be within the coverage of the Davis-
Bacon Act. Moreover, the $2,000 monetary requirement of the
Davis-Bacon Act is not regarded be the only test of coverage
in the case of supply and installation contracts. In the
case at the instant contracts, however, the cost of the con-
struction activity not only exceeded the monetary standard of
the Davis-Bacon Act, but, in feet, constituted the major cost
of the contract, as show by the breakdown of estimated labor
And material cost which you submitted. Such contracts not
tm considered to require substantial construction activity.
The background data on Contract NOBsr-80904 contains
the following description of works
"The work involved in this contract covered
the Installation at Government-furnished
AN/SQS-23 sonar gear at the Anti-Submarine
Warfare School, San Diego, California. The
installation included approximately 35 units
of equipments a grounding system, a water cool-
ing system for 3 amplifiers, the running of
primary power from a building distribution box
through existing ducts to the units, the instal-
lation of a 400-Cycle motor generator, including
cover panel and wiring and the putting in place
of approximately 235 different cables, spread
over 4 rooms, and included the lugging and soldering
of approximately 4000 leads. A subcontract covered
the fabrication of three motor mounts and a metal
cable cover.."






















Rear Admiral R. L. Moore, Jr.          Page 3
Contract MODsr-80908 in described as follows:
“The work involved in this contract
covered the installation of two Government.
furnished AN/FPN-36 Quadradars at the U. S. 
Naval Air Station, Miramar, San Diego, Cali-
fornia. The installations included the run-
ning of telephone-type and coaxial cables,
ringing out and tagging all pairs at the
multiconductors, installing a function bar
and connections, installing Government-
furnished line amplifiers with mounting
brackets and ducting, installing Government-
furnished ground rods, fabricating and in,
stalling two dollies for indicators and making
other related electrical and electronic con-
nections."
After examining the above descriptions of work and
the monetary value of the contracts, it is our position that
the work contained in both of the subject contracts is con-
struction activity subject to the provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act.
It is appreciated by the Office that retroactive
corrective action on the instant contracts is not feasible
at this time. However, since the Davis-Bacon Act provides
that the advertised specifications of every contract to
whitch the Act applies, as well as the contract itself,
shall contain certain provisions set forth in that Act, I
respectfully call this matter to your attention so that
the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act still be included in
any there contracts for similar work which may be awarded
by your agency.
Yory truly yours,
Charles Donahue
Solicitor of Labor