U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
November 27, 1957
Mr. Charles A. Horsky
Covington and Burling
Union Trust Building
Washington 5, D. C.
Dear Mr. Horskys
On June 8, 1956, we replied to your request on behalf of
the National Sand and Gravel Association, for rulings and opine
ions on the applicability of the Davie-Bacon and related Acts
to employees of sand and gravel firms engaged in furnishing
materials for use in work done under Federal construction con-
tracts. Our views were predicated on hypothetical factual situ-
ations with the understanding that, should the need for clarifi.
cation develop, additional interpretations would be issued.
We are now in receipt of your letter of November 15, 1957,
advising that since our prior correspondence, one situation has
arisen on which you request that we supplement or clarity our
letter of June 8, 1956.
The situation presented in your letter is as follows:
“Smith, a contractor, is engaged in performing a
paying contract for a Federal agency at an Air
Force Base. In addition to being a paving con-
tractor, Smith owns and operates an asphalt plant
and a rock quarry located in a nearby city. As-
phalt from Smith's plant and rock from Smith's
quarry are sold for private construction and are
also sold to city, county, state and federal
governments and to individuals performing con-
struction work for city, county, state and federal
governments. Asphalt for the Air Force Base pav-
ing project is obtained from the same plant. The
question is whether truck drivers who are employees
of Smith and who deliver materials to Smith's job at
the Air Force Base are covered by the Davis-Bacon
Act and related laws prescribing labor standards
for construction work. Similarly, what is the

















Mr. Charles A. Horsky         Page 2
situation with respect to Smith's employees at the
rock quarry and the asphalt plant sites?
"to state the problem more generally, where a firm
owns a business and supplies materia1a to the general
public, does the fact that it also contracts for the
construction of a federal project alter its status
as a materialman with respect to the construction
materials it produces and delivers for use to con-
structing the project?"
On review of the factual situation presented above, it is
our conclusion that employees of ,Smith at the rock quarry and as-
phalt plant engaged in delivering materials to the Federal construc-
tion project should not be considered subject to the Davis-Bacon
Act even though the project to which the material is delivered As
being constructed by the same individual who owns and operates the
asphalt plant and rock quarry. The basis for this ruling to as
follows:
Where a firm one and operates a business that supplies
materials to the public, the fact that it also contracts for the
construction of a  Federal project does not operate to alter its
status as a materialman insofar as the delivery of the supplies
or materials is concerned. The delivery of the material by em
ployees at the asphalt plant and rock quarry is considered func-
tionally integrated with and incidental to the sale of the mate-
rial and therefore not subject to the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts. In other words, the drivers making the delivery are em-
ployees of a materialman and, therefore, not covered; provided
they perform no additional substantial operation at the project
site. 
The same reasoning would apply to employees other than
truck drivers, engaged at the quarry or plant site, their coverage
being dependent on whether the operation was that of a true mate-
rialman open to the public, or whether the operation was set up
exclusively to perform part of the work called for by the con-
struction contract.
Very truly yours
/s/ Stuart Rothnan
Solicitor of Labor



















U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Solicitor 
Washington 25, D. C.
April 16, 1958
MEMORANDUM
To: AGENCIES ADMINISTERING STATUTES REFERRED TO IN 29
CFR, SUBTITLE A, PART 5,
From: Stuart Rothman
Solicitor of Labor
Subject: Opinion on application of the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts.
On July 5, 1956 and December 6, 1957, copies of
opinions on the above subject were furnished you for informa-
tion and guidance in your enforcement programs under the
Davis-Bacon and related Acts.
Enclosed is a copy of an opinion of December 26,
1957, on this same general problem which we are sure will
be of further assistance to you.
Enclosure