Davis-Bacon Act: Labor's Actions Have Potential to Improve Wage
Determinations (Letter Report, 05/28/99, GAO/HEHS-99-97).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on: (1)
the status of the Department of Labor's efforts to improve the
Davis-Bacon Act wage determination process; and (2) whether the changes
Labor is making are likely to address the timeliness and accuracy of
wage determinations.

GAO noted that: (1) in response to the conference report directive,
Labor is testing a number of efforts that are aimed at improving the
process for determining prevailing wage rates; (2) the alternatives
being tested fall under two tracks: (a) redesigning Labor's Wage and
Hour Division's (WHD) existing survey process, including revising survey
forms to obtain data more efficiently and using technology to more
quickly and accurately analyze the survey data obtained; and (b) using
data from surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to
determine prevailing wage rates; (3) the earliest efforts began in 1996
and most efforts under both tracks are scheduled for completion by
fiscal year (FY) 2000; (4) given these timeframes and the need to
analyze the results, Labor officials said they will decide in FY 2001
which track best promotes a wage determination process that will result
in accurate, timely wage determinations; (5) efforts under either track,
if successfully implemented, have the potential to improve the
timeliness and accuracy of wage determinations; (6) redesigning the
survey form and making it more accessible and understandable to survey
participants could increase survey participation and improve the
timeliness of data submitted, potentially leading to more accurate and
timely wage determinations; (7) however, Labor officials identified
several key issues that they will need to address for efforts under
either track to achieve the intended results; (8) these issues include
concerns about: (a) WHD's ability to deal with potentially significant
increases in the volume of survey data collected under a revised
process; and (b) limitations of BLS data as a tool in setting prevailing
wage rates; (9) Labor officials also acknowledged that they need to
develop a clear plan to make an informed decision about which track, or
combination of efforts under both tracks, to implement; (10) Labor has
established general performance measures that officials say will guide
Labor's efforts; (11) additionally, it has started to collect limited
baseline data to assess progress made under both tracks but such data
may be of limited use; and (12) Labor has also recognized that other
factors, such as cost, will need to be considered when officials decide
which efforts would most improve the accuracy and timeliness of wage
determinations, but officials have not yet specified how these other
factors will be analyzed.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-97
     TITLE:  Davis-Bacon Act: Labor's Actions Have Potential to Improve
	     Wage Determinations
      DATE:  05/28/99
   SUBJECT:  Wage surveys
	     Income statistics
	     Data integrity
	     Labor law
	     Payroll records
	     Construction contracts
	     Minimum wage rates
	     Data collection
	     Internal controls
	     Job classification
IDENTIFIER:  BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey
	     National Compensation Survey

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
DAVIS-BACON ACT: Labor's Actions Have Potential to Improve Wage
Determinations GAO/HEHS-99-97 United States General Accounting
Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

May 1999 DAVIS- BACON ACT Labor's Actions Have Potential to
Improve Wage Determinations

GAO/HEHS-99-97

  GAO/HEHS-99-97

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Health, Education, and Human Services
Division

B-282463 May 28, 1999 The Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman The
Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human

Services, and Education Committee on Appropriations United States
Senate

The Honorable John Edward Porter Chairman The Honorable David R.
Obey Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human

Services, Education and Related Agencies Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives

The Davis- Bacon Act requires employers to pay locally prevailing
wage rates, including fringe benefits, to laborers and mechanics
on the more than $40 billion of federal construction projects each
year. 1 The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD),
responsible for administering this act, determines these wage
rates through surveys that collect data on wages and fringe
benefits paid to workers in similar job classifications on
comparable construction projects in the same geographic area. In
the past, we and others have raised concerns that wage
determinations issued by Labor may not accurately reflect wages
paid in the local area. Inaccurate wage determinations could lead
to the payment of wages that are either lower than what workers
should receive, or higher than the actual prevailing wages, which
would inflate federal construction costs at taxpayers' expense. 2
Accuracy problems can be caused, for example, by low participation
rates in the surveys or the use of survey wage data that are, on
average, 7 years old.

For fiscal year 1997, the House Appropriations Committee
Conference report directed Labor to test and implement ways to
improve the overall

1 This 1996 estimate includes only construction projects for which
federal agencies provide direct contracts. It does not include
projects that receive federal assistance through grants, loans,
loan guarantees, or insurance.

2 See Davis- Bacon Act: Process Changes Could Raise Confidence
That Wage Rates Are Based on Accurate Data (GAO/HEHS-96-130, May
31, 1996).

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 1

B-282463

wage determination process by either using alternative wage data
sources or, if that was not feasible or cost- effective, improving
the capacity of the existing survey process to promote
participation and data reliability. The report also directed us to
determine whether Labor's changes would improve the timeliness and
accuracy of wage determinations. 3 As agreed with the
congressional appropriations committees, we determined

 the status of Labor's efforts to improve the Davis- Bacon wage
determination process, and  whether the changes Labor is making
are likely to address the timeliness

and accuracy of wage determinations. 4 To determine the status of
Labor's efforts and whether they are likely to address the
accuracy and timeliness of Davis- Bacon wage determinations, we
interviewed Labor officials at WHD and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), obtained and reviewed relevant documents, and
evaluated ongoing and planned efforts for their potential impact
on wage determinations. We conducted this review between February
and April 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Results in Brief In response to the conference report directive,
Labor is currently testing a number of efforts that are aimed at
improving the process for determining

prevailing wage rates. The alternatives being tested fall under
two tracks:  redesigning WHD's existing survey process, including
revising survey forms

to obtain data more efficiently and using technology to more
quickly and accurately analyze the survey data obtained; and
using data from surveys conducted by BLS to determine prevailing
wage

rates. The earliest efforts began in 1996 and most efforts under
both tracks are scheduled for completion by fiscal year 2000.
Given these time frames and the need to analyze the results, Labor
officials said they will decide in fiscal year 2001 which track
(or specific efforts) best promotes a wage determination process
that will result in accurate, timely wage determinations.

3 U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Making Appropriations
for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 1997, H. Rept. 104-
863, 104 th Cong., 2nd sess. 4 The conference report also directed
us to ascertain whether Labor's changes would improve the
reliability of wage determinations. We believe that accurate wage
rates would be reliable and, for ease of presentation, are using
the term accuracy to represent reliability as well.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 2

B-282463

Efforts under either track, if successfully implemented, have the
potential to improve the timeliness and accuracy of wage
determinations. For example, redesigning the survey form and
making it more accessible and understandable to survey
participants could increase survey participation and improve the
timeliness of data submitted, potentially leading to more accurate
and timely wage determinations. However, Labor officials
identified several key issues that they will need to address for
efforts under either track to achieve the intended results. These
issues include concerns about (1) WHD's ability to deal with
potentially significant increases in the volume of survey data
collected under a revised process and (2) limitations of BLS data
as a tool in setting prevailing wage rates. Labor officials also
acknowledged that they need to develop a clear plan to make an
informed decision about which track, or combination of efforts
under both tracks, to implement. Labor has established general
performance measures that officials say will guide Labor's
efforts. Additionally, it has started to collect limited baseline
data to assess progress made under both tracks but such data may
be of limited use. Labor has also recognized that other factors,
such as cost, will need to be considered when officials decide
which efforts would most improve the accuracy and timeliness of
wage determinations, but officials have not yet specified how
these other factors will be analyzed.

Background The Davis- Bacon Act, enacted in 1931, and related
legislation require employers on federally funded construction
projects valued at more than

$2,000, or on federally assisted projects, to pay their workers,
at a minimum, wages that the Secretary of Labor has determined to
be prevailing for corresponding classes of workers on similar
projects in the same locality. To carry out this mission, Labor
administers surveys to construction contractors and third parties,
such as representatives of unions and contractor associations, and
asks them to provide wage and fringe benefit data on a form called
the WD- 10. Labor sets wages for four types of construction
building, residential, heavy, and highway that it finds reflect
current categories in the construction industry as well as the
act's requirement that wages for Davis- Bacon workers be
commensurate with workers on similar projects. Labor's survey
coverage ranges from a county to an entire state, reflecting its
implementation of the act's requirement that prevailing wages
represent those paid in the same locality. For example, surveys
are typically conducted on a countywide basis for all construction
types except highway, which are often conducted on a statewide
basis. Labor generally issues general area wage rates for specific
job classifications or occupations, such as electricians,

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 3

B-282463

carpenters, and drywallers to meet the act's requirement that it
set wages for corresponding classes of workers. 5 Labor has
implemented procedures to verify wage data submitted on the
surveys to address problems related to data accuracy. In 1999, we
reviewed these procedures and recommended specific changes to
increase their impact on the accuracy of the wage determinations
while reducing the time and cost to collect this information. 6
See appendix I for a more detailed description of the wage
determination process.

BLS, the Labor component responsible for collecting, analyzing,
and disseminating labor statistics, is providing data to WHD from
its existing survey programs to allow WHD to evaluate whether
those data can be used to set prevailing wages under the Davis-
Bacon Act. BLS seeks to produce nationally representative
employment and economic statistics that are timely and accurate.
To do so, BLS has established key priorities, such as drawing
representative samples, ensuring high response rates, and
guaranteeing the confidentiality of survey respondents. In fiscal
year 1997, BLS began collecting wage data through its Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) survey, which had until then collected
only employment data. This mail survey, which comprises a sample
of 1.2 million establishments, covers approximately 400,000
establishments each year and thus takes three yearly cycles to
obtain data from the entire sample. BLS is also in the process of
combining several surveys that produced local and national
employment, wage, fringe benefit, and employment cost data into a
single survey: the National Compensation Survey (NCS). By April
2001, BLS expects to survey over 30,000 establishments in 154
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that represent all such
areas in the United States. Initial data collection will involve
BLS staff conducting on- site interviews and reviewing various
payroll documents. According to BLS officials, although this
sample will be sufficient to produce national estimates, BLS will
be able to publish detailed data for only about half of the areas
surveyed.

5 Labor determines an area's prevailing wage rate on the basis of
the 50- percent rule, which states that the prevailing wage will
be the wage paid to the majority of workers employed in a specific
job classification. If the same rate is not paid to a majority of
those workers in the classification, the prevailing wage will be
the average of the wages paid, weighted by the total number of
workers employed in the classification. In addition to these
general area wage determinations, Labor also issues determinations
on a case- by- case basis for individual projects through means
other than surveys.

6 See Davis- Bacon Act: Labor Now Verifies Wage Data, but
Verification Process Needs Improvement (GAO/HEHS-99-21, Jan. 11,
1999).

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 4

B-282463

Labor Has Initiated, but Not Completed, Efforts to Improve the
Wage Determination Process

In response to the conference report directive, Labor is currently
testing a number of efforts under two tracks that it believes will
improve the wage determination process. It expects that wage
determinations would more accurately reflect prevailing wages if
the wage survey process was improved through efforts that would,
for example, increase survey participation and the timeliness of
data collection and analysis. The earliest of these efforts began
in 1996, with most scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2000.
Labor will evaluate the results of these efforts and decide in
fiscal year 2001 which track, or combination of efforts under both
tracks, to implement.

Labor informed the House Education and Workforce Committee in 1997
that it had selected these two tracks to test simultaneously: one
track focuses on ways to redesign the current process WHD uses to
collect and analyze survey data to set prevailing wage rates,
while the other explores the use of BLS survey data as the basis
for setting prevailing wages. 7 Table 1 highlights selected major
efforts under the redesign track; table 2 describes the efforts
under the BLS track. Efforts under the redesign track seek to (1)
improve survey data collection by, for example, redesigning the
WD- 10 survey form, making the form more accessible through a
specially designated Internet web site, and using alternative
methods to identify contractors and distribute surveys; and (2)
enhance data analysis through such means as verifying wage data
and developing technology to help identify inaccuracies in the
data. WHD has tested or plans to test some of these efforts in two
comprehensive surveys covering entire states and all four types of
construction, which WHD traditionally has not done. For example,
in the first survey, conducted in Oregon in 1998, WHD used state
unemployment insurance (UI) data to identify additional
construction establishments to survey. In the second survey,
scheduled to begin in Colorado in June 1999, WHD plans to test
technology, such as the use of imaging and scanning software, to
facilitate data entry and analysis.

7 In 1996, Labor selected these two tracks, after soliciting input
from external customers and interested parties, because it
believed they were the most promising for improving the wage
determination process.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 5

B-282463

Table 1: Selected Major Efforts to Redesign WHD's Current Survey
Process

Description Status Survey data collection

Comprehensive surveys Conduct statewide surveys for all four types
of construction to move from a countywide to a statewide system
that includes all construction types

A pilot survey was conducted in Oregon in 1998 and a second is
expected to be initiated in Colorado in June 1999.

Results from Oregon are expected in September 1999 and from
Colorado in 2000.

Redesigned WD- 10 form Add barcode to track survey submissions and
change form to make survey completion easier and clarify data

Barcodes were tested in the Oregon survey. WHD revised some
questions and made format changes.

The bar code and revised questions and format were incorporated in
a redesigned form, which should be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in June 1999. WHD plans
to use this form for all surveys beginning in August 1999.

Collect wage data by labor hours rather than peak week a
Collection of wage data by labor hours was

completed in fiscal year 1999 in a regular Hawaii survey.

WHD is currently considering an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking to solicit public comment on the use of labor hours in
lieu of peak week, and other methodological changes.

Internet web site Design a web site that provides information
about and access to the WD- 10 and allows participants to submit
data electronically to WHD

In 1998, WHD initiated a web site that provides access to the
current WD- 10 form, which includes a bar code. Participants can
download but not electronically submit the form.

WHD is developing an interactive WD- 10 based on the revised form
for the web site that participants will be able to complete on-
line and submit electronically.

WHD plans to submit the interactive form to OMB for clearance in
September 1999 and put it on the web site in fiscal year 2000.

Additional sources to identify survey universe Use UI or other
databases to supplement existing sources of data to identify
contractors to survey

The use of a UI database was tested in the Oregon survey; it will
not be tested in the Colorado survey. b

(continued)

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 6

B-282463

Description Status

Automated printing and mailing of surveys Use the Census Bureau's
automated facilities to print and mail surveys Census' facilities
were used to distribute survey

forms in the Oregon survey and will be used in the Colorado
survey. WHD plans to use this process for all surveys beginning in
August 1999.

Data analysis and verification

Telephone and on- site verification Review wage data submissions
by telephone or on- site for accuracy As of 1996, WHD had
implemented telephone

verification for a sample of wage data submissions from
contractors and third parties.

In 1997 WHD implemented on- site reviews for a sample of wage data
submissions from contractors and third parties.

In response to previous GAO recommendations, WHD plans to increase
the number of telephone reviews and decrease the number of on-
site reviews.

Technology Use imaging and scanning software to facilitate data
entry and analysis WHD has developed this technology and

expects to complete testing in June 1999. Use knowledge management
c software to help WHD analysts and survey respondents check the
completeness and adequacy of survey data, identify inaccuracies,
and allow WHD analysts to analyze data in a standardized way
across regions

WHD is currently testing software packages and expects to select
one by the end of fiscal year 1999.

Develop a Computer- Assisted Telephone Inquiry (CATI) system to
help WHD analysts follow up with survey respondents to collect
clarifying information

WHD is currently evaluating telephone systems in its regional
offices to determine how to accommodate a CATI.

WHD expects to determine the preliminary design in fiscal year
1999 and develop the system in fiscal year 2000.

a The peak week refers to the work week in which the contractor
employed the largest number of workers in a particular job
classification for work on a specific construction project. While
peak week counts the number of workers within a job classification
for only one week, regardless of the number of hours worked and
the wages paid them, labor hours counts the number of total hours
worked within a specific job classification for the entire
duration of the project.

b Colorado will not allow WHD to use its UI database because BLS
is conducting a survey there at the same time and the state does
not want to burden employers with excessive paperwork and
discourage participation.

c Knowledge management software allows users to examine, verify,
and manage information in a database. For example, the software
will allow wage analysts to identify inconsistent or missing
information on submitted wage data forms.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 7

B-282463

Efforts under the BLS track have focused on using existing BLS
surveys to obtain data on wage rates, fringe benefits, and the
union affiliation of construction employees. 8 According to WHD
and BLS officials, BLS was selected as a possible alternative data
source for a number of reasons, including BLS' more comprehensive
approach and expertise in collecting wage data compared with other
potential sources, and its history of providing statistical
information to others. Also, BLS already provides wage and fringe
benefit data to WHD for the determination of prevailing wage rates
under the Service Contract Act (SCA), which requires that
individuals working in service occupations (such as janitors,
security guards, or data processors) under contract to a federal
employer be paid prevailing wages. SCA, however, has a more
flexible concept of locality than Davis- Bacon, and many of these
service contracts are nationwide in scope. As a result, under SCA,
WHD uses a single national rate for several types of fringe
benefits to determine prevailing wage rates, unlike Davis- Bacon,
for which it must use fringe benefits paid in a given locality.

BLS has undertaken three distinct efforts to collect or tabulate
data on wage rates, fringe benefits, and union affiliation of
construction employees for WHD. In regard to wage data, BLS is
using its existing survey procedures and sampling frame to produce
data for construction industries in local areas to allow WHD to
evaluate the data's usefulness in setting wage rate
determinations. To collect data on fringe benefits and union
affiliation, BLS conducted pilot surveys using existing survey
procedures and sampling frames to test whether NCS and OES could
obtain the necessary information. WHD and BLS officials agreed
that no significant changes would be made to OES or NCS during
this initial period, as these surveys had been recently revised
(for example, adding the wage variable to the OES) or developed
(for example, the NCS), and BLS did not know how additional
changes to the surveys would affect their viability.

8 If a particular wage determination is based on a union's
collective bargaining agreement and Labor has no indication that
the situation has changed, updated wage determinations may be
based on updated collective bargaining agreements.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 8

B-282463

Table 2: Description of Efforts to Collect Data Through BLS
Surveys Effort Description Status

OES wage data Determine whether the

existing OES sampling frame and methodology could provide
sufficient wage data

In fiscal year 1997, BLS conducted the first cycle of the 3- year
survey, but the sample of construction establishments was too
small to provide locality- based wage estimates.

In fiscal year 1998, BLS conducted the second cycle and provided
results to WHD in April 1999.

BLS is currently conducting the final cycle and expects data for
the full sample to be available by 2000.

NCS fringe benefit data Conduct studies in four

locations to collect fringe benefit data in areas not currently
surveyed by NCS

BLS completed the first two studies (Jacksonville, Fla., and
Tucson, Ariz.) in 1998.

BLS completed data collection for the third location (Salt Lake
City, Utah) and expects to release results in June 1999.

In April 1999, BLS began data collection in the final location
(Toledo, Ohio) and expects to release results at the end of fiscal
year 1999.

OES union affiliation data Test whether OES can

obtain information on union affiliation

BLS conducted an initial test in four states in 1998 to determine
if employers had union affiliation information and were willing to
provide it. BLS provided this information to WHD in 1998.

On the basis of positive test results, BLS is conducting a follow-
up study in nine additional states and expects to have results in
fiscal year 2000.

As shown in tables 1 and 2, the first of these efforts telephone
verification of contractor and third- party wage data submissions
began in 1996, and some of the efforts have been completed or
implemented, such as on- site verification, the use of automated
printing and mailing operations, and the use of state UI data to
identify construction establishments. However, most efforts are
still being tested or are ongoing and not scheduled to be
completed before fiscal year 2000. For example, results from the
Oregon survey, which tested several of these efforts, will not be
available until September 1999. Additionally, WHD does not expect
to select a knowledge management software package before the end
of fiscal year 1999. The development of one effort CATI to
facilitate the

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 9

B-282463

clarification of data by follow- up telephone calls will not begin
until fiscal year 2000. Moreover, even though BLS has provided
some data to WHD from the initial OES union affiliation test and
two of the NCS fringe benefit studies, all of the results will not
be final until 2000.

Although the conference report did not set a deadline for Labor to
complete these efforts, Labor officials said they will decide
which track or combination of efforts under both tracks to select
in fiscal year 2001. Officials said this schedule is necessary
given the time frames of individual efforts and the need to
evaluate and analyze all of the results when the efforts are
completed. For example, according to officials, because final
results representing the full OES sample will not be available
until 2000, an assessment of the OES data's usefulness cannot be
done until the entire 3- year cycle of data collection is
completed. Officials will not be able to determine until then
whether the wage data collected by the survey will meet BLS
standards for issuance and be sufficient to meet WHD's needs in
determining wage rates. However, officials said that although they
would discontinue efforts at any time that did not appear to be
working, in the absence of a clear stop light, they believed they
needed to see these efforts through, evaluate them, and make an
informed decision.

Since fiscal year 1997, Labor has allocated over $11 million for
these improvement efforts. It spent $7.4 million in fiscal years
1997 and 1998 and allocated $3.75 million in fiscal year 1999. In
its fiscal year 2000 budget, Labor plans to obligate another $3.75
million to continue funding these activities. To date, WHD has
primarily used these funds to (1) procure the services of private
sector contractors to redesign the wage survey process and conduct
on- site verification; (2) purchase computer hardware and software
and telecommunications equipment; and (3) reimburse BLS (about
$3.7 million) for its survey activities, including the salaries
and expenses of about 11 full- time- equivalent staff at BLS to
conduct the NCS surveys. These funding amounts do not include
salaries for WHD staff working on improvement activities.

Labor's Efforts Have Potential to Improve Accuracy and Timeliness
of Wage Determinations

On the basis of our review of Labor's efforts and our past work on
the Davis- Bacon Act, we believe that a number of Labor's efforts
under both tracks, if successfully implemented, have the potential
to improve the accuracy and timeliness of wage determinations. To
achieve more accurate and timely wage determinations under either
track, Labor officials said the process must promote greater
survey participation, improve the accuracy of data submissions and
Labor's ability to verify

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 10

B-282463

them, and increase the efficiency of data collection and analysis.
Labor must ensure that the data are collected, analyzed, and
published in a timely manner so that when wage rates are issued,
they still reflect current local conditions. As summarized in
table 3, a number of WHD's efforts seek to improve the accuracy of
the incoming wage data, such as making wage survey forms easier to
complete, and to promote greater participation, such as using BLS'
OES survey with its large sample of construction establishments.
However, Labor officials said they will need to address a number
of unresolved issues in both tracks that could limit the potential
of these efforts to achieve the desired results. Furthermore, they
said they would need to do a number of things to ensure the track
or efforts they select are the best options for improving the
accuracy and timeliness of wage determinations.

Table 3: Potential Impact of WHD's Efforts on Improving the
Accuracy and Timeliness of Wage Determinations Potential
improvement to wage

determination Effort Accuracy Timeliness Area of process
improvement

Comprehensive surveys X X Collecting data on a statewide basis for
all four construction types would allow WHD to collect and use
data for all construction types and counties at once, rather than
soliciting and discarding data that did not meet the identified
construction type and county requirements specified in a survey,
resulting in increased data and more efficient data collection.

Respondents would complete only one survey for all construction
types and counties rather than having to complete surveys for four
different construction types by individual county. This could
improve respondents' awareness of the survey and the universe of
survey participants, and reduce respondents' burden, thereby
yielding greater levels of participation.

The greater volume of data resulting from larger, more frequent
surveys could improve the accuracy of wage determinations and
provide WHD with more flexibility to ensure sufficient usable data
to issue wage determinations.

Redesigned WD- 10 form X X Making the form more accessible (for
example, through revised questions, Internet access) and
understandable to participants could encourage more participants
to complete the survey, resulting in greater participation, and
reduce errors in data submissions.

Collecting data by labor hours instead of peak week could
facilitate completing the survey, which could increase
participation, decrease errors, and reduce review time for WHD
analysts.

(continued)

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 11

B-282463

Potential improvement to wage determination

Effort Accuracy Timeliness Area of process improvement

Additional sources to identify survey universe X Using UI or other
data sources could identify additional

construction establishments to survey, leading to greater levels
of participation.

Greater participation could increase the volume and
representativeness of data submitted, thereby increasing the
accuracy of wage determinations.

Telephone and on- site verification X Verification could identify
and correct errors and help educate

survey participants on how to complete forms properly. Technology
X X Imaging and scanning technology could expedite the transfer of

survey data into an automated WHD database, which would expand
survey coverage and facilitate data analysis and verification.

Knowledge management software could help WHD staff analyze and
verify data correctly and more efficiently, reducing the analysts'
work load and review time.

BLS' OES wage data X X The use of OES with its large sample of
construction establishments could identify a greater number of
employers. BLS' requirements for high response rates could lead to
significant rates of participation.

When OES completes its 3- year cycle and is fully operational, it
will provide wage data annually that could improve the timeliness
of wage determinations.

To achieve these potential results, Labor officials said that they
need to address a number of unresolved issues:

 Efforts to redesign the current wage determination process or
conduct statewide surveys for all four construction types could
significantly increase the volume of data received by WHD
analysts. WHD estimates these changes would result in a tenfold
increase in the number of WD- 10s wage analysts would have to
process before they begin data analysis. Although WHD plans to use
technology to facilitate data handling and analysis, such a
significant increase in the volume of data could affect the
timeliness of wage determinations and raise questions about the
adequacy of WHD resources and technology to deal with this work
load.  The use of alternative databases such as UI to identify
additional

construction establishments may not result in sufficient data that
would adequately represent the current universe of construction
establishments. The use of Oregon's UI database provided names of
additional construction establishments to survey; however,
according to BLS officials, UI databases may not accurately
represent all construction establishments because of

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 12

B-282463

the high rate at which they are created and disbanded. As a
result, WHD officials said they will need to evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of alternative data sources to ensure
that survey participation accurately reflects the current
universe. This would also be the case for any states, such as
Colorado, that do not allow WHD to use their UI databases.  Using
BLS' OES data as the basis for wage determinations presents WHD
with

a number of operational issues about setting wage rates. For
example, WHD officials said they need to evaluate whether the
level of data provided through OES by occupation or construction
type would be sufficient to comply with wage determination rate
requirements. Also, because OES provides no information on fringe
benefits, WHD officials said they would have to link OES wage data
with other data sources that include fringe benefit data to set
wage rates that comprise all relevant wage data and accurately
reflect local conditions. WHD officials believe that the only
adequate source of fringe benefit data is NCS; but because NCS
data are available only at the national level or for limited
geographic areas, their usefulness may be limited.

Labor officials also said that they need to develop clear plans
about how to ensure that the track or efforts they choose are the
best options to improve the timeliness and accuracy of wage
determinations. Accordingly, they have established general
performance measures that the officials said will be used to gauge
Labor's process improvements and guide the final decision about
which track to select. The measures seek to ensure that, by fiscal
year 2002, Labor will be able to

 survey each area of the country for all four types of
construction at least every 3 years, and  issue 90 percent of all
wage determinations within 60 days of Labor s

national WHD office receiving wage survey data from regional
offices. 9 Regarding the first measure, WHD officials believe that
conducting surveys and issuing the resulting wage determinations
every 3 years will lead to wage determinations that validly
represent locally prevailing wage rates. Regarding the second
measure, WHD officials reported that WHD currently issues almost
all wage determinations within 60 days of receiving the
information from regional offices and they would seek to maintain
this level of timeliness at least 90 percent of the time despite
the potentially significant increase in data volume resulting from
more frequent, larger surveys.

9 Under the current process, the national office receives the
survey data after the regional office has collected and analyzed
the survey data and calculated recommended wage rate
determinations.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 13

B-282463

According to WHD officials, the first measure represents an
improvement in timeliness in the wage determination process given
that wage determinations are based on survey data that are, on
average, 7 years old. Officials recognized, however, that they
would have to consider other indicators to ensure that more
frequent, larger surveys result in more accurate data and greater
survey participation, especially if efforts under both tracks
enable them to conduct surveys every 3 years. Nevertheless, they
believe it is too soon to define these other indicators before the
results of the individual efforts are available. The second
measure provides some indication of timeliness but does not
reflect improved accuracy or participation. In addition, WHD
officials said they are not sure how this measure would help
assess efforts under the BLS track, since under this scenario, BLS
not WHD's regional offices would be providing the wage data to
WHD's national office.

To develop baseline data that will be used to assess the progress
individual efforts achieve, WHD has also recently started to model
the process; this involves tracking segments of the current WHD
wage determination process to identify and address bottlenecks.
For example, WHD is collecting data from its Oregon and Colorado
surveys to estimate the time it takes WHD wage analysts to conduct
various survey activities and the percentage of employers
submitting usable wage data. However, these data may not be
appropriate baseline data because they include a mix of
traditional and new practices, and represent data from only two
surveys. Also, given that WHD has little useful information on the
time needed to issue a wage determination, the accuracy of wage
determinations, or survey participation rates, it is not clear how
this information will allow WHD to assess the extent to which the
tracks improve the process.

Finally, Labor has begun to identify other key factors, such as
cost, that will need to be addressed as part of its decision-
making process, but it has not yet set priorities or assigned
weights to these factors. These factors are important if both
tracks demonstrate some improvements in timeliness and accuracy,
which they likely will, or if WHD must consider certain trade-
offs for example, if one track achieves greater levels of
accuracy, but is significantly more expensive or resource-
intensive. However, Labor believes it is premature to do so until
it has seen the results of all of the individual efforts.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 14

B-282463

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the
Department of Labor for its review and comment. In its comments,
Labor stated that our report

provided an excellent summary of its recent efforts to improve the
accuracy and timeliness of Davis- Bacon wage determinations. Labor
also reiterated that it must first establish whether both
approaches it is undertaking, or some combination of the two, will
be feasible to meet the needs of the Davis- Bacon wage
determination program before it can assess the relative merits of
each. Labor also noted that it had initiated improvements to the
Davis- Bacon wage determination process before the congressional
conference report directive. We acknowledge that Labor initiated
prior efforts to improve the process; however, the scope of this
report focuses only on the status of Labor's efforts to respond to
the congressional directive. Labor officials also provided
technical comments and corrections, which we incorporated as
appropriate. Labor's comments are included in their entirety in
appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Alexis M.
Herman, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Bernard E. Anderson,
Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards; the Honorable
Katherine G. Abraham, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics; appropriate congressional committees; and other
interested parties.

Please call me or Larry Horinko, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-
7014 if you or your staffs have any questions about this report.
Other major contributors to this report were Lori Rectanus, Ronni
Schwartz, and Robert C. Crystal.

Marnie S. Shaul Associate Director Education, Workforce, and

Income Security Issues

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 15

Contents Letter 1 Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process
Under the Davis- Bacon Act

18 Appendix II Comments From the Department of Labor

26 Related GAO Products 28 Tables Table 1: Selected Major Efforts
to Redesign WHD's Current

Survey Process 6

Table 2: Description of Efforts to Collect Data Through BLS
Surveys

9 Table 3: Potential Impact of WHD's Efforts on Improving the

Accuracy and Timeliness of Wage Determinations 11

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CATI Computer- Assisted Telephone
Inquiry CBA collective bargaining agreement CRA Construction
Resources Analysis NCS National Compensation Survey OES
Occupational Employment Statistics OMB Office of Management and
Budget RSPR Regional Survey Planning Report SCA Service Contract
Act UI unemployment insurance WHD Wage and Hour Division

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 16

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 17

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

The Davis- Bacon Act requires that workers employed on federal
construction contracts valued in excess of $2,000 be paid, at a
minimum, wages and fringe benefits that the Secretary of Labor
determines to be prevailing for corresponding classes of workers
employed on projects that are similar in character to the contract
work in the geographic area where the construction takes place.

To determine the prevailing wages and fringe benefits in various
areas throughout the United States, Labor's Wage and Hour Division
(WHD) periodically surveys wages and fringe benefits paid to
workers in four basic types of construction (building,
residential, highway, and heavy 10 ). Labor has designated the
county as the basic geographic unit for data collection, although
Labor also conducts some surveys setting prevailing wage rates for
groups of counties. Wage rates are issued for a series of job
classifications in the four basic types of construction, so each
wage determination requires the calculation of prevailing wages
for many different trades, such as electrician, plumber, and
carpenter. For example, one heavy construction survey in Louisiana
identified wage rates for 89 different construction trade
occupations. Because there are over 3,000 counties, WHD would need
to conduct more than 12,000 surveys each year if every county in
the United States was to be surveyed. In fiscal year 1997, Labor
issued 1,860 individual rates in wage determinations based on 43
area wage surveys. Labor's wage determination process consists of
four basic stages:

 planning and scheduling surveys of employers' wages and fringe
benefits in similar job classifications on comparable construction
projects;  conducting surveys of employers and third parties, such
as representatives

of unions or industry associations, on construction projects;
clarifying and analyzing respondents' data; and  issuing the wage
determinations. 11

Stage 1: Planning and Scheduling Survey Activity

Labor annually identifies the geographic areas that it plans to
survey. Because it has limited resources, a key task of Labor's
staff is to identify those counties and types of construction most
in need of a new survey. In

10 Heavy construction is a catch- all grouping that includes
projects not properly classified under the other three types of
construction; for example, dredging and sewer projects. 11 A wage
determination is the listing of wage and fringe benefit rates for
each job classification of workers that the WHD administrator has
determined to be prevailing in a given area for a type of
construction. Each wage determination involves establishing
prevailing wage rates for many occupations.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 18

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

selecting areas for inclusion in planned surveys, the regional
offices establish priorities based on criteria that include

 the need for a new survey according to the volume of federal
construction in the area;  the age of the most recent survey; and
requests or complaints from interested parties, such as state and
county

agencies, unions, and contractors' associations. If a type of
construction in a particular county is covered by a wage
determination based on collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and
Labor has no indication that the situation has changed such that a
wage determination should now reflect nonunion rates, an updated
wage determination may be based on updated CBAs. The unions submit
their updated CBAs directly to the national office. Planning
begins in the third quarter of each fiscal year when the national
office provides regional offices with the Regional Survey Planning
Report (RSPR). The RSPR provides data obtained under contract with
the F. W. Dodge Division of McGraw- Hill Information Systems that
show the number and value of active construction projects by
region, state, county, and type of construction, and the
percentage of total construction that is federally financed. 12
Labor uses the F. W. Dodge data because F. W. Dodge has the only
continuous nationwide database on construction projects. Labor
supplements these data with additional information provided to the
national office by federal agencies regarding their planned
construction projects. The RSPR also includes the date of the most
recent survey for each county and whether the existing wage
determinations for each county are union, nonunion, or a
combination of both.

Using this information, the regional offices, in consultation with
the national office, designate the counties and type of
construction to be included in the upcoming regional surveys.
Although Labor usually designates the county as the geographic
unit for data collection, in some cases more than one county is
included in a specific data- gathering effort.

The regional offices determine the resources required to conduct
each of the priority surveys. When all available resources have
been allocated, the regional offices transmit to the national
office for review their schedules of the surveys they plan to do:
the types of construction, geographic area, and time frames of
when they plan to survey each defined area.

12 The F. W. Dodge data consider a project to be active from the
time on- site work begins (ground breaking) until it is released
to and accepted by the owner.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 19

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

When Labor's national office has approved all regional offices'
preliminary survey schedules, it assembles them in a national
survey schedule that it transmits to interested parties, such as
major national contractor and labor organizations, for their
review and comment. The national office transmits any comments or
suggestions received from interested parties to its affected
regional offices. Organizations proposing modifications of the
schedule are asked to support their perceived need for alternative
survey locations by providing sufficient evidence of the wages
paid to workers in the type of construction in question in the
area where they want a survey conducted.

The target date for establishing the final fiscal year survey
schedule is September 15. Once the national office has established
the final schedule, each regional office starts to obtain the
information needed to generate lists of survey participants for
each of the surveys it plans to conduct. Each regional office then
contacts Construction Resources Analysis (CRA) at the University
of Tennessee. CRA applies a model to the F. W. Dodge data to
identify all construction projects in the start- up phase 13
(within the parameters specified in the regional office's request)
and produces a file of projects that were active during a given
time period. The time period may be 3 months or longer, depending
on whether the number of projects active during the period is
adequate for a particular survey. The information CRA solicits
from F. W. Dodge is provided directly to the regional offices and
includes data on construction projects such as the location, type
of construction, and cost; the name and address of the contractor
or other key firm 14 associated with the project; and if
available, the subcontractors. 15

When the regional offices receive this information, Labor analysts
screen the data to make sure the projects meet four basic criteria
for each survey. The project must

 be of the correct construction type,  be in the correct
geographic area,  fall within the survey time frame, and  have a
value of at least $2,000.

13 F. W. Dodge defines the start- up phase as one in which the
construction will commence within 60 days. 14 Other examples of
key firms would be the owner or architect of the project. 15 A
subcontractor is an employer that has a contractual agreement with
the project's prime employer. On a typical construction project,
most employees working on the job will be employees of
subcontractors.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 20

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

In addition to obtaining files of active projects, Labor's
regional analysts are encouraged to research files of unsolicited
information that may contain payment evidence submitted in the
past that is within the scope of a current survey.

Stage 2: Conducting Surveys of Participants

When the regional offices are ready to conduct the new surveys,
they send a WD- 10 wage reporting form to each contractor (or
employer) identified by the F. W. Dodge reports as being in charge
of one of the projects to be surveyed, together with a transmittal
letter that requests information on the projects listed on the
enclosed WD- 10, a list of subcontractors that may have worked on
each project, and information on any additional projects the
contractor may have. Every WD- 10 that goes out for a particular
project has on it a unique project code, the location of the
project, and a description of the project. Data requested on the
WD- 10 include a description of the project and its location, in
order to assure the regional office that each project for which it
receives data is the same as the one it intended to have in the
survey. The WD- 10 also requests the contractor's name and
address; the value of the project; the starting and completion
date; the wage rate, including fringe benefits, paid to each
worker; and the number of workers employed in each classification
during the week of peak activity for that classification. The week
of peak or highest activity for each job classification is the
week when the most workers were employed in that particular
classification. The survey respondent is also asked to indicate
which of four categories of construction the project belongs in.

In addition, about 2 weeks before a survey is scheduled to begin,
regional offices send transmittal letters to congressional
representatives and a list of third parties, such as national and
local unions and industry associations, to encourage
participation. Labor encourages the submission of wage information
from third parties, including unions and contractors' associations
that are not the direct employers of the workers in question, in
an effort to collect as much data as possible. 16 Third parties
may obtain wage data for their own purposes, such as for union
officials that need wage information to correctly assess workers'
contributions toward fringe benefits. Third- party data generally
serve as a check on data submitted by contractors if both submit
data on the same project. Regional offices also

16 Labor officials said that third- party data submissions
generally account for about one- third of all wage survey
submissions. The percentage of survey respondents that are third
parties can be substantial for surveys of metropolitan areas.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 21

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

organize local meetings with members of interested organizations
to explain the purpose of the surveys and how to fill out the WD-
10.

Because the F. W. Dodge reports do not identify all the
subcontractors, both the WD- 10 and the transmittal letter ask for
a list of subcontractors on each project. Subcontractors generally
employ the largest portion of on- site workers, so their
identification is considered critical to the success of the wage
survey. Analysts send WD- 10s and transmittal letters to
subcontractors as subcontractor lists are received. Transmittal
letters also state that survey respondents will receive an
acknowledgment of data submitted and that the respondent should
contact the regional office if one is not received. Providing an
acknowledgement is intended to reduce the number of complaints
that data furnished were not considered in the survey. Labor
analysts send contractors who do not respond to the survey a
second WD- 10 and a follow- up letter. If they still do not
respond, analysts attempt to contact them by telephone to
encourage them to participate.

Stage 3: Clarifying and Analyzing Respondents' Data

As Labor's wage analysts receive the completed WD- 10s in the
regional offices, they review and analyze the data. Labor's
training manual guides the analyst through each block of the WD-
10, pointing out problems to look for in data received for each
one. Analysts are instructed to write the information they
received by telephone directly on the WD- 10 in a contrasting
color of ink, indicating the source and the date received. They
are instructed to draw one line through the old information so it
is still legible.

Labor's wage analysts review the WD- 10 to identify missing
information, ambiguities, and inconsistencies that they then
attempt to clarify or verify by telephone. For example, an analyst
may call a contractor for a description of the work done on a
project in order to confirm that a particular project has been
classified according to the correct construction type. An analyst
may also call a contractor to ask about the specific type of work
that was performed by an employee in a classification that is
reported in generic terms, such as a mechanic. In that situation,
the analyst would specify on the WD- 10 whether the employee is a
plumber mechanic or some other type of mechanic to make sure that
the wages reported are appropriately matched to the occupations
that are paid those rates.

Similarly, because of variations in area practice, analysts may
routinely call to find out what type of work the employees in
certain classifications

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 22

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

are doing. This is necessary because in some areas of the country,
some contractors have established particular duties within a
traditional general craft as a specialty craft (for example,
drywall finishers as a specialty craft under the general craft of
painters). Specialty crafts are usually paid at lower rates than
general crafts.

Labor verifies wage data from a sample of wage data forms
submitted by contractors and third parties by both telephone and
on- site review. For telephone verification, Labor selects a 10-
percent sample of wage data submissions from third parties and a
2- percent sample of submissions from contractors. They verify
wage data by telephone and, where appropriate, ask that supporting
payroll documents be mailed to Labor. For on- site verification,
Labor selects at least a 10- percent sample of wage data forms
submitted by contractors and third parties. A private accounting
firm was hired to conduct on- site reviews. Auditors from the firm
conduct an on- site review of payroll records at the contractor's
work site to verify wage survey data. For both telephone and on-
site verification, Labor's procedures require that the data be
verified only with the contractors, not with the third parties.
Any discrepancies between the original WD- 10 submitted and the
payroll records or contractor's testimony are recorded by the wage
analyst and auditor. WHD reviews the discrepancies and makes
changes, as necessary.

Data Are Recorded When an analyst is satisfied that all issues
with respect to the data on the WD- 10 for a particular project
have been resolved, the data are recorded and tabulated. The
analyst enters them into a computer that generates a Project Wage
Summary, Form WD- 22a, for reporting survey information on a
project- by- project basis. The WD- 22a has a section for
reporting the name, location, and value of each project; the
number of employees who were in each classification; and their
hourly wage and fringe benefits. It also has a section for
reporting the date of completion or percentage of the project
completed, whichever is applicable.

At least 2 weeks before the survey cutoff date, the response rate
for the survey is calculated to allow time to take follow- up
action if the response rate is determined to be inadequate. For
example, WHD operational procedures specify that if data gathered
for building or residential surveys provide less than a 25-
percent usable response rate or less than one- half of

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 23

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

the required key classes of workers, 17 the analyst will need to
obtain data from comparable federally financed projects in the
same locality. 18

If an analyst has no data on occupations identified by Labor as
key classification of workers for the type of construction being
surveyed, Labor's procedures require him or her to call all the
subcontractors included in the survey who do that type of work and
from whom data are missing, to try to get data. If the analyst
still cannot obtain sufficient data on at least one- half of the
required key classes, consideration must be given to expanding the
scope of the survey geographically to have more crafts
represented. If the overall usable response rate for the survey is
25 percent or more, data on three workers from two contractors are
considered sufficient to establish a wage rate for a key
occupation. After the survey cutoff date, when all valid data have
been recorded and tabulated, the final survey response rate is
generated by computer. Typically, a WHD analyst takes 4 months to
conduct a survey.

Once all the valid project data have been entered, the prevailing
wage rate for each classification of worker can be generated by
computer. If a majority of workers is paid at a single rate in a
job classification, that rate prevails for the classification. The
wage rate needs to be the same, to the penny, to constitute a
single rate. Lacking such a majority, a weighted average wage rate
for that occupation is calculated.

The prevailing wage rate for each occupation is compiled in a
computer- generated comprehensive report for each survey, called
the Wage Compilation Report, Form WD- 22. The WD- 22 lists each
occupation and the wage rate recommended for that occupation by
the regional office. The form indicates whether the rate is based
on a majority or a weighted average, and provides the number of
workers for which data were used to compute each wage rate. The
regional offices transmit survey results to the national office,
which reviews the results and recommends further action if needed.

Stage 4: Issuing the Wage Determinations

The national office issues final wage determinations after
reviewing recommended wage rates submitted by the regions. There
is no review or comment period provided to interested parties
before they go into effect. Access to wage determinations is
provided both in printed reports

17 Labor defines key classes of workers as those determined
necessary for each of the four types of construction surveys. 18
Since 1985, a regulation has prohibited, to the extent
practicable, the use of wages for federal construction in
determining prevailing wages.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 24

Appendix I Labor's Wage Determination Process Under the Davis-
Bacon Act

available from the U. S. Superintendent of Documents and on an
electronic bulletin board. Notices of modifications to general
wage determinations are published in the Federal Register.

Labor's Appeals Process

An interested party may seek review and reconsideration of Labor's
final wage determinations. The national office and the regional
offices accept protests and inquiries relating to wage
determinations at any time after a wage determination has been
issued. The national office refers all the complaints it receives
to the relevant regional offices for resolution. Most inquiries
are received informally by telephone, although some are written
complaints. Regional office staff said that a majority of those
with concerns appear to have their problems resolved after
examining the information (collected on form WD- 22a) for the
survey at issue, because they do not pursue the matter further. If
an examination of the forms does not satisfy the complainant's
concerns, the complainant is required to provide information to
support the claim that a wage determination needs to be revised.
The national office modifies published wage determinations in
cases where regional offices, on the basis of evidence provided,
recommend that it do so, such as when it has been shown that a
wage determination was the result of an error by the regional
office. Some of those who seek to have wage rates revised are told
that a new survey will be necessary to resolve the particular
issue that they raised. For example, if the wage rates of one
segment of the construction industry are not adequately reflected
in survey results because of a low rate of participation in the
survey by that segment of the industry, a new survey would be
necessary to resolve this issue.

Those who are not satisfied with the decision of the regional
office may write to the national office to request a ruling by
Labor's WHD administrator. If the revision of a wage rate has been
sought and denied by a ruling of Labor's WHD administrator, an
interested party has 30 days to appeal to the Administrative
Review Board for review of the wage determination. The board
consists of three members appointed by the Secretary of Labor. The
Solicitor of Labor represents WHD in cases involving wage
determinations before the Administrative Review Board. A petition
to the board for review of a wage determination must be in writing
and accompanied by supporting data, views, or arguments. All
decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final.

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 25

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Labor

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 26

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Labor

GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 27

Related GAO Products Davis- Bacon Act: Labor Now Verifies Wage
Data, but Verification Process Needs Improvement (GAO/HEHS-99-21,
Jan. 11, 1999).

Davis- Bacon Act: Process Changes Could Address Vulnerability to
Use of Inaccurate Data in Setting Prevailing Wage Rates (GAO/T-
HEHS-96-166, June 20, 1996).

Davis- Bacon Job Targeting (GAO/HEHS-96-151R, June 3, 1996).
Davis- Bacon Act: Process Changes Could Raise Confidence That Wage
Rates Are Based on Accurate Data (GAO/HEHS-96-130, May 31, 1996).

Davis- Bacon Act (GAO/HEHS-94-95R, Feb. 7, 1994). The Davis- Bacon
Act Should Be Repealed (GAO/HRD-79-18, Apr. 17, 1979).

(205392) GAO/HEHS-99-97 Davis- Bacon Act Page 28

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
an e- mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http:// www. gao. gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

*** End of document. ***