U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
March 25, 1964
MEMORANDUM # 57
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 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-41




































U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25               131-d(2)
March 3, 1964
AIR MAIL - SPECIAL DELIVERY
Mr. Paul L. Styles
Labor Relations Director
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
George C. Marshall Space Flight
Center
Huntsville, Alabama
Dear Mr. Styles:
This will confirm my recent telegram indicating that the Davis-Bacon
Act applies to the installation of certain shop and laboratory
equipment under Contract NAS 9-1505 with Lockheed Aircraft Service
Company at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas. The
contract was awarded on May 10, 1963, and estimated to be in the
amount of $247,500. The present estimate of the contract amount to
$396,000.
The contract calls for services, supplies, and materials necessary
to perform preventive and reparative maintenance with incidental
services; such as, maintaining service history, refurbishing, setting
in place, making power connections, and running performance checks
for designated equipment. Ninety-five percent of the equipment is
now used by NASA in other locations. The equipment is of the following
types: (1) test and evaluation, (2) photographic, (3) fabrication shop,
(4) model shop, (5) laboratory,-and (6) machine shop. .
Questions have arisen as to the application of the Davis*Bacon Act to
the making of power, gas, water, and-similar connections, and to
leveling, tie-down, and reassembly work. Your agency estimates the
labor costs for this work to be from $9,881 to $12,537, or between 2.3
percent and 3.1 percent of the total contract Amount. It is our under*
standing that the installation work is to be performed during the
construction process, and that it is, to be performed to from twenty to:
twenty*five buildings.





















Mr. Paul L. Styles              Page 2
In "mixed" contract situations such as this, if more than an incidental
amount of construction is called for by the contract, the Davis-Bacon
Act applies to such construction. Accordingly, two issues are presented.
First, is "construction" involved, and second, if so, in there "more
than an incidental amount" of construction.
An application of the Davis-Bacon Act approved by this Department for use
by the Atomic Energy Commission which to published at 41 CFR 9-12.5003-2
(g)(I), appears to settle the issue of whether the work involved
constitutes "construction" under the Act. The pertinent paragraph reads
as follows:
(8) Installation, rearrangement or adjustment of equipments***
(1) During construction. In the construction of a new
facility whether it is a production plant, a laboratory,
or supporting facilities, such as shops and warehouses
an integral part of a construction project is the instal-
lation of equipment (including mechanical equipment,
building services, instruments, etc.) which permits the 
facility to be utilized for the purpose for which it was
intended. Normally, the initial installation, arrange-
ment, adjustment, balancing, calibration and checking of
such equipment is a logical part of the construction
contract(s) for completion of the facility and, whether
or not included within the scope of such contract(s), is
covered.
As to the second issue of whether or not "more than an incidental" amount
of construction is entailed, there is nothing to suggest from the pre-
sentation which has been made that the installation of the equipment will
be accomplished by work which is simple in character, which involves no
engineering operations, and which can be completed in a relatively brief
time. Cf. Letter of Solicitor, to Chief of Air Force Contract Management
Division, dated April 16, 1962(DB-23). Indeed, it seems fair to inter
from all the facts and circumstances which have been presented that the
converse will be so. We therefore conclude that there is "more than as
incidental" amount of construction involved.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Donahue
Solicitor of Labor