Davis-Bacon Act
Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey Gao ID: GAO-11-152 March 22, 2011Procedures for determining Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates, which must be paid to workers on certain federally funded construction projects, and their vulnerability to the use of inaccurate data have long been an issue for Congress, employers, and workers. In this report, GAO examined (1) the extent to which the Department of Labor (Labor) has addressed concerns regarding the quality of the Davis-Bacon wage determination process, and (2) additional issues identified by stakeholders regarding the wage determination process. GAO interviewed Labor officials, representatives from contractor associations and unions, contractors, and researchers; conducted site visits to three Labor regional offices; and analyzed data from Labor's wage survey database.
Recent efforts to improve the Davis-Bacon wage survey have not addressed key issues with timeliness, representativeness, and the utility of using the county as the basis for the wage calculation. Labor has made some data collection and processing changes; however, we found some surveys initiated under the new processes were behind Labor's processing schedule. Labor did not consult survey design experts, and some criticisms of the survey and wage determination process have not been addressed, including the representativeness and sufficiency of the data collected. For example, Labor cannot determine whether its wage determinations accurately reflect prevailing wages because it does not currently calculate response rates or analyze survey nonrespondents. And, while Labor is required by law to issue wage rates by the "civil subdivision of the state," the goal to issue them at the county level is often not met because of insufficient survey response. In the published results for the four surveys in our review, Labor issued about 11 percent of wage rates for key job classifications (types of workers needed for one or more of Labor's construction types) using data from a single county. The rest were issued at the multi-county or state level. Over one-quarter of the wage rates were based on six or fewer workers. Little incentive to participate in Labor's Davis-Bacon wage surveys and a lack of transparency in the survey process remain key issues for stakeholders. Stakeholders said contractors may not participate because they lack resources, may not understand the purpose of the survey, or may not see the point in responding because they believe the prevailing wages issued by Labor are inaccurate. While most stakeholders said the survey form was generally easy to understand, some identified challenges with completing specific sections. Our review of reports by Labor's contracted auditor for four published surveys found most survey forms verified against payroll data had errors in areas such as number of employees and hourly and fringe benefit rates. Both contractor association and union officials said addressing a lack of transparency in how the published wage rates are set could result in a better understanding of the process and greater participation in the survey. GAO suggests Congress consider amending its requirement that Labor issue wage rates by civil subdivision to allow more flexibility. To improve the quality and timeliness of the Davis-Bacon wage surveys, GAO recommends Labor obtain objective expert advice on its survey design and methodology. GAO also recommends Labor take steps to improve the transparency of its wage determinations. Labor agreed with the second recommendation, but said obtaining expert survey advice may be premature given ongoing changes. We believe obtaining expert advice is critical for improving the quality of wage determinations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Andrew Sherrill Team: Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security Phone: (202) 512-7252GAO-11-152, Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-152
entitled 'Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Changes Needed to Improve
Wage Survey' which was released on April 6, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives:
March 2011:
Davis-Bacon Act:
Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey:
GAO-11-152:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-152, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Procedures for determining Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates, which
must be paid to workers on certain federally funded construction
projects, and their vulnerability to the use of inaccurate data have
long been an issue for Congress, employers, and workers. In this
report, GAO examined (1) the extent to which the Department of Labor
(Labor) has addressed concerns regarding the quality of the Davis-
Bacon wage determination process, and (2) additional issues identified
by stakeholders regarding the wage determination process. GAO
interviewed Labor officials, representatives from contractor
associations and unions, contractors, and researchers; conducted site
visits to three Labor regional offices; and analyzed data from Labor‘s
wage survey database.
What GAO Found:
Recent efforts to improve the Davis-Bacon wage survey have not
addressed key issues with timeliness, representativeness, and the
utility of using the county as the basis for the wage calculation.
Labor has made some data collection and processing changes; however,
we found some surveys initiated under the new processes were behind
Labor‘s processing schedule. Labor did not consult survey design
experts, and some criticisms of the survey and wage determination
process have not been addressed, including the representativeness and
sufficiency of the data collected. For example, Labor cannot determine
whether its wage determinations accurately reflect prevailing wages
because it does not currently calculate response rates or analyze
survey nonrespondents. And, while Labor is required by law to issue
wage rates by the ’civil subdivision of the state,“ the goal to issue
them at the county level is often not met because of insufficient
survey response. In the published results for the four surveys in our
review, Labor issued about 11 percent of wage rates for key job
classifications (types of workers needed for one or more of Labor‘s
construction types) using data from a single county. The rest were
issued at the multi-county or state level. Over one-quarter of the
wage rates were based on six or fewer workers.
Figure: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued at Each
Geographic Level and Number of Employees Used to Determine Wage Rates,
for Four Surveys Reviewed:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Geographic level:
State: 40%;
Multi-county: 42%;
County: 11%;
Geographic level not available: 7%.
Number of employees:
3 workers: 6%;
4-6 workers: 20%;
7-12 workers: 23%;
13-28 workers: 26%;
29 or more workers: 25%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in either 2009 or 2010.
[End of figure]
Little incentive to participate in Labor‘s Davis-Bacon wage surveys
and a lack of transparency in the survey process remain key issues for
stakeholders. Stakeholders said contractors may not participate
because they lack resources, may not understand the purpose of the
survey, or may not see the point in responding because they believe
the prevailing wages issued by Labor are inaccurate. While most
stakeholders said the survey form was generally easy to understand,
some identified challenges with completing specific sections. Our
review of reports by Labor‘s contracted auditor for four published
surveys found most survey forms verified against payroll data had
errors in areas such as number of employees and hourly and fringe
benefit rates. Both contractor association and union officials said
addressing a lack of transparency in how the published wage rates are
set could result in a better understanding of the process and greater
participation in the survey.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests Congress consider amending its requirement that Labor
issue wage rates by civil subdivision to allow more flexibility. To
improve the quality and timeliness of the Davis-Bacon wage surveys,
GAO recommends Labor obtain objective expert advice on its survey
design and methodology. GAO also recommends Labor take steps to
improve the transparency of its wage determinations. Labor agreed with
the second recommendation, but said obtaining expert survey advice may
be premature given ongoing changes. We believe obtaining expert advice
is critical for improving the quality of wage determinations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-152] or key
components. For more information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-
7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Recent Efforts to Improve Data Collection and Processing Have Not Yet
Addressed Key Issues with Survey Quality:
Little Incentive to Participate and Lack of Transparency Remain Key
Issues for Stakeholders:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Wage Survey Form (WD-10):
Appendix III: Labor's Wage Determination and Appeals Process under the
Davis-Bacon Act:
Appendix IV: Survey Announcement Letters Sent to Contractors and
Interested Parties by the Department of Labor:
Appendix V: Example of a Florida Wage Determination Published by the
Department of Labor:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued at
Each Geographic Level by Construction Type and Metropolitan or Rural
Designation, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
Table 2: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued Based
on Number of Workers by Construction Type and Metropolitan or Rural
Designation, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
Table 3: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Using Federal
Data by Construction Type and Metropolitan or Rural Designation, for
Four Surveys Reviewed:
Figures:
Figure 1: Flowchart of Labor's Wage Determination Process as of Fiscal
Year 2010:
Figure 2: Example of Labor Protocol for Combining Data from Miami-Dade
County with Other Metropolitan Counties to Create Group, Supergroup,
and State Wage Rates:
Figure 3: Actual versus Expected Status of Eight Highway Surveys That
Used Labor's New Processes, as of September 1, 2010:
Figure 4: Actual versus Expected Status of Four Building and Heavy
Surveys That Used Labor's New Processes, as of September 1, 2010:
Figure 5: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued at
Each Geographic Level, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
Figure 6: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued Based
on Number of Workers, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
Figure 7: Labor's Printed WD-22 Report for a Texas Building Survey:
Figure 8: Excerpt from a Florida Wage Determination Published on
Labor's Web Site:
Abbreviations:
ABC: Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
AGC: Associated General Contractors of America:
ASDS: Automated Survey Data System:
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:
CBA: collective bargaining agreement:
CIRPC: Construction Industry Research and Policy Center:
IBEW: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:
Labor: Department of Labor:
MSA: metropolitan statistical area:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
WDGS: Wage Determination Generation System:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 22, 2011:
The Honorable John Kline:
Chairman:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Procedures for determining Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates, which
must be paid to workers on certain federally funded construction
projects, have long been an issue for Congress, employers, and
workers. Concerns have focused on the Department of Labor's (Labor)
procedures for determining prevailing wages and their vulnerability to
the use of inaccurate data. In the 1990s, we issued two reports that
found process changes were needed to increase confidence that wage
rates were based on accurate data.[Footnote 1] A third report, issued
in 1999, found changes planned by Labor, if successfully implemented,
had the potential to improve the survey process used to determine
local prevailing wages.[Footnote 2] However, in 2004, Labor's Office
of Inspector General (OIG) found Labor's approaches had not resolved
past concerns, and wage data errors and the timeliness of surveys
continued to be issues.[Footnote 3] More recently, the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)[Footnote
4] focused attention on the need for accurate and timely wage
determinations, with more than $300 billion estimated to come from
Division A of the act which provides substantial funding for, among
other things, federally funded building and infrastructure work
potentially subject to Davis-Bacon wage rates.[Footnote 5]
To address these issues, you asked us to examine Labor's current
implementation of the Davis-Bacon Act. We assessed (1) the extent to
which Labor has addressed concerns regarding the quality of the Davis-
Bacon wage determination process and (2) additional issues identified
by stakeholders regarding the wage determination process.
To assess the extent to which Labor has addressed concerns regarding
the quality of the wage determination process, we reviewed relevant
federal laws and regulations, interviewed Labor officials, and
reviewed agency documents on current survey practices and compared
them with guidance on data quality and survey design from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and Labor. OMB designed its guidance on
data quality to ensure agencies meet basic information quality
standards for objectivity, utility, and integrity of information
before it is disseminated.[Footnote 6] We conducted site visits to
three of Labor's five regional offices that process Davis-Bacon wage
surveys--Northeast region (Philadelphia), Southeast region (Atlanta),
and Southwest region (Dallas)--to interview regional staff who, Labor
officials said, were conducting surveys under Labor's recently revised
processes.[Footnote 7] In addition, we conducted a site visit to the
Construction Industry Research and Policy Center (CIRPC) at the
University of Tennessee, which is contracted by Labor to estimate the
potential number of construction projects to be included in a specific
survey and conduct some aspects of the survey process. We also
compared 12 surveys for specific types of construction projects
performed under Labor's new processes against its revised processing
timelines to assess whether the surveys were on schedule. Further, we
analyzed data from Labor's Automated Survey Data System (ASDS) for
wage rates from the 2005 surveys of Florida and Maryland and the 2006
surveys of Tennessee and West Texas Metropolitan. We selected these
surveys because results were recently published (in 2009 or 2010) and
they represented geographic diversity to the extent possible.[Footnote
8] We conducted analyses on the geographic level at which rates were
issued (i.e., county, group, supergroup, or statewide) and the number
of workers used to calculate wage rates. In addition, we analyzed data
from Labor's Wage Determination Generation System to determine the
proportion of union-prevailing to nonunion-prevailing wage rates and
the age of currently published wage rates. We assessed the reliability
of the data we used by reviewing pertinent system and process
documentation, interviewing knowledgeable officials, and conducting
electronic testing on data fields necessary for our analysis. We found
the data we reviewed reliable for the purposes of our analysis.
To assess what additional issues were concerns for stakeholders, we
conducted approximately 30 interviews with a nonprobability selection
of representatives from academia, contractor associations,
contractors, and unions and performed a content analysis of their
responses. For more information on our scope and methodology, see
appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through March
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The Davis-Bacon Act[Footnote 9] was enacted in 1931, in part, to
protect communities and workers from the economic disruption caused by
contractors hiring lower-wage workers from outside their local area,
thus obtaining federal construction contracts by underbidding
competitors who pay local wage rates. Davis-Bacon generally requires
employers to pay locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits to
laborers and mechanics employed on federally funded construction
projects in excess of $2,000.[Footnote 10] The Recovery Act requires
all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors
on projects funded directly or assisted by the federal government
through the Recovery Act also be paid at least the prevailing wage
rate under Davis-Bacon.[Footnote 11] Our previous work found 40
programs, such as the Weatherization Assistance Program, newly subject
to Davis-Bacon requirements as a result of the Recovery Act's
prevailing wage provision.[Footnote 12] Of these, 33 programs existed
prior to the Recovery Act but were subject to the Davis-Bacon
requirements for the first time, and 7 were newly created programs. In
2009, federally funded construction and rehabilitation, including
projects funded through the Recovery Act, totaled about $220 billion.
[Footnote 13]
Labor administers the Davis-Bacon Act through its Wage and Hour
Division, which conducts voluntary surveys of construction contractors
and interested third parties[Footnote 14] on both federal and
nonfederal projects to obtain information on wages paid to workers in
each construction job classification by locality. It then uses the
data submitted on these survey forms to determine local prevailing
wage and fringe benefit rates. In 2002, Labor began conducting
simultaneous statewide surveys for all four of its construction types:
highway, residential, building, and heavy.[Footnote 15] Labor
describes highway construction as the construction, alteration, or
repair of roads, streets, highways, runways, alleys, trails, parking
areas, and other similar projects not incidental to building or heavy
construction. Residential construction includes single-family homes
and apartment buildings that are not more than four stories. If a
structure that houses people is over four stories or if it houses
machinery, equipment, or supplies, it is considered building
construction. Heavy construction generally includes any project that
does not fall into the other three categories--for example, dam and
sewer projects.
Labor determines which states it will survey each year based on a
variety of factors, including the date of a state's most recent
survey, planned federal construction, and complaints or requests from
interested parties on current wage determinations. The calculated wage
and fringe benefit rates that result from the surveys are posted
online in wage determinations and used by contractors working on
federal construction projects to prepare bids and pay workers.
Past Concerns and Efforts to Improve the Wage Determination Process:
Both GAO and the Labor OIG have reported concerns with Labor's wage
determination process. In 1996, we found Labor had internal control
weaknesses that contributed to lack of confidence in the wage
determinations, including limitations in Labor's verification of wage
and fringe benefit data, its computer capabilities, and an appeals
process that was difficult for interested parties to access.[Footnote
16] In 1997, the OIG found much of the data it examined to be
inaccurate and potentially biased due to weaknesses in survey
methodology.[Footnote 17]
For fiscal year 1997, Congress directed $3.75 million toward
improvements to the wage determination process. Using five criteria--
feasibility/viability, timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and cost--
Labor evaluated two options:
* Reengineering: Apply new technologies and processes to the existing
Davis-Bacon survey program to increase participation in and improve
the accuracy and timeliness of the surveys.
* Reinvention: Use existing Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data,
specifically data from BLS's Occupational Employment Statistics survey
and National Compensation Survey, as the primary basis for Davis-Bacon
wage determinations.[Footnote 18]
In 1999, as Labor was evaluating these options, we again reviewed the
wage determination process and found, in response to a directive from
a congressional committee and our recommendation, Labor had
implemented a program to verify a sample of wage survey data,
including verifying data on site using employer payrolls.[Footnote 19]
However, we agreed with the OIG that verification efforts be viewed as
temporary steps until more fundamental reforms could be made to
Labor's survey methodology. We also found that reengineering or
reinvention had the potential to improve the accuracy and timeliness
of the wage determination process.[Footnote 20]
In January 2001, Labor reported to Congress it would pursue
reengineering. Labor concluded that reinvention (using BLS data) would
have the benefits of accuracy and timeliness, but presented
challenges, including difficulty in determining fringe benefits and in
producing wage estimates for a broad range of construction job
classifications. Reengineering, which included improvements to the
wage survey form (including a scannable form and online version) and a
computer system to assist with data clarification and analysis, would
make it feasible to survey every area of the country for all four
construction types no less than every 3 years, Labor concluded.
In 2004, the Labor OIG found Labor's reengineering had not resolved
past concerns. In a sample of wage survey forms (known as WD-10s) from
before and after reengineering, the OIG found errors in almost 100
percent of verified survey forms. The OIG said these errors occurred
even with a revised WD-10, the introduction of an online WD-10, and
efforts by Labor analysts to review and correct data. Mistakes in
survey data included respondents using incorrect peak weeks,[Footnote
21] miscounts in the number of workers in each job classification, and
misreporting of wage rates--for example, reporting one wage rate for a
job classification when two or more wage rates existed. In addition,
the OIG reported concerns about bias because only contractors with the
personnel to complete WD-10s may respond and some may not participate
to avoid involvement with the government. The OIG also found that
higher participation by either unions or nonunion contractors could
potentially weight the wage and benefit rates in their favor. Finally,
the OIG noted there had been little improvement since its 1997 review
in the time required to issue wage determinations.
Current Survey Process:
The current survey process, which conducts statewide surveys for all
construction types, consists of five basic phases (see figure 1).
[Footnote 22]
Figure 1: Flowchart of Labor's Wage Determination Process as of Fiscal
Year 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Stage 1: Planning;
* Plan survey activity;
* Establish survey criteria;
* Obtain list of construction projects.
Stage 2: Survey;
* Announce survey;
* Conduct pre-survey briefings;
* Collect data.
Stage 3: Data clarification and analysis;
* Clarify questionable information received;
* Calculate wage and fringe benefit rates;
* Determine sufficiency;
* Verify a sample of data;
* Update data based on verification and calculate final rates;
* Transmit results from regional office to Labor headquarters.
Stage 4: Issuance;
* Review results/recommend action;
* Issue wage determination.
Stage 5: Appeals;
* Reconsideration and review ongoing after issuance.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor‘s wage determination process.
[End of figure]
Prior to the start of a survey, Labor identifies the state,
construction types, and survey time frame--the time period in which a
construction project needs to be active to meet survey criteria--and
requests that CIRPC provide a report on active construction projects
for the identified time frame, construction type, and geographical
area. F.W. Dodge Reports for those projects are then ordered and
reviewed to ensure they meet the basic criteria of the survey.
[Footnote 23] Once a survey is scheduled, Labor usually conducts pre-
survey briefings for interested parties to clarify survey procedures
and provide information on how data should be submitted. Labor then
sends surveys to general contractors identified through the Dodge
Reports and relevant interested parties in the area to be surveyed.
(See appendix II for a copy of the wage survey.) It also requests
information from federal agencies on construction projects that meet
survey criteria. A follow-up letter is sent to general contractors who
do not respond. Subcontractors, identified by the general contractors,
are also sent an initial letter with a survey and a follow-up letter
if they do not respond. Completed wage survey forms are returned by
either contractors or interested parties and are reviewed, under a
contract with Labor, by CIRPC, which matches submitted information
with its construction project and forwards it to the appropriate Labor
regional office.[Footnote 24] The regional offices clarify missing,
ambiguous, or inconsistent information to the extent possible, and
pull random samples of wage survey forms to verify by phone or on
site. Officials request that supporting payroll documentation be sent
to the regional office. For on-site verification, Labor contracts with
a private accounting firm whose auditors review payroll records. Any
discrepancies between the wage survey form and the contractor's
payroll records are reviewed and corrected in the survey data by Labor
regional staff. Contractors selected for verification, who are not
able or willing to provide payroll records, can still be included in
the survey in most cases.[Footnote 25] See appendix III for a more
detailed description of the wage determination process.
Labor uses several procedures to calculate wage rates and determine if
it has sufficient information from collected and verified surveys to
issue a wage determination--a compilation of prevailing wage rates for
multiple job classifications in a given area. In determining a
prevailing wage for a specific job classification, Labor considers
sufficient data to be the receipt of data on at least three workers
from two different employers in its designated area who have that job.
Then, in accordance with its regulations, Labor uses a "50-percent
rule" to calculate the prevailing wage. The 50-percent rule states the
prevailing wage is the wage paid to the majority (over 50 percent) of
workers employed in a specific job classification on similar projects
in the area.[Footnote 26] If the same rate is not paid to a majority
(over 50 percent) of workers in a job classification, the prevailing
wage is the average wage rate weighted by the number of employees for
which that rate was reported. In cases where the prevailing rate is
also a collectively bargained, or union, rate, the rate is determined
to be "union-prevailing." According to Labor's policy, union-
prevailing wage rates in wage determinations can be updated when there
is a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) without Labor
conducting a new survey. Nonunion-prevailing wage rates are not
updated until a new survey is conducted. To issue a wage determination
for a construction type in a given area, Labor must, according to its
procedures, also have sufficient data to determine prevailing wages
for at least 50 percent of key job classifications. Key job
classifications are those determined necessary for one or more of the
four construction types.[Footnote 27]
By statute, Labor must issue wage determinations based on similar
projects in the "civil subdivision of the state" in which the federal
work is to be performed.[Footnote 28] Labor's regulations state the
civil subdivision will be the county, unless there are insufficient
wage data.[Footnote 29] When data from a county are insufficient to
issue a wage rate for a job classification, a group of counties is
created by combining a rural county's data with data from one or more
contiguous rural counties. A metropolitan county's data are combined
with data from other counties in the state within the metropolitan
statistical area (MSA). If data are still insufficient to issue a wage
rate, a supergroup is created by combining a rural county's data with
data from additional contiguous rural counties, or a metropolitan
county's data are combined with county data from other MSAs or the
consolidated MSA counties. Finally, if this supergroup still does not
provide sufficient wage data to issue a wage rate for a job
classification, a statewide rate is created by combining data for all
rural counties or all metropolitan counties in the state. Counties are
combined based on whether they are metropolitan or rural, and cannot
be mixed.[Footnote 30] Once wage determinations are issued, an
interested party may seek reconsideration and review through an
appeals process.[Footnote 31] See figure 2 for an example of how wage
data from Miami-Dade County, Florida, are combined, as needed, with
data from other counties to create group, supergroup, and state wage
rates.
Figure 2: Example of Labor Protocol for Combining Data from Miami-Dade
County with Other Metropolitan Counties to Create Group, Supergroup,
and State Wage Rates:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map of Florida]
County (1 county):
Miami-Dade.
Group (3 counties):
Broward;
Miami-Dade;
Palm Beach.
Supergroup (5 counties):
Broward;
Martin;
Miami-Dade;
Palm Beach;
St. Lucie.
State (37 counties):
Alachua;
Baker;
Bay;
Brevard;
Broward;
Charlotte;
Clay;
Collier;
Duval;
Escambia;
Gadsden;
Gilchrist;
Hernando;
Hillsborough;
Indian River;
Jefferson;
Lake;
Lee;
Leon;
Manatee;
Marion;
Martin;
Miami-Dade;
Nassau;
Orange;
Osceola;
Palm Beach;
Pascoe;
Pinellas;
Polk;
Santa Rosa;
Sarasota;
Seminole;
St. John's;
St. Lucie;
Volusia;
Wakulla.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data; Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Recent Efforts to Improve Data Collection and Processing Have Not Yet
Addressed Key Issues with Survey Quality:
Labor's Changes to Survey Data Collection and Processing May Not
Achieve Expected Results:
Labor has taken several steps over the last few years to address
issues with its Davis-Bacon wage surveys, including completing a
number of open surveys and changing how it collects and processes some
survey data in its efforts to improve timeliness and accuracy.
However, these efforts may not achieve Labor's desired results. We
found some surveys initiated under the new process are behind schedule
and some published wage rates are based on outdated data.
In 2007, Labor officials decided not to initiate any new surveys in
order to finalize and publish results from 22 open surveys, which
accumulated after Labor began conducting statewide surveys in 2002.
[Footnote 32] Regional office officials said it was difficult and time-
consuming to clarify and verify data in these surveys because
contractors often did not have easy access to records for survey data
which, in some cases, had been submitted several years earlier. As of
September 1, 2010, results from 20 of the 22 surveys were published
and results from the remaining 2 were in the process of being
published. Officials said once results from all 22 surveys are
published, they will be able to focus on more recent surveys, which
will reduce delays in processing and increase accuracy because more
recently collected information is easier and less time-consuming to
clarify and verify with contractors.
Labor also changed how it collects survey data for its four
construction types after it conducted an informal review in 2009.
Labor officials said they had been using a "one size fits all"
approach to surveys and were not accounting for differences in types
of construction activity, the demographic characteristics of a given
state, and available sources of wage data. To address these
differences, Labor began surveying some of its four construction types
separately instead of surveying all construction types simultaneously
in a given state. Labor also began using certified payrolls as the
primary data source for highway surveys. Labor officials said most
highway construction has a federal component and certified payrolls
provide accurate and reliable wage data.[Footnote 33] Officials also
said using certified payrolls eliminates the need for on-site
verification of reported wage data, although Labor continues to survey
interested parties.[Footnote 34] Officials estimate these efforts will
reduce processing time for highway surveys by more than 80 percent, or
from about 42 months to 8 months.
Labor adjusted its survey processes for residential, building, and
heavy construction types as well. For surveys of residential
construction, Labor plans to phone contractors and unions and visit
contractor associations to increase a historically low response.
Officials said these collection methods will be possible because of
the small number of residential projects compared to other
construction types. Labor began conducting a new residential survey in
2010. For building and heavy construction, Labor started a pilot with
five surveys in 2009,[Footnote 35] adjusting survey time frames--the
time period in which a construction project has to be active for it to
meet survey criteria--to better manage the quantity of data received.
Labor found its previous 1-year survey time frame produced, in some
cases, too many or too few responses for building and heavy surveys.
Instead, by adjusting the survey time frame to account for the number
of projects in a particular region (with shorter time frames for areas
in which there are many active projects), Labor expects to reduce the
time needed to process surveys and determine prevailing wages.
Overall, Labor estimates these changes will reduce processing time for
building and heavy surveys by approximately 54 percent, or from about
37 months to 17 months.
Labor also revised its approach to processing data for all surveys.
Labor's regional offices began reviewing and analyzing survey forms
when they are received rather than waiting until a survey closes.
Labor officials said this processing of data in "real time" will
improve timeliness and accuracy because survey respondents will be
better able to recall the submitted information when contacted by
regional office staff for clarification and verification.
While it is too early to fully assess the effects of Labor's 2009
changes, our review found timeliness is still an issue and
improvements expected from processing changes may not be fully
realized. Of the 16 surveys started under Labor's new processes at the
time of our review, we were unable to analyze the timeliness of 4--3
highway surveys and 1 building and heavy survey--because of unclear
dates in Labor's data. A senior Labor official said regional offices
differed as to when they recorded dates for key survey activities, and
we found some recorded dates were out of sequence. During the course
of our review, the senior Labor official said regional offices will
consistently enter key dates for future surveys, which will allow
Labor to better assess whether new processes are improving timeliness.
Of the remaining 12 surveys for which we were able to assess
timeliness, 8 were highway surveys for which Labor requested certified
payrolls. Of those 8, we found 6 were behind schedule, 1 was on
schedule, and 1 had not started as of September 1, 2010 (see figure
3).[Footnote 36] A senior Labor official said staff did not
immediately start processing all certified payrolls--requested for all
federal projects within a specific 1-year period--when they were
received because of regional office workloads. As a result, some
certified payroll data were months old before Labor surveyed
interested parties. For example, as of September 1, 2010, certified
payroll data for the Florida 2009 highway survey were 8 months old,
though Labor had not yet surveyed interested parties. Moreover,
processing certified payrolls may be labor-intensive and time-
consuming. A senior Labor official said the agency cannot predict how
many certified payrolls will be submitted by state departments of
transportation and often receives boxes of documents for each survey.
Some regional office officials said extracting information from
certified payrolls is difficult because of inconsistent formats and
frequently requires clarification with contractors. To address these
potential delays, a senior Labor official said they are considering
collecting certified payrolls monthly from states with upcoming
surveys, and processing the payrolls as they are received.
Figure 3: Actual versus Expected Status of Eight Highway Surveys That
Used Labor's New Processes, as of September 1, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Highway survey: Florida 2009[A];
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
[Empty].
Highway survey: New Mexico 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: Actual survey activity, as of September 1, 2010;
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Highway survey: North Carolina 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: Actual survey activity, as of
September 1, 2010;
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Highway survey: Oklahoma 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: Actual survey activity, as of
September 1, 2010;
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Highway survey: South Carolina 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: Actual survey activity, as of September 1, 2010;
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Highway survey: Louisiana 2010;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: Actual survey activity, as of September 1, 2010;
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): Expected survey activity given number of days in progress;
Data clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
[Empty];.
Highway survey: Nebraska 2010;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: Actual survey activity, as of
September 1, 2010;
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Highway survey: New Hampshire 2010;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection (from certified payrolls and interested party survey
forms): [Empty];
Data clarification and analysis: Expected survey activity given number
of days in progress; Actual survey activity, as of September 1, 2010;
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site verification of interested party data (if necessary): [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
[Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.
Note: Expected survey activity was determined using the maximum number
of days allotted for each activity in Labor's new timeline. Actual
survey activity was based on Labor's estimated date that regional
offices entered the survey in ASDS.
[A] The Florida 2009 highway survey had not started as of September 1,
2010.
[End of figure]
The remaining 4 surveys were building and heavy surveys and all were
behind schedule as of September 1, 2010 (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Actual versus Expected Status of Four Building and Heavy
Surveys That Used Labor's New Processes, as of September 1, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Building and heavy survey: Montana 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection, clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site data verification: Actual survey activity, as of September 1,
2010;
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Building and heavy survey: North Carolina 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection, clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site data verification: Actual survey activity, as of September 1,
2010;
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Building and heavy survey: West Virginia 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection, clarification and analysis: Actual survey activity,
as of September 1, 2010;
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site data verification: [Empty];
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Building and heavy survey: Wyoming 2009;
Survey activity:
Pre-survey activity: [Empty];
Survey preparation: [Empty];
Data collection, clarification and analysis: [Empty];
Contractor and interested party data verification: [Empty];
On-site data verification: Actual survey activity, as of September 1,
2010;
Area practice adjustment, prevailing wage calculation, and rate
recommendation: [Empty];
National office review and publication of rates: [Empty];
Post-publication (includes reconsideration and review, if necessary):
Expected survey activity given number of days in progress.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.
Note: Expected survey activity was determined using the maximum number
of days allotted for each activity in Labor's new timeline. Actual
survey activity was based on Labor's estimated date that regional
offices entered the survey in ASDS.
[End of figure]
In conducting a "universe" or "census" survey of all active
construction projects within a designated time frame and area, Labor
accepts data from a variety of sources, including contractors and
interested parties. As a result, the number of returned survey forms
and the time required to clarify data can vary widely. For example,
for 14 surveys conducted under past processes, the number of survey
forms received for each ranged from less than 2,000 to over 8,000, and
the average processing time for data clarification and analysis ranged
from 10 months to more than 40.[Footnote 37] After the 2009 changes,
Labor estimates survey data clarification and analysis will take about
1 to 7 months, depending on construction type.[Footnote 38] Some of
the anticipated time savings, particularly for building and heavy
surveys, is based on managing fewer forms because of its focus on the
number of projects in a particular region rather than a 1-year time
frame. However, by accepting data submitted by contractors and
interested parties on any relevant project as part of its universal
survey approach, Labor is limited in its ability to predict how many
forms will be returned and the time needed to process them. The more
time required, the more likely wage rates will be outdated when
published in wage determinations. In addition, Labor cannot entirely
control when it receives survey forms. Though Labor officials said
processing survey forms as they are received will improve timeliness,
some regional office officials told us this "real time" processing
approach has a limited effect because the bulk of the forms are
returned on the last day of a survey. Additionally, officials in two
of the three regional offices we visited said this new approach is not
substantially different from their previous procedure. Since our site
visits, a senior Labor official said analysts at regional offices have
noticed a difference between processing forms in "real time" and their
previous procedure, and that increased use of online submissions is
expected to help reduce last-minute survey returns. To address such
challenges, OMB guidance suggests agencies consider the benefits and
costs of conducting a sample survey instead of a census survey.
[Footnote 39] According to OMB, a sample can be used to ensure data
quality in a way that is often more efficient and economical than a
census.
The fact that Labor is behind schedule on surveys even with the new
2009 processes may affect the agency's ability to update the many
published nonunion-prevailing wage rates, which are several years old.
Labor's fiscal year 2010 performance goal was for 90 percent of
published wage rates for building, heavy, and highway construction
types to be no more than 3 years old. Our analysis of published rates
for these three construction types found 61 percent were 3 years old
or less as of November 12, 2010. However, this figure is somewhat
misleading because it includes both union-prevailing and nonunion-
prevailing wage rates, which differ in how they are updated. Union-
prevailing rates, which constitute almost two-thirds of the over
650,000 published building, heavy, and highway rates, may be updated
when new CBAs are negotiated, and we found almost 75 percent of those
rates were 3 years old or less as of November 12, 2010. However, 36
percent of nonunion-prevailing rates, which are not updated until
Labor conducts a new survey, were 3 years old or less, and almost 46
percent were 10 or more years old. One regional office official and
two stakeholders we interviewed said Labor, in some cases, has had to
update nonunion-prevailing rates without a new survey because they no
longer complied with the federal minimum wage. Moreover, wage rates at
the time of publication may reflect wage data from several years prior
due to processing delays. For example, of the 20 open surveys for
which Labor had published results as of September 1, 2010, 9 published
in 2009 or 2010 were based on data 5 or more years old at the time of
publication and, of those, 3 were based on data 7 or more years old.
[Footnote 40] Though these survey results were only recently
published, the age of the wage data they contain means those states
will likely need to be resurveyed soon.
Several of the union and contractor association officials we
interviewed said the age of the Davis-Bacon nonunion-prevailing rates
means they often do not reflect actual prevailing wages. As a result,
they said it is more difficult for both union and nonunion contractors
to successfully bid on federal projects because they cannot recruit
workers with artificially low wages but risk losing contracts if their
bids reflect more realistic wages. Labor officials said the only way
to correct the age disparity between union-and nonunion-prevailing
rates is to conduct surveys more frequently; however, some regional
office officials said the goal to survey each area every 3 years is
not feasible with current processes. Those who said it is feasible
cited the need for adequate technology and staffing, which they said
is not in place in all regional offices.
Critical Problems with Labor's Wage Survey Methodology Still Hinder
Quality:
Although Labor has made recent changes to data collection and
processing, some critical problems with its survey methodology have
not been addressed. Our review identified persisting shortcomings in
the representativeness of survey results and the sufficiency of data
gathered for Labor's county-focused wage determinations.
Representativeness:
OMB guidance states that agencies need to consider the potential
impact of response rate and nonresponse on the quality of information
obtained from a survey, and suggests agencies consult with trained
survey methodologists when designing surveys to address this issue.
Rather than conducting a formal evaluation of the wage survey process
and consulting with experts in survey design and methodology, a senior
Labor official said the agency based changes on an informal review
that drew on staff experiences. While our prior work has shown it is
reasonable and desirable to obtain input from knowledgeable staff,
technical guidance from experts is considered critical to ensure the
validity and reliability of survey results.
Labor cannot determine whether its Davis-Bacon survey results are
representative of prevailing wage rates because it does not currently
calculate response rates or conduct a nonresponse analysis. According
to OMB, response rate calculation and nonresponse analysis are
important because a low response rate may mean survey results are
misleading or inaccurate if those who respond to a survey differ
substantially and systematically from those who do not respond. A
Labor official said that when the agency started conducting statewide
surveys in 2002, it stopped calculating overall response rates because
of the large volume of data received and challenges in tracking who
submitted specific information. In addition, the official said Labor
could not collect enough data to meet its then-standard of data on at
least six workers from three different employers for each job
classification, so it changed the standard to its current three
workers from two employers.[Footnote 41] This standard can be met
using data from a single county, multiple counties within a state, or
statewide. Also, aside from a second letter sent automatically to
survey nonrespondents, Labor does not currently have a program to
systematically follow up with or analyze all nonrespondents. Labor's
own procedures manual recognizes nonresponse as a potential source of
survey bias and indicates there is a higher risk nonrespondents will
be nonunion contractors because they may have greater difficulty in
compiling wage information or be more cautious about reporting wage
data. Despite this guidance, regional office officials said they spend
the bulk of their time clarifying data received. Of Labor's published
wage rates as of November 12, 2010, about 63 percent were union-
prevailing; in contrast, about 14 percent of construction workers
nationwide were represented by unions in 2010, according to BLS
figures[Footnote 42]. Several of the stakeholders we interviewed said
the fact that Labor does not ensure the representativeness of the
survey responses reduces the accuracy of the published wage rates. In
addition, some regional office officials said statistical sampling may
make wage rates more accurate, although they cautioned that some
contractors or interested parties may not support a change to sampling
if it meant they would be excluded from participating in the survey.
During the course of our review, a senior official said Labor is
taking steps to again calculate response rates, beginning with updates
to the survey database and changes to the survey form, which will more
clearly identify who submitted wage information.[Footnote 43] However,
because Labor has not yet fully implemented these changes, it is
unclear if they will lead to improving the quality of the survey.
Utility of County Focus:
Although its regulations state the county will normally be the civil
subdivision for which a prevailing wage is determined,[Footnote 44]
Labor is often unable to issue wage rates for job classifications at
the county level because it does not collect enough data to meet its
current sufficiency standard of wage information on at least three
workers from two employers. In the results from the four surveys we
reviewed--Florida 2005, Maryland 2005, Tennessee 2006, and West Texas
Metropolitan 2006--Labor issued about 11 percent of wage rates for key
job classifications using data from a single county (see figure 5).
About 22 percent of the wage rates were issued at the group level
(combined data from a group of counties within the same state) and
about 20 percent at the supergroup level (combined data from other
groups of counties within the same state). Almost 40 percent of the
wage rates were issued at the statewide level incorporating data from
either all metropolitan or all rural counties in the state.[Footnote
45] The remaining 7 percent were issued for combined counties for
which the geographic calculation level was not available.[Footnote 46]
(For more information on how the geographic level of issued wage rates
varied by construction type and by metropolitan and rural rates, see
appendix I.)
Figure 5: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued at
Each Geographic Level, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Geographic level:
State: 40%;
Multi-county: 42%;
County: 11%;
Geographic level not available: 7%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in either 2009 or 2010.
[End of figure]
In 1997, Labor's OIG reported that issuing rates by county may cause
wage decisions to be based on an inadequate number of responses. In
our review of the four surveys, we found one-quarter of the final wage
rates for key job classifications were based on wages reported for six
or fewer workers (see figure 6). (For more information on how the
number of workers used to determine rates varied by construction type
and by metropolitan and rural rates, see appendix I.)
Figure 6: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued Based
on Number of Workers, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Number of employees:
3 workers: 6%;
4-6 workers: 20%;
7-12 workers: 23%;
13-28 workers: 26%;
29 or more workers: 25%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in either 2009 or 2010.
[End of figure]
In the surveys we reviewed, we also found Labor sometimes determined
prevailing wages based on small amounts of data even in metropolitan
areas. For example, in the 2005 survey of building construction in
Florida, the prevailing wage rate for a forklift operator in Miami-
Dade County was based on wages reported for five workers statewide.
The statutory requirement to issue Davis-Bacon prevailing wages based
on a "civil subdivision of the state"[Footnote 47] also limits Labor's
options to address inadequate data. For example, Labor is not able to
augment its survey data with data from other sources because those
sources may draw from other geographic areas, such as MSAs, which are
not the same as civil subdivisions.[Footnote 48] Officials from
Labor's survey contractor, CIRPC, said one way to improve accuracy is
to survey areas other than counties. CIRPC officials said the current
wage survey uses arbitrary geographic divisions, in contrast to other
groupings, such as the economic areas used by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, which are based on relevant regional markets that frequently
cross county and state lines.[Footnote 49] These groupings, they said,
are more reflective of area wage rates. Some stakeholders said the
focus on county-level wage rates results in the publication of
illogical rates. One contractor association representative said
metropolitan statistical areas would be more appropriate in New York,
for example, because there is a larger difference in wages between
upstate and downstate New York than between the counties containing
the cities of Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo. Another contractor
association representative said the geographic divisions used by Labor
for prevailing wages are illogical for projects not confined to a
single county, offering the example of a contractor paving a road that
crossed a county line and who was forced to pay workers different wage
rates based on which side of the line they worked.
Little Incentive to Participate and Lack of Transparency Remain Key
Issues for Stakeholders:
Many Stakeholders Reported Contractors Lack Incentive to Participate
in Davis-Bacon Surveys:
In our interviews with stakeholders about additional issues with
Labor's wage determination process, they provided several reasons why
contractors have little or no incentive to participate in the Davis-
Bacon wage survey. First, 19 of 29 stakeholders said contractors may
not have the time or resources to respond.[Footnote 50] An employee
for one contractor said she had returned the wage survey but might not
have had she known it was voluntary because her company was short-
staffed. Other stakeholders said contractors might not see the survey
as a priority. Second, 16 stakeholders said contractors either may not
understand the purpose of the survey or do not see the point in
responding because they believe the prevailing wages issued by Labor
are inaccurate. Third, 10 stakeholders said contractors may be
reluctant to provide information to the government because they view
it as proprietary or fear that doing so will subject them to audits.
Finally, 8 stakeholders said contractors who do not work on public
projects may not understand the survey is soliciting wage data from
private as well as public projects so they do not think they need to
respond. For instance, representatives from one state contractor
association said some contractors believe the wage survey only serves
to perpetuate established rates because wage surveys sent by Labor may
have the names of projects subject to Davis-Bacon already entered on
the form.[Footnote 51]
Officials we interviewed in Labor regional offices echoed many of
these concerns. They said contractors either think their survey
responses will not make a difference in the determination of
prevailing wages or are unaware they are being asked to submit
information on private projects. A contributing factor, one official
said, is that the survey announcement letter may not clearly
communicate it is soliciting information on both public and private
construction. In our review of the contractor announcement letter, we
found it states that requested information will be used to set
prevailing wages and asks the contractor to fill out the wage survey
for the construction project listed on the form and any additional
projects that fit survey criteria. But the letter does not
specifically state that Labor is soliciting data for both public and
private projects. (See appendix IV for copies of the survey
announcement letters sent to contractors and interested parties.)
Additionally, some regional office officials said larger contractors
may be more likely to respond because they have more resources,
including administrative personnel, to complete the survey form. They
said contractors also may not respond because they find the form
complicated or do not understand its importance. Yet if contractors
call the regional office and Labor staff have an opportunity to
explain the reason for the survey and answer questions, many of those
callers seem more receptive to participating, some regional office
officials said.
A lack of survey participation by those on private construction
projects could result in Labor having to use data from federal
projects, which are already paying Davis-Bacon wages, to set
prevailing wages for building and residential construction. Per its
regulations, Labor uses federal project data in all highway and heavy
surveys, but it only uses federal project data in building and
residential surveys when it lacks sufficient data from nonfederal
projects.[Footnote 52] In the results from the four surveys we
reviewed, almost one-quarter of the building wage rates and over two-
thirds of the residential rates for the 16 key job classifications,
such as carpenter and common laborer, included federal data. (For more
information on how the percentage of federal data varied by
metropolitan and rural rates, see appendix I.)
Stakeholders Reported Survey Form Was Generally Easy to Understand,
but Most Forms Reviewed Had Errors:
While 19 of the 27 contractors and interested parties we interviewed
said the wage survey form, which Labor officials said was last updated
in 2004, is generally easy to understand, some identified challenges
in completing specific sections.[Footnote 53] For example, five
stakeholders said it is difficult to know which job classification
applies to their workers. Representatives from one national contractor
association said they had previously informed Labor the survey form
does not reflect nonunion industry practices and contractors may not
track data in a way that makes it easy to fill out the form. As a
result, they said most nonunion contractors opt not to return the wage
survey rather than attempt to break down their data to fit its format.
Other state contractor association representatives said workers on
some construction sites today perform tasks across multiple job
classifications; for example, a carpenter may also perform some tasks
of a laborer. Yet the survey form asks contractors to provide wages
for a worker by a single job classification. In addition, officials
from one state local union said, to assist contractor participation in
the survey, they created and distributed their own spreadsheet for
contractors to fill out because they thought it would be more easily
understood than Labor's wage survey form.
Labor reported to Congress in 2006 that use of the scannable survey
form resulted in submission of more complete data, but our analysis of
reports for four state surveys found most verified forms still had
errors.[Footnote 54] During on-site verification, Labor's contracted
accounting firm compares clarified wage survey data to a sample of
contractor payroll records and reports any discrepancies. These
auditor reports show mistakes occurred most often in the number of
employees reported in each job classification, listed hourly and
fringe benefit wage rates, and project dollar value, some of which
were also issues in the 2004 Labor OIG report. A senior Labor official
said one reason contractors make errors on the form may be because
they fill it out from memory rather than consulting their payroll
records. Officials said they expect such errors to decrease under the
new survey processes as Labor analysts clarify contractor-submitted
data sooner.
Some of these errors may be due to the fact that Labor did not pretest
its current survey form with respondents. Officials said they are
planning another update to address portions of the form that
consistently confuse respondents. These include not having a place to
note an "interested party," rather than a "contractor" or
"subcontractor," is filling out the survey form, as well as
improvements to the section on job classifications and fringe
benefits. Labor officials said they have solicited input on potential
revisions from CIRPC; their on-site verification contractor; the U.S.
Census Bureau, which is contracted to mail out the survey forms for
Labor; and their regional offices. During our interviews, a Labor
official said the agency would like to solicit input on proposed
changes from survey respondents, but could not provide specifics.
Although part of Labor's on-site verification process is to ask
contractors questions about using the current form, Labor needs
feedback on proposed changes to assess whether they will accomplish
the goals of eliminating confusion and reducing errors.[Footnote 55]
OMB guidance states that careful questionnaire design and pretesting
can reduce measurement error and provide insights into how alternative
wording can affect survey respondents' answers. Pretesting the new
survey form with respondents to ensure changes achieve the desired
results will be particularly important given that a Labor official
said changing the form is a major undertaking.
Labor officials did not have a specific time frame for implementing
the new form because they said they are waiting for upgrades to the
wage survey data system and their first priority is improving the
online version of the form. Planned improvements to the online version
include allowing respondents to save information rather than having to
complete a survey before exiting. Seven stakeholders we interviewed
agreed the ability to fill out the form online was important, but four
of the seven were unaware it was already an option.
Key Wage Determination Information Is Sometimes Confusing or Missing
for Users:
Labor's Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates are publicly reported online
at Wage Determinations Online for use by contractors and others to
prepare bids for and pay workers on federal construction projects.
[Footnote 56] While 6 of 27 stakeholders we interviewed said the
general contractor provided the necessary wage information or they
found the online wage determinations relatively easy to use, others
reported problems. For example, while OMB and Labor guidance on data
quality states that "influential" financial information provided by
the agency should include a high level of transparency on data and
methods, 15 stakeholders said there is a lack of transparency in the
wage determinations because key information is not available or hard
to find. In addition, both union and nonunion stakeholders said
Labor's wage determination Web site should more clearly present
information on the number of workers and wage rates used to calculate
prevailing wages for each job classification. Labor currently makes
some of this information available in a report known as a WD-22. The
printed WD-22 provides, for each job classification, information on
the final prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates, the total number
of workers reported, and the method of rate calculation--for example,
whether the rate was based on a majority or an average (see figure 7).
A WD-22 is created for each state survey by construction type, but
this information is not available on Labor's wage determination Web
site. A senior Labor official said the WD-22 information is currently
available upon request; though, the agency is considering posting it
online along with other information used to determine wage rates.
Figure 7: Labor's Printed WD-22 Report for a Texas Building Survey:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated form]
Wage Compilation - Texas, Building:
El Paso:
Depicted on the form:
Job classification: Bricklayer.
Recommended prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates:
Wage: $13.45;
Fringe: 0.
Total number of workers reported: 26.
Signals wage rate based on average: A.
Signals wage rate issued with county-level data only: 0.
Job classification: Caulker, Joint-Sealant.
Recommended prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates:
Wage: $10.00;
Fringe: 0.
Total number of workers reported: 6;
Number of workers paid majority wage rate: 5.
Signals wage rate based on majority: M.
Source: GAO analysis of WD-22 excerpt from Labor‘s Prevailing Wage
Resource Book 2009.
[End of figure]
One contractor association representative said Labor's Web site does
not explain the meaning of terms and codes, and a contractor said it
is difficult to know which wage rates are in effect. Our review of the
wage determinations posted online found some information confusing.
Information provided about specific job classifications differs
depending on whether the prevailing rate is nonunion or union.
Nonunion rates are preceded with an "SU" designator, which is defined
at the bottom of each wage determination as wage and fringe benefit
rates that do not reflect collectively bargained rates (see figure 8).
Union rates are preceded with four-letter designators, which are
defined at the bottom of the wage determination as designations for
unions whose rates have been determined to be prevailing. A prevailing
wage resource book on another page of Labor's Web site further
explains these designators. For example, it states the "SU" designator
stands for "survey" and the accompanying date is the publication date
of the survey used by Labor to set the rate. It also states that the
date following the union designator is the effective date of the
current collectively bargained rate. However, these explanations are
not provided within the wage determination and, without understanding
the date following the "SU" designator, users do not know when the
survey that set posted rates was conducted. (See appendix V for the
full wage determination.) Both contractor association and union
representatives said more transparency about how prevailing wages are
determined could potentially result in a better survey response
because lack of understanding can deter stakeholders from
participating.
Figure 8: Excerpt from a Florida Wage Determination Published on
Labor's Web Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated form]
Depicted on the form:
General Decision Number: FL100104; 10/08/2010 (date updated during
"roll-over" process and when wage determination modifications are
issued); FL104.
Superseded General Decision Number: FL20080104.
State: Florida.
Construction Type: Building.
County: Alachua County in Florida.
Building Construction Projects (does not include single family homes
or apartments up to and including 4 stories).
Modification Number: 0;
Publication Date: 03/12/2010.
Modification Number: 1;
Publication Date: 03/19/2010.
Modification Number: 2;
Publication Date: 03/26/2010.
Modification Number: 3;
Publication Date: 05/14/2010.
Modification Number: 4;
Publication Date: 07/23/2010.
Modification Number: 5;
Publication Date: 08/06/2010.
Modification Number: 6;
Publication Date: 10/08/2010.
ELEC[International/nations union] 1205[Local union] -004 [Internal
number used by Labor for processing] 05/21/2010[Date of current
negotiated rate].
Electrician:
Rates: $23.48;
Fringes: $6.46.
SU[Survey designator] FL[State abbreviation] 2009[Year survey was
published] 05/22/2009[Publication date of survey that set the rates
following the "SU" designator]
Cement Mason/Concrete Finisher:
Rates: $17.69;
Fringes: $1.83.
Insulator - Pipe and pipewrapping:
Rates: $13.13;
Fringes: $3.03.
In the listing above, the "SU" designation means that rates listed
under the identifier do not reflect collectively bargained wage and
fringe benefit rates. Other designations indicate unions whose rates
have been determined to be prevailing.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Labor‘s Web site (www.wdol.gov) for
Florida wage determination 104 as of October 13, 2010.
[End of figure]
Labor also changes the date at the top of a wage determination each
calendar year in a "roll-over" process. Officials said the date is
changed to inform users the posted wage rates are valid for the
current year, but the wage rates contained in the determination are
not necessarily updated. In the Florida example (see figure 8), the
date at the top of the wage determination is October 8, 2010, but wage
rates associated with the "SU," or survey, designator on the lower
half of the page are from May 22, 2009, the publication date of the
survey used to set those rates.
A senior Labor official was not aware of users confusing the roll-over
date on the wage determination with the survey publication date.
However, OMB guidance states that when disseminating information
products to users, key variables should be defined and the time period
covered by the information and the date last updated should be
provided. Not clearly explaining each of these dates within the wage
determination reduces the transparency of when the last survey was
conducted for an area, especially if many years have passed.
Additionally, if the wage determination only contains union-prevailing
rates, it does not contain any information about when the area was
last surveyed.
Finally, 9 of 27 stakeholders said missing wage rates are also a
challenge. Specific job classifications may be missing from a wage
determination if Labor received insufficient survey data. If job
classifications are missing, contractors do not know what to bid on
federal projects because they do not know what they will have to pay
some workers, workers do not know what pay they will receive, and
federal contracting agencies cannot accurately estimate costs. When a
wage rate for a job classification is missing from the wage
determination, it must be requested from Labor through a conformance
process.[Footnote 57] While federal projects have contracting officers
who typically request the conformance on behalf of the contactor,
eight stakeholders said the contracting officers may not be familiar
with the prevailing wages or the conformance process. Representatives
from one national contractor association said the difficulty of
bidding on projects when wage rates are missing, and then having to
file a conformance request in order to know what to pay, can deter
smaller contractors who might otherwise be interested in federal work.
A Labor official said the rates issued via conformance requests--an
average of over 3,000 per year were filed in fiscal years 2007, 2008,
and 2009--are only good for the specific project on which they are
issued and many are repeated requests for job classifications for
workers who operate specific pieces of highway construction equipment.
The best way to reduce conformance requests, the official said, is to
conduct surveys that report wage rates for all job classifications.
Some Stakeholders Are Not Aware of Labor's Outreach Efforts:
The pre-survey briefing is one of Labor's primary outreach efforts to
inform stakeholders about an upcoming survey. These briefings are
conducted by regional office staff either before or at the start of a
survey. A headquarters Labor official said regional offices notify
state contractor associations and work through the Building &
Construction Trades Department to notify unions about pre-survey
briefings and ask them to pass the information along to their members.
While the official said there is no required number of pre-survey
briefings, regional office officials said they ranged from one
briefing for two states to five briefings within one state for recent
surveys depending on a state's size and characteristics. Officials
said they generally hold separate briefings for unions and nonunion
contractors/contractor associations. The presentation includes
information on how wage and fringe benefit data are obtained and
compiled, sufficiency requirements for issuing rates and wage
determinations, and the process for filing conformances and wage
determination appeals. A headquarters official said they are currently
revising the presentation's information on how to fill out the survey
form.
Stakeholder awareness of the pre-survey briefings was mixed. In three
states surveyed for building and heavy construction in either 2009 or
2010--Arizona, North Carolina, and West Virginia--all the union
representatives we interviewed said they were aware of the pre-survey
briefing and representatives from four of the six state contractor
associations we interviewed said they were aware a briefing had been
conducted.[Footnote 58] Of the 12 contractors we interviewed in
Florida and New York who were last surveyed in 2005 and 2006,
respectively, none were aware that a briefing had been conducted prior
to the survey. Several regional office officials said the pre-survey
briefings for unions generally have greater attendance than those for
contractors. While one stakeholder said copies of the slides were
provided at the briefing, a Labor headquarters official said the
information is not available online for those who are unable to attend
in person. Seven of 27 stakeholders indicated that alternative
approaches, such as webinars or audioconferences, might be helpful
ways to reach additional contractors.[Footnote 59]
CIRPC officials said more outreach by Labor could improve the accuracy
of the surveys because contractors would better understand why and how
the surveys are conducted, thereby encouraging more to participate.
They said they previously recommended that Labor wage analysts call
contractors prior to survey distribution to make them aware of the
survey and to assure them their submitted data would be protected. OMB
guidance states that sending a letter in advance of a survey to alert
respondents can improve response rates. A senior Labor official said
they are conducting pre-survey briefings instead of calling
respondents in advance.
Conclusions:
For more than a decade, reviews of the Davis-Bacon wage survey have
highlighted methodological problems in the determination of wages paid
to workers on federally funded construction projects. In response to
those criticisms, Labor has improved its process, most recently
seeking out new data sources for some construction types and adjusting
the data collection and processing time frames. Yet without clear
tracking of key survey dates and the time spent in various processing
activities, Labor cannot assess if its changes are improving survey
timeliness and thus the accuracy of published wage rates.
Additionally, these efforts do not effectively address some key issues
with how data are collected. Because Labor has not conducted checks
over the past several years on the representativeness of the data it
receives, it cannot have high confidence its results accurately
reflect prevailing wages, no matter how diligently its staff work to
clarify and verify submitted data. If the resultant prevailing wage
rates are too high, they potentially cost the federal government and
taxpayers more for publicly funded construction projects or, if too
low, they cost workers in compensation. While Labor officials rightly
used experience and corporate knowledge in designing recent changes to
survey methodology, they did not enlist objective survey expertise to
ensure methods were sound and in accordance with best practices.
Survey methodology that does not follow best practices lowers
confidence in the process and puts participation by private
contractors at risk.
Labor's regulatory goal to issue wage rates at the county level may
also limit its ability to improve survey representativeness and
timeliness. Labor often must combine data from multiple counties to
meet its own relatively low sufficiency standards to publish wage
rates for specific job classifications which, in the end, may reflect
the wages for as few as three employees from two contractors for an
entire state. The statutory requirement to issue prevailing wages by
"civil subdivision of the state" limits Labor's ability to account for
relevant regional markets that cross county or state boundaries or to
tap into data based on other geographic groupings. Use of other data
sources to augment Davis-Bacon survey data could shorten the time
needed to publish wage rates and reduce the number of conformances
that contractors must file for missing wage rates.
Given the voluntary nature of the survey, participants who take the
time to respond should have confidence their information will be
considered in determining prevailing wages. They should also be able
to understand how their information is used. Increased transparency in
how the wage rates are calculated and improved clarity in published
wage determinations would provide stakeholders assurance the wage
rates are accurate and encourage greater participation of the
construction employer community.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To improve the quality of Labor's Davis-Bacon wage survey data,
Congress may wish to consider amending the language of the Davis-Bacon
Act to allow Labor to use wage data from geographic groupings other
than civil subdivisions of states, such as metropolitan statistical
areas or Bureau of Economic Analysis' economic areas.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the quality and timeliness of Labor's Davis-Bacon wage
surveys, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Wage and
Hour Division to enlist the National Academies, or another independent
statistical organization, to evaluate and provide objective advice on
the survey, including its methods and design; the potential for
conducting a sample survey instead of a census survey; the collection,
processing, tracking, and analysis of data; and promotion of survey
awareness.
To improve the transparency of wage determinations while maintaining
the confidentiality of specific survey respondents, we recommend that
the Secretary of Labor direct the Wage and Hour Division to publicly
provide additional information on the data used to calculate its Davis-
Bacon wage rates, such as the number and wages of workers included in
each wage rate calculation, and to clearly communicate the meaning of
various dates and codes used in wage determinations in the same place
the prevailing wage rates are posted.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment.
The agency provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix
VI. Labor agreed with our recommendation to improve the transparency
of the wage determinations and indicated it is taking steps to do so.
However, the agency said our recommendation to obtain objective expert
advice on its survey design and methodology may be premature because
additional changes are currently being implemented or will be
implemented based on a 2004 review of the program by McGraw-Hill
Construction Analytics. The McGraw-Hill review was a process
evaluation that assessed many aspects of the wage survey; however,
Labor officials did not indicate during our interviews that the
results of that evaluation were serving as the foundation for their
recent changes nor was the evaluation referred to in documentation
Labor provided regarding its recent changes. Moreover, the McGraw-Hill
report did not address certain issues related to the survey's design
and methodology. Therefore, we continue to believe that Labor should
have an independent statistical organization provide advice on survey
methods for the following reasons:
* Labor cites examples of improvements to its processes and
information technology systems so that surveys can be completed and
published in a more timely manner. We also cited many of these data
collection and processing changes in our report along with the
agency's expected reduction in processing times for highway, building,
and heavy surveys. The survey timelines, which we used to assess
whether surveys conducted under new processes were on schedule, were
provided to us by the agency and included reductions in and
elimination of various survey steps. Yet according to those agency
timelines, many of the surveys were behind schedule. Labor commented
it has reduced the time to publish survey results for building and
heavy construction from several years to an average of 2 years.
However, we believe it may face challenges staying on schedule if it
cannot more accurately predict how many survey forms it will receive
and the time required to process them. Possibilities to better predict
the number of survey responses, such as statistical sampling rather
than the current census survey, could be explored with survey experts.
* Labor also noted, as we did in our report, that it is again working
to calculate response rates and we believe this is a step in the right
direction. However, only calculating response rates will not ensure
that the data Labor is using to calculate prevailing wages are truly
representative of the wages being paid in a particular area. If a
response rate is low--some wage rates are calculated on as few as
three workers--then Labor must also analyze nonrespondents to ensure
that those who received a survey but did not respond do not
significantly differ from those who responded. Survey expertise could
assist with this critical data quality check to help ensure prevailing
wages are representative of wages actually paid to workers.
* Labor commented that the current survey form was not recently
redesigned, but is a scannable version of the form that was last
updated in 2004. We adjusted our report language accordingly. The
agency also noted that errors on wage survey forms typically result
from errors in the information provided by survey respondents rather
than errors made by Wage and Hour Division employees. We agree;
however, we believe the fact that respondents continue to make some of
the same errors in completing the wage survey form that were
identified by the Labor OIG in 2004 is a concern. Labor did not
pretest the current form with survey respondents to ensure clarity,
which could partially explain why contractors and interested parties
made errors. A professional survey methodologist could develop a
pretesting plan to address issues that affect the quality of the
survey data, such as respondent comprehension, retrieval, judgment,
and response formulation.
We believe it is critical for Labor to obtain expert methodological
advice because this would allow the agency to make course corrections
before time and money are spent implementing new procedures that may
increase the speed of processing data, but not sufficiently address
its quality. While Labor indicated the cost of contracting for an
expert review is a concern, not ensuring the quality and
representativeness of the data can be costly in other ways: the
federal government could pay more for construction than it needs to or
workers may earn less than they should.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and
other interested parties. The report will also be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Andrew Sherrill, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our review examined (1) the extent to which the Department of Labor
(Labor) has addressed concerns regarding the quality of the Davis-
Bacon wage determination process and (2) the additional issues
identified by stakeholders regarding the wage determination process.
To address these objectives, we:
* reviewed key documents, including past GAO and Department of Labor
Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews of the program, agency
documents on recent changes to the wage survey process, and relevant
federal laws and regulations;
* interviewed agency officials and representatives from organizations
with whom the agency contracts some aspects of the survey process;
* analyzed (1) data from Labor's Automated Survey Data System (ASDS),
Wage Determination Generation System (WDGS), and the Davis-Bacon
survey schedule Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/schedule.htm]; (2) reports
produced by Labor's contracted accounting firm for on-site
verification of submitted payroll records; and (3) Labor's conformance
logs for fiscal years 2007 through 2009;
* conducted site visits to three of Labor's five regional offices that
conduct Davis-Bacon wage surveys, as well as to the Construction
Industry Research and Policy Center (CIRPC), which is contracted to
assist Labor with the wage survey process;
* interviewed approximately 30 stakeholders, including representatives
from academia, contractor associations, and unions, as well as
individual contractors and performed a content analysis of their
comments; and:
* attended a Labor prevailing wage conference.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through March
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Review of Key Documentation and Interviews with Agency Officials:
To evaluate how Labor has addressed past concerns with the quality of
the Davis-Bacon wage determination process, we reviewed past reports,
reviewed key agency documents, and interviewed Labor officials. We
reviewed two Labor OIG reports and their associated
recommendations,[Footnote 60] as well as our own previous work.
[Footnote 61] In addition, we reviewed agency correspondence with
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) describing
Labor's changes to the wage determination process based on past
program audits, the effectiveness of those changes, and planned future
changes.[Footnote 62]
To assess recent changes made to the wage survey process and their
expected outcomes, we interviewed officials and reviewed agency
documents, such as the Davis-Bacon manual of operations and Labor's
revised timelines for building, heavy, and highway surveys starting in
2009. Using Labor's revised timelines, we calculated the expected
reduction in the amount of time from the start of each survey to
publication of wage rates. To assess whether Labor's surveys under the
new processes were on schedule, we reviewed an ASDS Individual Time
Tracking Report by Activity/Survey for October 1, 2009, through
September 1, 2010, that provided the number of staff hours logged in
each survey activity for the pilot building and heavy surveys and
highway surveys started under the new processes.[Footnote 63] We then
compared the last activity in which staff hours had been logged for
each survey with its expected activity based on the date the regional
office entered the survey into ASDS and Labor's new timelines. We
could not calculate the exact number of days surveys were ahead of or
behind schedule because Labor did not have a report that reliably
recorded the date a survey moved from one activity to the next.
Additionally, for one state building and heavy survey and three state
highway surveys, we could not calculate the actual timelines because
the dates in the data provided by Labor were out of sequence.
Labor officials provided inconsistent guidance on which activity in
their timelines reflected the actual start of a survey; however, for
various reasons, we used the date the survey was recorded as being
entered into the database for our analysis of whether the surveys were
on schedule. During our review, a senior Labor official indicated the
appropriate survey start date was the date the survey was entered into
ASDS by regional office officials. Toward the end of our review, the
official indicated the correct start date was the date surveys were
first mailed to contractors or interested parties because each region
had its own method for when it entered surveys into ASDS. For example,
some regions entered surveys when they planned them while others
entered surveys when they ordered Dodge Reports. We believe using the
date surveys were first mailed as the start date would exclude certain
key activities on Labor's survey timeline, such as ordering,
receiving, and cleaning the Dodge Report data for building and heavy
surveys and inputting interested party lists for highway surveys.
Nonetheless, we conducted an additional timeliness analysis using
alternative start dates based on Labor's concerns. Given that Labor
officials were concerned the regional offices may enter building and
heavy surveys into ASDS before actually starting them, we used the
date the Dodge data were requested, which is the second step in the
new process. For the building and heavy surveys we reviewed, none of
them changed status based on the alternative start date. In other
words, all were still behind schedule. For highway surveys, we used
the date surveys were first mailed to interested parties as the start
date for the alternative analysis. For the highway surveys we
reviewed, only one changed status from behind schedule to ahead of
schedule. Therefore, based on the limited changes to our findings from
using alternative start dates, as well as the fact that the
alternative start dates exclude parts of the survey process on which
Labor had been working to improve timeliness and for which staff had
logged hours, we decided to conduct our analysis using the original
date provided by Labor (the date the regional offices entered the
survey into ASDS).
To assess the adequacy of Labor's current wage survey methodology we
compared it with survey guidance published by OMB and Labor.[Footnote
64]
Analysis of Survey Data:
We used data from ASDS to evaluate the geographic level at which rates
were issued and the number of workers used to issue rates. For both
analyses, we used data from four surveys--Florida 2005, Maryland 2005,
Tennessee 2006, and West Texas Metropolitan 2006--that were issued in
2009 or 2010. We selected these surveys because they were recently
published and represented geographic diversity, to the extent
possible, in terms of the Labor regional offices that conducted the
surveys. The data from the surveys we reviewed included the following
construction types: Florida--building, heavy, highway, and
residential; Maryland--building, heavy, and residential; Tennessee--
building, heavy, highway, and residential; and West Texas
Metropolitan--building and residential. The survey results included
metropolitan and rural rates for all construction types with the
exception of the Maryland heavy construction type and the West Texas
survey, which only included metropolitan rates.
To evaluate the geographic level at which wage rates were issued, we
analyzed, for each survey in our review, the "calculation basis" field
on Labor's WD-22 form, which indicates whether the wage rate for each
job classification was determined based on county-level data, multi-
county data, or statewide data.[Footnote 65] We were unable to
determine the geographic level for rates that had been combined in the
final WD-22 so we reported them separately. Regional office officials
said they may combine rates from counties with the exact same wage and
fringe benefit data in the final WD-22. However, the rates being
combined may have been calculated at different geographic levels--for
example, one county's rates may have been calculated at the group
level while another county's rates may have been calculated at the
supergroup level.[Footnote 66] Because the geographic level at which
rates for each combined county were calculated is not reported on the
WD-22, we reported the percentage of these rates separately. We
analyzed geographic levels for key job classifications only because
nonkey job classifications cannot be issued at the supergroup or state
level. Key job classifications are those determined by Labor to be
necessary for one or more of the four construction types, as follows:
* Building Construction: bricklayer, boilermaker, carpenter, cement
mason, electrician, heat and frost insulators/asbestos workers/pipe
insulators, iron worker, laborer-common, painter, pipefitter, plumber,
power equipment operator, roofer, sheet metal worker, tile setter, and
truck driver.
* Heavy Construction and Highway Construction: carpenter, cement
mason, electrician, iron worker, laborer-common, painter, power
equipment operator, and truck driver.
* Residential Construction: bricklayer, carpenter, cement mason,
electrician, iron worker, laborer-common, painter, plumber, power
equipment operator, roofer, sheet metal worker, and truck driver.
Table 1 provides the percentage of wage rates issued at each
geographic level by construction type and metropolitan or rural
designation for the four surveys we reviewed.
Table 1: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued at
Each Geographic Level by Construction Type and Metropolitan or Rural
Designation, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
County:
Building: Metro: 16%;
Building: Rural: 5%;
Heavy: Metro: 10%;
Heavy: Rural: 7%;
Highway: Metro: 11%;
Highway: Rural: 7%;
Residential: Metro: 9%;
Residential: Rural: 6%.
Group:
Building: Metro: 22%;
Building: Rural: 39%;
Heavy: Metro: 19%;
Heavy: Rural: 29%;
Highway: Metro: 11%;
Highway: Rural: 39%;
Residential: Metro: 14%;
Residential: Rural: 21%.
Supergroup:
Building: Metro: 19%;
Building: Rural: 26%;
Heavy: Metro: 19%;
Heavy: Rural: 9%;
Highway: Metro: 18%;
Highway: Rural: 19%;
Residential: Metro: 25%;
Residential: Rural: 12%.
State:
Building: Metro: 42%;
Building: Rural: 21%;
Heavy: Metro: 43%;
Heavy: Rural: 25%;
Highway: Metro: 55%;
Highway: Rural: 15%;
Residential: Metro: 42%;
Residential: Rural: 23%.
Geographic level not available:
Building: Metro: 1%;
Building: Rural: 9%;
Heavy: Metro: 9%;
Heavy: Rural: 30%;
Highway: Metro: 4%;
Highway: Rural: 20%;
Residential: Metro: 9%;
Residential: Rural: 38%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in 2009 or 2010.
Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
We also used WD-22 data to determine the number of workers used to
calculate wage rates for all key job classifications for the four
surveys in our review. Using the "total number reported" column in WD-
22 reports, we calculated the number of workers whose wage rates were
included in each wage rate calculation for key job classifications. We
reported the data by quartiles with the exception of the "3 workers"
category, which we broke out separately because it is the minimum
number of workers for which Labor must receive data in order to issue
a wage rate for a job classification. Table 2 provides the percentage
of key job classification rates issued by number of workers,
construction type, and metropolitan or rural designation for the four
surveys we reviewed.
Table 2: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued Based
on Number of Workers by Construction Type and Metropolitan or Rural
Designation, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
3 workers;
Building: Metro: 75%;
Building: Rural: 25%;
Heavy: Metro: 79%;
Heavy: Rural: 21%;
Highway: Metro: 65%;
Highway: Rural: 35%;
Residential: Metro: 52%;
Residential: Rural: 48%.
4-6 workers;
Building: Metro: 71%;
Building: Rural: 29%;
Heavy: Metro: 88%;
Heavy: Rural: 12%;
Highway: Metro: 75%;
Highway: Rural: 25%;
Residential: Metro: 82%;
Residential: Rural: 18%.
7-12 workers;
Building: Metro: 65%;
Building: Rural: 35%;
Heavy: Metro: 88%;
Heavy: Rural: 12%;
Highway: Metro: 78%;
Highway: Rural: 22%;
Residential: Metro: 71%;
Residential: Rural: 29%.
13-28 workers;
Building: Metro: 75%;
Building: Rural: 25%;
Heavy: Metro: 87%;
Heavy: Rural: 13%;
Highway: Metro: 80%;
Highway: Rural: 20%;
Residential: Metro: 85%;
Residential: Rural: 15%.
29 or more workers;
Building: Metro: 72%;
Building: Rural: 28%;
Heavy: Metro: 100%;
Heavy: Rural: 0%;
Highway: Metro: 85%;
Highway: Rural: 15%;
Residential: Metro: 92%;
Residential: Rural: 8%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in 2009 or 2010.
[End of table]
Finally, we used WD-22 data to determine the percentage of wage rates
that included federal data. We calculated this percentage for the
building and residential construction types for the surveys in our
review because Labor uses federal data for these construction types
only when it has insufficient survey data, whereas federal data are
used in all highway and heavy surveys. Table 3 provides the percentage
of key job classification wage rates using federal data by
construction type and metropolitan or rural designation for the four
surveys we reviewed.
Table 3: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Using Federal
Data by Construction Type and Metropolitan or Rural Designation, for
Four Surveys Reviewed:
Used federal data;
Building: Metro: 24%;
Building: Rural: 20%;
Residential: Metro: 61%;
Residential: Rural: 95%.
Did not use federal data;
Building: Metro: 76%;
Building: Rural: 80%;
Residential: Metro: 39%;
Residential: Rural: 5%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in 2009 or 2010.
[End of table]
To determine the age of wage rates, we used WDGS data on published
wage rates provided by Labor officials on November 12, 2010. We
analyzed the age of wage rates for building, heavy, and highway
construction because Labor considered only those construction types in
its fiscal year 2010 performance goal.[Footnote 67] We analyzed the
age of wage rates in two ways: first, combining nonunion-and union-
prevailing wage rates together, as Labor does, and then separately to
identify any trends by type of rate.
To determine the age of data used to calculate prevailing wage rates
for the 22 open surveys that accumulated since Labor began conducting
statewide surveys, we analyzed survey time frames and cutoff dates
from Labor's Davis-Bacon and Related Acts survey schedule Web site
[hyperlink, http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/schedule.htm] and
interviewed Labor officials.
To assess the number of wage survey forms, or WD-10s, that had errors
and the types of errors that most commonly occurred, we analyzed on-
site verification reports prepared by Labor's contracted accounting
firm for the four states in our review. We analyzed the verification
reports to determine what percentage of wage survey forms that were
verified had errors and what type of errors occurred. To identify and
categorize the errors, we recorded if the accounting firm marked an
error in the following fields: project value, construction type,
additional trade/classification, employee classification, work
performed, paid under collective bargaining agreement (CBA), number of
employees, peak week, hourly rate, fringe benefit, health and welfare,
pension, holiday and vacation, apprentice training, and other. We
counted a wage survey form as having multiple errors if it had an
error in more than one category.
To determine the average number of conformance requests filed for
missing classifications in fiscal years 2007 through 2009, we used the
"tracking number" field in Labor's conformance request log. We counted
the number of requests with distinct tracking numbers, excluding
entries that did not have tracking numbers, and then calculated the
average over the 3-year period.
To assess the reliability of the data we used in our analyses, we
performed the following steps: (1) reviewed pertinent system and
process documentation, (2) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable
about the data and system during each regional office site visit, and
(3) performed electronic testing of required data fields. We found the
data we reviewed to be reliable for our purposes.
Regional Office Site Visits:
To obtain information from staff who clarify and analyze survey
information, we conducted site visits to three of the five Labor
regional offices that process Davis-Bacon wage surveys--Northeast
region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Southeast region (Atlanta,
Georgia); and Southwest region (Dallas, Texas)--as well as CIRPC at
the University of Tennessee.[Footnote 68] At each regional office, we
interviewed the director of enforcement, the regional wage specialist,
the senior wage analyst, and wage analysts. At CIRPC, we interviewed
the associate directors, the senior wage analyst equivalent, and wage
analysts. Also, to gain a thorough understanding of how wage analysts
process survey data and document decisions, we interviewed staff at
each regional office about ASDS. We selected our site visit locations
based on the fact that Labor headquarters officials said these
regional offices were currently conducting surveys using new
processes. Additionally, we visited CIRPC to determine how contractors
are selected for survey participation and on-site verification, and
how CIRPC provides support to the regional offices in implementing the
new survey processes.
Interviews with Stakeholders:
To determine what additional issues stakeholders may have with the
wage determination process, we initially explored surveying
contractors and union officials in states where Labor had recently
conducted a wage survey. We believed it was important for us to survey
contractors who had recently received a wage survey from Labor so they
could recall their experience of responding to the wage survey or
their reasons for not responding. However, Labor officials had
concerns about us surveying contractors in states where Labor had
completed wage survey data collection, but was still in the process of
contacting contractors for data clarification and verification. Labor
officials believed contractors might get confused if they received
requests for information from more than one agency and were concerned
our activities might affect their efforts. We agreed with these
concerns. Therefore, instead of surveying contractors, we opted to
conduct semi-structured interviews with a wide variety of Davis-Bacon
stakeholders. Also, in order to solicit opinions directly from
contractors but not interfere with Labor's ongoing efforts, we
interviewed a small number of individual contractors in states that
had been surveyed less recently but where the results of those wage
surveys had been published. Given that it had been a few years since
Labor sent wage survey forms to these contractors, we believed we
would obtain better information through personal interviews than a
survey.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with approximately 30
representatives from academia, contractor associations, unions, and
individual contractors. Our semi-structured interview protocol allowed
us to ask questions of numerous organizations and individuals,
offering each interviewee the opportunity to respond to the same
general set of questions, but also allowed for flexibility in asking
follow-up questions and, in limited circumstances, for the omission of
questions when appropriate. For example, we did not ask
representatives from academia about filling out the survey form or
attending pre-survey briefings because they would typically not be
involved in these activities. In our findings, we noted cases in which
we did not ask all stakeholders a particular question.
To select representatives from academia, we conducted a literature
review to identify studies that reviewed or evaluated the Davis-Bacon
wage survey process. To obtain opinions from both unionized and
nonunionized contractors, we interviewed representatives from the
national organizations of the Associated Builders and Contractors,
Inc. (ABC) and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). To
obtain views from construction unions, we interviewed representatives
from the AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW). We selected IBEW because it has one of the largest
memberships among construction industry unions and electricians are
considered a key class for all four of Labor's construction types.
To obtain a state-level perspective from contractors' associations and
unions, we interviewed representatives from state ABC and AGC
chapters, as well as IBEW locals in Arizona, North Carolina, and West
Virginia. We chose these three states because they had been surveyed
in 2009 or 2010 by different Labor regional offices. In addition,
because Arizona, North Carolina, and West Virginia have low to medium
levels of workers represented by unions, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS), we interviewed representatives from ABC and
AGC in New York, the state with the highest level of unionization.
Footnote 69]
We also interviewed individual contractors in New York and Florida. We
chose New York and Florida because they had been surveyed fairly
recently and represented diversity in geography and the percentage of
all workers represented by unions.[Footnote 70] To select contractors,
we requested Labor data including the lists of contacts who had been
sent wage survey forms and who had returned them. Then, to the extent
possible, we matched the data using the contact identification field
to determine which contacts had responded or not responded. In each
state, we identified the counties with the highest number of
respondents because there were fewer respondents than nonrespondents.
We selected certain ZIP codes within each selected county based on the
highest concentration of respondents, as well as site visit logistics.
We then ordered the list of respondents and nonrespondents by ZIP code
and called contractors asking them to meet with us. If we were unable
to reach a contractor or if a contractor declined, we moved to the
next contractor on the list and continued until we had a mix of
respondents and nonrespondents who agreed to be interviewed.
We conducted a content analysis on the information gathered through
the stakeholder interviews. Interview responses and comments were
categorized by an analyst to identify common themes. A pretest of the
themes was reviewed by the engagement's methodologist before all
comments were categorized. The categorization of the comments was then
independently checked, and agreed upon, by another analyst for
verification purposes. While we selected our stakeholders to include a
wide variety of positions, the opinions expressed are specific to
those we interviewed and are not generalizable.
Prevailing Wage Conference:
We attended Davis-Bacon-related sessions of Labor's November 2010
prevailing wage conference in Cleveland, Ohio, to obtain additional
stakeholder perspectives on the wage determination process and use of
published wage determinations through observation of Labor's
presentations and question and answer sessions.
[End of section]
Appendix II Wage Survey Form (WD-10):
[Refer to PDF for image: wage survey form]
Form WD-10:
Davis-Bacon Wage Survey:
Report of Construction Contractor's Wage Rates:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Employment Standards Administration:
Wage and Hour Division:
1. Name Of Contractor/Subcontractor:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Phone:
Extension:
Fax:
2. Submitter information:
Title:
Organization:
Phone:
Extension:
Fax:
Email address:
3. Full Name of Project:
Address:
City:
State:
County:
Name of General/Prime Contractor:
Instructions - Please enter the information in the white boxes and
fill in the circles as appropriate. You can either hand print the
information in blue or black ink, or use a typewriter or printer.
Detailed instruction for completing this form (or obtaining additional
copies) as well as definitions of many of the terms used on this form
are found or a separate instruction page.
We estimate that it will take an average of 20 minutes to complete
this collection of information, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. If you have any comments regarding the
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, send them to: U.S.
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division Administrator, Room S-
3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Note: This form is used by the U.S. Department of Labor to determine
the locally prevailing wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act. The
submission of wage data is encouraged but is voluntary. This is an
optional form provided to ensure consistency in submission of wage
data. Respondents may use an alternate form if all the information
requested is included. The identity of the Respondent will be kept
confidential to the maximum extend possible under existing law.
Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
4. Indicate if project is subject to a Federal (Davis-Bacon) or state
wage determination:
Federal:
State:
Neither:
5. Indicate: I am the:
General/Prime Contractor:
Subcontractor:
5A. Please provide a list, on the enclosed form, of any subcontractors
you used on the project, including addresses and phone numbers:
The list is being returned with this form:
The list was provided earlier:
There are no subcontractors:
5B. For the project being reported on this form, state the date the
work:
Began:
Ended:
Estimated/Actual Project Value:
5C. If you are a subcontractor for the project being reported indicate
the date your work:
Began:
Ended:
Estimated/Actual Project Value:
6. Please fill in the circle indicating the type of construction for
the project being reported and all relevant descriptors. If the
project has more than one type of construction, please mark the
additional type:
Apartment building:
Bicycle path:
Bridge over navigable water:
Bridge (any other type):
Dormitory:
Hospital:
Motel/Hotel:
Nursing/Assisted living facility:
Office/Commercial building:
Paving:
Parking lot:
Playground:
Residential:
Road/Street/Highway/Drive:
School:
Site Preparation:
Treatment Plant:
Water/Sewer:
Other:
If you selected apartment, nursing facility or residential:
Number of stories:
Kitchen in each unit:
Bath in each unit:
7. Classification and Fringe Benefit Information. In the question
below, CBA stands for Collective Bargaining Agreement. In the five
benefit-related columns, please describe the benefits (if any) for
each classification, and also tell us how they are paid. If the
benefit is paid out periodically, tell us how much you pay and how
frequently you pay it, using a single letter abbreviation. Use 'H' for
hourly, 'D' for daily, 'W' for weekly, and 'Y' for yearly. If the
benefit is paid as a percentage of the hourly rate, check the
appropriate box, then tell us the percentage using the boxes below the
checkboxes. Regarding the Vacation and Holiday and additional benefit
columns, if appropriate, tell us how many days are paid annually. If
you only supplied building materials, and no employees worked on the
project, then fill in the circle below. You may skip the rest of the
question and sign and date the form.
Only Supplied Materials:
Classification:
Peak Week Ending Date:
Hourly Rate:
Type Of Work Performed:
Number Of Employees:
Paid Under A CBA?
Health and Welfare:
$ per employee, per:
% of hourly rate:
Pension (401K, etc.):
$ per employee, per:
% of hourly rate:
Apprentice training:
$ per employee, per:
% of hourly rate:
Vacation and Holiday:
$ per employee, per:
% of hourly rate:
# days per year:
Additional fringe:
$ per employee, per:
% of hourly rate:
# days per year:
8. Comments or remarks:
Description of any additional fringe (see last column of item 7):
Your signature:
Note: The willful falsification of any submitted information may
result in civil or criminal prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Date:
Instructions for the WD-10:
Davis--Bacon Wage Survey:
Report of Construction Contractor-s Wage Rates:
Information about Davis-Bacon Wage Surveys, including dates of current
and future surveys, may be obtained at the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts (DBRA) web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/index.htm].
Instructions:
* Use blue or black ink.
* Hand-print letters/numbers.
* Use one block for each letter, number, period, or space. If you use
a typewriter or printer to complete this form, ignore the block
spacing.
* Fill in circles completely.
* Use one WD-10 form for each construction project.
This form is machine readable, and should not be copied. For
additional forms, please contact (1-866-487-9243), or fill out and
submit your forms electronically using the following site on the World
Wide Web: [hyperlink, http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbrajwd-10.htm].
FORM SIDE 1:
Sections 1 and 2 -- Contractor and Submitter Information:
1. Fill in with information about your company.
2. Fill in with information about the submitter of the form.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 -- Project Information:
3. Fill in information about the construction project your company
worked on and the project's location and description.
4. Fill in one circle to identify if the project was subject to a
federal or state wage determination.
5. Fill in one circle to identify yourself as either the general/prime
contractor or a subcontractor.
5A. Indicate if you had no subcontractors, or if you did, then
indicate whether you are enclosing a list of subcontractors along with
the WD-10 form, or if you submitted a list earlier.
5B. If you were the prime/general contractor, provide the date any
work began on this project, the date the project ended (indicate if
actual or estimated date), and the total project value.
5C. If you were a subcontractor, provide the date your work started
and ended (indicate if actual or estimated date) and the subcontract
value.
6. Mark the type of construction project your company worked on. If
none of the construction types matches your project, fill in the
circle next to OTHER, and indicate the type of construction in the
blocks. If you selected Apartment Building, Nursing/assisted Living
Facilities, Or Residential, indicate the number of stories, and fill
in the circle if there was a kitchen and/or a bath in each unit.
Form Side 2:
Section 7 -- Classification and Fringe Benefits:
* If you only supplied materials, and no employees worked on the
project, then fill in the circle marked "Only Supplied Materials,"
skip the rest of section 7, and sign and date the form.
* The remainder of section 7 requests multiple types of information
per classification. Fill in each item as defined and described as
follows:
- Classification(s) are the position titles of jobs within your
company (e.g., Carpenter, Electrician, Laborer, Crane Operator, etc.).
Fill in one classification per line. If the workers in a classification
are paid more than one hourly rate or different fringe benefits,
please list them on separate lines. If more than 6 classifications and
wage rates need to be listed for a project, report the additional
classifications and wage rates on a new WO-10. On the new WD-10 fill
out only Sections 1, 3, and 7:
Guam Survey Respondents Only:
* List H2B Visa Workers Separately From Other Reported Workers.
* Identify H2B Workers By An "H2" After The Classification Title.
Example:
H2B/Visa Carpenter:
Classification: Carpenter H2.
Non-H2B Carpenter:
Classification: Carpenter.
* Type of Work Performed - Explain the type of work that each
classification performs (e.g., Laborer: landscape, unskilled,
pipelayer; Carpenter: carpentry, drywall; Operator: backhoe,
etc.).
Section 7 -- Classification and Fringe Benefits (continued) :
* Peak Week Ending Date is the week you had the largest number of
employees in a classification.
* Number of Employees is the largest number of employees working in
this classification on this project.
* Hourly Rate is the dollar amount you paid employees per hour working
in this classification.
* CBA -- If the employee is paid under a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, fill in the circle that represents Yes, otherwise fill in
the circle that represents No.
* Fringe Benefits are paid in addition to the hourly rate. Report only
the costs or contributions incurred by your company, NOT the
employees. Do not include costs paid by the employer that are required
by either Federal, State, or local law such as worker's compensation
or unemployment insurance. Fill out the information under each fringe
benefit that applies.
- Health & Welfare -- Medical or hospital care, or insurance to
provide such care, life insurance, long- or short-term disability,
sickness, or accident insurance.
- Pension (401K, etc.) -- Retirement/401K, defined contribution plans
(including savings and thrift, deferred profit sharing and money
purchase pension), annuity cost, or cost of insurance to provide such
a benefit.
- Apprentice Training -- Defrayment of the cost of apprenticeship or
similar training programs.
- Vacation & Holiday -- The payment of compensation for holidays and
vacation.
- Additional Fringe -- If you are not sure of the category of the
fringe benefit(s), enter the rate information in the column, and
specify the fringe type in the "Description of Any Additional Fringe"
field at the bottom of the form.
Fringe benefits can be paid by a straight dollar amount, or by a
percentage of the basic hourly rate. Indicate the cost or contribution
your company paid to this classification during the peak week of this
project.
If the fringe benefits were paid by a straight dollar amount: Dollars
($) per Employee (EMP.) per:
* Mark the circle before $ per EMP. per:
* Fill in the dollar value in the blocks provided. Include the
decimal position when you fill in the dollar amount. Do not include
the $ sign. (Example: 1.50 for one dollar and fifty cents.)
* Indicate how often this dollar value was paid in the block following
$ per EMP. per with the values as follows: H for Hourly, D for daily,
W or weekly, M for monthly, and A for annually/yearly.
Example- If an employee was provided a straight dollar amount of $1.50
on a weekly basis for health and welfare:
Item 8 -- Comments or Remarks and Signature:
* Comments or remarks -- Provide comments or additional information.
* Signature -- Submitter must sign and date the form.
Key Terms:
* Apprentice -- A person employed and registered in a bonafide
apprenticeship program. (If these Apprentices/Trainees are in a formal
program approved by the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship
and Training (BAT), or a state apprenticeship agency recognized by
BAT, then information regarding wages and fringe benefits need not be
provided.)
* Helper -- A person that helps or assists and whose duties are
distinct from the journey level class and laborer.
* General/Prime Contractor -- The principal contractor on the
project.
* Subcontractor -- A contractor working on the project responsible for
specific work but not the overall project. You are not a subcontractor
for purposes of this survey if you supplied only materials.
* Subcontractor List -- A machine--readable form for reporting the
names and addresses of any subcontractors used by the
contractor/subcontractor on the project being reported.
* Trainee -- A person registered in a construction occupation
program.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Labor's Wage Determination and Appeals 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 public and private projects that are similar in character
to the contract work in the civil subdivision of the state where the
construction takes place.[Footnote 71]
To determine the prevailing wages and fringe benefits in various areas
throughout the United States, Labor's Wage and Hour Division
periodically surveys wages and fringe benefits paid to workers in four
basic types of construction: building, residential, highway, and
heavy.[Footnote 72],[Footnote 73] Labor collects data through
statewide surveys, except in large states, such as Texas and
California. Labor's regulations state that the county will normally be
the civil subdivision at which a prevailing wage is determined,
although Labor may consider wages paid on similar construction in
surrounding counties if it is determined there has not been sufficient
similar construction activity within the given area in the past year.
[Footnote 74] Data from projects in metropolitan counties are
considered separately from those in rural counties. If similar
construction in surrounding counties, or in the state, is not
sufficient, Labor may consider wages paid on projects completed more
than 1 year prior to the start of a survey.
Wage rates are issued for a series of job classifications in each of
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. Labor's wage
determination process consists of five basic stages:
1. Planning and scheduling surveys to collect data on wages and fringe
benefits in similar job classifications on comparable construction
projects.
2. Conducting surveys of employers and interested parties, such as
representatives of unions or contractor associations.
3. Clarifying and analyzing respondents' data.
4. Issuing the wage determinations.[Footnote 75]
5. Reconsideration and review of wage determinations through an
appeals process.
Stage 1: Planning and Scheduling Surveys:
Labor attempts to survey the complete "universe" of relevant
construction contractors active within a particular area during a
specific period of time. Labor schedules surveys by identifying those
areas and construction types most in need of a survey, based on
criteria that include:
* age of the most recent survey;[Footnote 76]
* volume of federal construction in the area;
* requests or complaints from interested parties, such as state and
county agencies, unions, and contractor associations; and:
* evidence that wage rates in a region have changed.
Labor uses two management tools, the Regional Survey Planning Report
and the Uniform Survey Planning Procedure, to help prioritize planned
surveys. The Regional Survey Planning Report is provided by CIRPC at
the University of Tennessee and contains information about
construction activity nationwide, including the number and value of
active projects, the number and value of federally owned projects, the
date of the most recent survey in each county, and whether the
existing wage determinations for each county are union-prevailing,
nonunion-prevailing, or a combination of both. Labor uses the Uniform
Survey Planning Procedure to weigh the need for surveys by area and
construction type.
Once Labor designates an area and construction type (i.e., building,
residential, highway, or heavy) for a survey, it proposes a survey
time frame, or reference period during which the construction projects
considered in the survey must be "active." Generally, the preliminary
time frame is the preceding 12-month period, the survey start date is
approximately 3 months after the survey is assigned, and the survey
cutoff date is 4 to 6 months from the start date, depending on the
size of the survey. However, the survey time frame, start date, and
cutoff date may be shortened or lengthened based on individual
circumstances of the survey. Once these parameters are established,
Labor enters the survey information into ASDS.
To identify projects that meet the established survey criteria (the
designated area, construction type, and survey time frame), Labor uses
F.W. Dodge data produced in reports known as Dodge Reports.[Footnote
77] Labor supplements these data with information provided by
contractors listed in the Dodge Reports, by industry associations, and
from regional office files to find additional relevant construction
projects. Analysts at CIRPC screen the data to ensure projects
selected meet the criteria before the survey begins. Projects 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. CIRPC also checks for duplicate project information to
minimize contacts to a contractor working on multiple projects that
meet survey criteria.
Stage 2: Conducting Surveys:
Labor notifies contractors and interested parties--including
contractor associations, unions, government agencies, and Members of
Congress--of upcoming surveys by posting survey information on its Web
site, sending letters, and conducting pre-survey briefings. Contractor
and interested party records are sent to the U.S. Census Bureau, which
distributes the notification letters encouraging participation in the
survey. Labor's regional offices arrange pre-survey briefings with
interested parties prior to or at the start of a survey to clarify
survey procedures and provide information on how to complete and
submit wage survey forms, known as WD-10s.
Data requested on the WD-10 form include a description of the project
and its location; the contractor's name and address; the project value
and start and end dates; the wage rate and fringe benefits paid to
each worker on the project; and the number of workers employed in each
job classification during the week of peak activity for that
classification. The peak week for each job classification is the week
when the most workers were employed in that particular classification.
For an example of how Labor collects peak week data on a WD-10, see
appendix II.
The Census Bureau conducts four mailings throughout a survey. The
first mailing includes letters and WD-10 wage survey forms to general
contractors and interested parties. (For examples of survey
announcement letters sent to contractors and interested parties, see
appendix IV.) General contractors listed on the Dodge Reports receive
WD-10 forms with project names identified through the Dodge Reports,
as well as additional blank forms for other projects. General
contractors not listed on the Dodge Reports and interested parties
receive a limited number of blank WD-10 forms, but additional forms
are available upon request. In addition, all general contractors
receive forms to provide information on subcontractors who worked on
projects being surveyed. Members of Congress receive one blank WD-10
form and are not contacted again unless a survey is extended. The
second mailing is only to general contractors who do not respond to
the first mailing and includes the WD-10 forms with project names from
the Dodge Report and subcontractor list forms provided in the first
mailing. The third mailing is to all reported subcontractors and newly
reported general contractors and includes WD-10 forms with project
names and blank WD-10 forms. The fourth and final mailing is to all
subcontractors who do not respond and newly reported subcontractors
and only includes WD-10 forms.
Survey respondents may submit paper WD-10 forms or complete forms
electronically on Labor's Web site. Census scans returned paper WD-10
forms into Labor's ASDS. WD-10 forms submitted electronically are
loaded directly into ASDS. Any additional information submitted must
be entered into ASDS manually. CIRPC reviews the completed WD-10s,
matches submitted information with the associated project, and
forwards the WD-10s to Labor regional offices.
Stage 3: Clarifying and Analyzing Respondents' Data:
Labor's wage analysts begin to review and analyze the data as they
receive the completed WD-10s.
Data Review and Clarification:
Wage analysts' first step in the review process is to determine
whether the project reported on the WD-10 form is within the scope of
the survey, or "usable." Since the WD-10 forms may provide more
information about a project than the Dodge Report, wage analysts
review the data to determine whether the project meets the four basic
survey criteria (correct construction type, geographic area, time
frame, and project value). If a project does not meet the four
criteria, it is determined unusable and any associated WD-10 forms are
excluded from the survey.
Once Labor has determined a project and WD-10 form are usable, wage
analysts call contractors to clarify any information that is unclear
or incomplete. Wage analysts record information about the
clarification call in ASDS, including the date and name of the person
contacted and any information that resulted in changes to the WD-10
form. Wage analysts review each section of the WD-10 forms and clarify
the information, as necessary. Specifically, the analysts verify
contractor and subcontractor information; project name, description,
and location; whether the project received federal or state funding;
start and end dates and value of the project; type of construction
(i.e., building, residential, highway, or heavy); employee job
classifications; the peak week ending date; the number of employees
reported; the basic hourly rate; fringe benefits rates; and whether
the wages were paid under a CBA, among other data. In addition to
contractors, interested parties may also submit WD-10 forms for a
project. However, Labor clarifies submitted data with the relevant
contractor, regardless of the source, and excludes information
provided by an interested party if it duplicates data provided by the
contractor unless data are submitted on specific job classifications
that were not included by the contractor. Labor also verifies rates
paid under a CBA, or union rates, to ensure they are accurately
reported.
Similarly, because of variations in industry practices across the
country, known as "area practice," wage analysts may call contractors
to clarify the type of work employees in certain job classifications
are actually performing. This is necessary because, for a given
prevailing wage, the scope of work covered by the job classification
must reflect the actual prevailing area practice. An area practice
issue exists when the same work is performed by employees in more than
one classification in a given location. For example, a worker under
the general electrician classification may perform tasks in addition
to general electrical work, such as alarm installation and low voltage
wiring. If there is another specialty classification installing alarms
in the same location, it may indicate an area practice issue. In some
geographic areas, particular work may be performed frequently and
widely enough by a specialty classification such that the traditional
practice by the general classification may be replaced by the practice
of the specialty classification.
Data Verification:
Labor conducts several processes to verify data submitted in a survey.
For data submitted by interested parties and contractors, Labor's
regional offices verify a random sample of data. To verify reported
data, regional offices contact selected contractors and third parties
to request payroll documentation, though data provided without
documentation may still be used. In addition to remote verification of
randomly selected contractors, on-site verification of a weighted
sample of contractors is conducted. The on-site verification selection
is designed to include those contractors with the biggest impact on
the prevailing wage rate for each job classification.[Footnote 78]
Once the weighted sample of contractors has been selected, an
independent auditing firm contracted by Labor arranges an appointment
with each contractor to meet and review supporting records. The
auditing firm prepares and submits a report documenting the
differences between the submitted and verified information, including
differences in project and wage data. Wage analysts in Labor's
regional offices update information in ASDS that may have changed as a
result of these verification processes.
Additional Data Sources:
In addition to wage data collected on WD-10 forms, Labor uses
certified payroll data from projects that receive federal funding and
meet survey criteria. For surveys of highway and heavy construction
projects, Labor always uses certified payroll data, while it is only
included in building and residential surveys if the submitted WD-10
forms do not provide enough information to make a wage determination.
In addition, for highway surveys only, Labor sometimes adopts rates
published by state departments of transportation if a state has
conducted its own prevailing wage survey and data collected separately
by Labor support the prevailing wage rates established by the state.
[Footnote 79]
Labor also updates union-prevailing wage rates when unions submit
updated CBAs to Labor headquarters.
Prevailing Wage Rate Calculation:
Once all verified and corrected data have been entered into ASDS,
Labor calculates the prevailing wage rate for each job classification
in a survey. If a majority of workers (more than 50 percent) in a job
classification are paid the same rate, that rate is determined the
prevailing wage.[Footnote 80] If the same rate is not paid to a
majority (over 50 percent) of workers in a job classification, the
prevailing wage is the average wage rate weighted by the number of
employees for which that rate was reported. Prevailing fringe benefits
are determined only if a majority of the workers in a job
classification receive fringe benefits. Once that condition is met,
the prevailing fringe benefit is calculated for each job
classification similarly to the way the prevailing wage rate is
calculated. The prevailing rates resulting from the calculations will
be either "union-prevailing"--if a majority of workers is paid under a
CBA--or "nonunion-prevailing" rates.
A prevailing wage rate for a job classification is only issued if
there are sufficient data to make a determination. For data to be
sufficient, Labor must receive wage information on at least three
employees from at least two contractors for that job classification.
If Labor receives sufficient data based on information collected at
the county level for a job classification, a prevailing wage rate is
determined using data from a single county. If data are insufficient
at the county level, Labor includes data from federal projects in that
county. If data are still insufficient, Labor includes data from
contiguous counties, combined in "groups" or "supergroups" of
counties, until data are sufficient to make a prevailing wage
determination. Expansion to include other counties, if necessary, may
continue until data from all counties in the state are combined.
However, Labor's regulations require wage data from projects in
metropolitan and rural counties be separated when determining
prevailing wages.[Footnote 81] For metropolitan counties, data are
combined with data from one or more counties within the metropolitan
statistical area, while data from rural counties are combined with
data from other rural counties.
Once the prevailing wage rates have been calculated, the regional
offices transmit survey results to headquarters for final review.
Stage 4: Issuing the Wage Determinations:
Labor headquarters issues wage determinations after reviewing
recommended wage rates submitted by the regional offices. The
prevailing wage rates are transmitted electronically to the WDGS for
publication online at [hyperlink, http://www.wdol.gov], where they are
publicly available. Labor sometimes modifies wage determinations to
keep them current or correct errors. Generally, modifications affect a
limited number of job classifications within a wage determination.
If a prevailing wage rate is not provided for a specific job
classification in a wage determination, a contractor may request a
rate for that classification, known as a conformance, through the
contracting agency overseeing the specific project.[Footnote 82] The
rate determined in the conformance process only applies to workers in
that classification for the contract in question.
Stage 5: Appeals Process:
Any interested party may request reconsideration and review of Labor's
wage determinations.[Footnote 83] The regional offices accept initial
inquiries after a wage determination has been issued. Any interested
party may request reconsideration from headquarters in writing and
include any relevant information, such as wage payment data or project
descriptions, to assist with the review. Labor's regulations state
that the Wage and Hour Division Administrator will generally respond
within 30 days of receipt of the request.[Footnote 84] If the
interested party's request for reconsideration is denied, the
interested party may file an appeal with Labor's Administrative Review
Board,[Footnote 85] which consists of three members appointed by the
Secretary of Labor. All decisions by the Administrative Review Board
are final. Any new wage determination resulting from such an appeal
must be issued prior to the award of the contract in question, or
before the start of construction if there is no award.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Survey Announcement Letters Sent to Contractors and
Interested Parties by the Department of Labor:
Survey announcement letter to contractors identified through Dodge
Reports as having active construction projects that meet survey
criteria:
Davis-Bacon Wage Survey:
U.S. Department Of Labor:
Employment Standards Administration:
Wage & Hour Division:
(Date of Letter)
(Name of Company)
(Address)
(City) (State) (Zip Code)
Dear Sir or Madam:
U.S. Department Of Labor is conducting a wage survey of (Building,
Heavy, Highway, and Residential) projects active and ongoing between
(Begin Date) through (End Date) in the State of (State). This
information will be used to establish prevailing wage rates as
required under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts.
We understand that your firm is or recently has been engaged in the
construction of the project(s) identified on the enclosed form(s).
Please complete the WD-10 form for each of the identified projects. If
your company has worked on other projects meeting forms for this
purpose and a the criteria of this survey, we would appreciate that
information also. Blank self-addressed postage paid envelope are
included with this letter.
Completed WD-10s must be paid by your firm on this project(s) assisted
construction projects postmarked by (Return Date) to be included in
the survey. The wages being affect the prevailing wage scale
established for future federally funded or in this State.
In addition to the wages paid any subcontractors you employed A form
for this purpose is enclosed. to your employees, it is also important
that we receive a list, as soon as possible, of any subcontractors you
employed on these projects so that we may contact them and request
their participation. Your subcontractor list in any form can also be
faxed directly to this office.
Please be assured that all information provided will be kept
confidential to the maximum extent possible under existing law.
Information regarding the Davis-Bacon wage survey program as well as
support for completing forms is available at the web site: [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/index.htm]. Project wage data may
also be submitted by using the electronic WD-10 which is available at
the web site:
hyperlink, http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/index.htm]
Thank you very much for your cooperation in this survey. If you have
any questions or need additional forms, please do not hesitate to
contact (Analyst) at the office listed below.
Sincerely,
(Graphic Signature)
(Printed Name)
Regional Wage Specialist:
Enclosures:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Wage and Hour Division:
(Regional Office Address)
(City, State, & Zip Code)
Phone: (Region phone number)
Fax: (Region fax number)
[End of letter]
Survey announcement letter to contractors not identified through Dodge
Reports, but who request to be notified about upcoming surveys:
Davis-Bacon Wage Survey:
U.S. Department Of Labor:
Employment Standards Administration:
Wage & Hour Division:
(Date of Letter)
(Name of Company)
(Address)
(City) (State) (Zip Code)
Dear Sir or Madam:
The U.S. Department of Labor is conducting a wage survey of (Building,
Heavy, Highway, and Residential) projects active and ongoing between
(Begin Date) through (End Date) in the State of (State). This
information will be used to establish prevailing wage rates as
required under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts.
The wages being paid by your firm on any projects may affect the
prevailing wage scale for future federally funded or assisted
construction projects in this state. If your firm has been engaged in
the construction of projects meeting the criteria of this survey,
please complete a WD-10 form for each applicable project. WD-10 forms
and a self-addressed postage paid envelope are included with this
letter. Completed WD-10s must be postmarked by (Return Date) to be
included in the survey.
In addition to the wages paid to your employees, it is also important
that we receive a list, as soon as possible, of any subcontractors you
employed on these projects so that we may contact them and request
their participation. A form for this purpose is enclosed. Your
subcontractor list in any form can also be faxed directly to this
office.
Please be assured that all information provided will be kept
confidential to the maximum extent possible under existing law.
Information regarding the Davis-Bacon wage survey program as well as
support for completing forms is available at the web site: [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/index.htm]. Project wage data may
also be submitted by using the electronic WD-10 which is available at
the web site:
[hyperlink, http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/wd10/index.htm]
Thank you very much for your cooperation in this survey. If you have
any questions or need additional forms, please do not hesitate to
contact (Analyst) at the office listed below.
Sincerely,
(Graphic Signature)
(Printed Name)
Regional Wage Specialist:
Enclosures:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Wage and Hour Division:
(Regional Office Address)
(City, State, & Zip Code)
Phone: (Region phone number)
Fax: (Region fax number)
[End of letter]
Survey announcement letter to congressional members:
Davis-Bacon Wage Survey:
U.S. Department Of Labor:
Employment Standards Administration:
Wage & Hour Division:
(Date of Letter)
The Honorable (Representative/Senator)
(Address)
(City) (State) (Zip Code)
Dear (Representative's/Senator's Name):
This is to advise you of a Davis-Bacon wage survey to be conducted
within your (State/District). The Davis-Bacon and related Acts require
payment of locally prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits to
employees of contractors and subcontractors performing work on
federally financed or assisted construction projects. As you know, the
Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible
for conducting wage surveys to establish the wage rates applicable to
such construction projects.
This office will be collecting wage payment information on any
(Building, Heavy, Highway, and Residential) projects within your
(State/District). We will be soliciting information of wages and
fringe benefits paid on those projects active and ongoing between
(Begin Date) through (End Date).
Data must be postmarked by (Return Date) to be included in the survey.
The wages being paid construction workers in your (State/District) may
affect the prevailing wage determinations issued as a result of this
survey. The identity of respondents will be kept confidential to the
maximum extent possible under existing law. Information regarding the
Davis-Bacon wage survey program as well as support for completing
forms is also available at the web site: [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbrafindex.htm]. Project wage data may
also be submitted by using the electronic WD-10 which is available at
the web site:
[hyperlink, http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/wd10/index.htm]
If you have any inquiries from your constituents regarding this
survey, we would appreciate your urging their participation. Any
questions concerning this survey or relevant information on
construction wage rates should be directed to (Wage Specialist) at the
office listed below.
Sincerely,
(Graphic Signature)
(Printed Name)
Regional Wage Specialist:
Enclosures:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Wage and Hour Division:
(Regional Office Address)
(City, State, & Zip Code)
Phone: (Region phone number)
Fax: (Region fax number)
[End of letter]
Survey announcement letter to interested parties:
Davis-Bacon Wage Survey:
U.S. Department Of Labor:
Employment Standards Administration:
Wage & Hour Division:
(Date of Letter)
(Name of Company)
(Address)
(City) (State) (Zip Code)
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is to advise you of a Davis-Bacon wage survey to be conducted
within your jurisdiction. The Davis-Bacon and related Acts require
payment of locally prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits to
employees of contractors and subcontractors performing work on
federally financed or assisted construction projects. The Wage and
Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for
conducting wage surveys to establish the wage rates applicable to such
construction projects.
This office will be collecting wage payment information on any
(Building, Heavy, Highway, and Residential) projects in the State of
(State). We will be soliciting information of wages and fringe
benefits paid on those projects active and ongoing between (Begin
Date) through (End Date).
Data must be postmarked by (Return Date) to be included in the survey.
The wages being paid construction workers in this area may affect the
prevailing wage determinations issued as a result of this survey. The
identity of respondents will be kept confidential to the maximum
extent possible under existing law. Information regarding the Davis-
Bacon wage survey program as well as support for completing forms is
also available at the web site: [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/index.htm]. Project wage data may
also be submitted by using the electronic WD-10 which is available at
the Web site:
[hyperlink, http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/wd10/index.htm]
Please promptly notify interested parties in your organization and
request their participation regarding this survey. We would appreciate
your urging their cooperation. Any questions concerning this survey or
relevant information on construction wage rates should be directed to
(Analyst) at the office listed below:
Sincerely,
(Graphic Signature)
(Printed Name)
Regional Wage Specialist:
Enclosures:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Wage and Hour Division:
(Regional Office Address)
(City, State, & Zip Code)
Phone: (Region phone number)
Fax: (Region fax number)
[End of letter]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Example of a Florida Wage Determination Published by the
Department of Labor:
General Decision Number: FL100104:
10/08/2010:
FL104:
Superseded General Decision Number: F120080104:
State: Florida:
Construction Type: Building:
County: Alachua County in Florida:
Building Construction Projects (does not include single family homes
or apartments up to and including 4 stories).
Modification Number: 0;
Publication Date: 03/12/2010.
Modification Number: 1;
Publication Date: 03/19/2010.
Modification Number: 2;
Publication Date: 03/26/2010.
Modification Number: 3;
Publication Date: 05/14/2010.
Modification Number: 4;
Publication Date: 07/23/2010.
Modification Number: 5;
Publication Date: 08/06/2010.
Modification Number: 6;
Publication Date: 10/08/2010.
ELEC1205-004:
05/01/2010:
Electrician:
Rates: $23.48;
Fringes: $6.46.
* ENGT0925-001:
07/01/2010:
Operator: Crane: Crawler Cranes; Truck Cranes; Pile Driver Cranes;
Rough Terrain Cranes; and Any Crane not otherwise described below;
Rates: $27.91;
Fringes: $10.59.
Operator: Crane: Hydraulic Cranes Rated 100 Tons or Above but Less
Than 250 Tons; and Lattice Boom Cranes Less Than 150 Tons if not
described below:
Rates: $28.91;
Fringes: $10.51.
Operator: Crane: Lattice Boom Cranes Rated at 150 Tons or Above;
Friction Cranes of Any
Size; Mobile Tower Cranes or Luffing Boom Cranes of Any Size; Electric
Tower Cranes; Hydraulic Cranes Rated at 250 Tons or Above; and Any
Crane Equipped with 300 Foot or More of Any Boom Combination:
Rates: $29.91;
Fringes: $10.59.
Operator: Mechanic
Rates: $27.91;
Fringes: $10.59.
OPERATOR: Oiler
Rates: $21.38;
Fringes: $10.59.
Operator: Boom Truck
Rates: $27.91;
Fringes: $10.59.
Operator: Concrete Pump
Rates: $23.41;
Fringes: $10.59.
IR0N0597-003:
08/01/2009:
Ironworker, Ornamental And Reinforcing:
Rates: $21.56;
Fringes: $7.62.
PAIN0088-001:
07/01/2008:
Painter: Brush, Roller, Spray and Steel Only:
Rates: $16.00;
Fringes: $6.85.
* PLUMO234-001:
09/01/2010:
Plumber/pipefitter:
Rates: $26.64;
Fringes: $11.54.
SHEE0435-005:
07/01/2010:
Sheetmetal Worker (Including HVAC Duct Installation):
Rates: $22.45;
Fringes: $12.38.
A: Holiday: 3% of the employee's regular rate of pay times the number
of hours worked (excluding fringe benefit contributions), with the
first effective holiday beginning Memorial Day, 2008.
* SUFL2009-031:
05/22/2009:
Bricklayer:
Rates: $18.93;
Fringes: $0.00.
Carpenter, Includes Metal Stud Installation:
Rates: $13.47;
Fringes: $2.28.
Cement Mason/concrete Finisher:
Rates: $17.69;
Fringes: $1.83.
Insulator - Pipe & P1pewrapper:
Rates: $13.13;
Fringes: $3.03.
Ironworker, Structural:
Rates: $15.50;
Fringes: $0.00.
Laborer: Asphalt Shoveler:
Rates: $7.88;
Fringes: $0.00.
Laborer: Common Or General:
Rates: $9.45;
Fringes: $0.50.
Laborer: Concrete Saw:
Rates: $12.63;
Fringes: $0.00.
Laborer: Mason Tender - Brick:
Rates: $10.75;
Fringes: $0.00.
Laborer: Mason Tender - Cement/concrete:
Rates: $12.66;
Fringes: $1.90.
Laborer: Pipelayer:
Rates: $8.00;
Fringes: $0.00.
Laborer: Roof Tearoff:
Rates: $8.44;
Fringes: $0.00.
Laborer: Landscape And Irrigation:
Rates: $10.37;
Fringes: $0.68.
Operator: Asphalt Spreader:
Rates: $11.46;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Backhoe/excavator:
Rates: $12.42;
Fringes: $0.50.
Operator: Bulldozer:
Rates: $15.01;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Distributor:
Rates: $13.50;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Forklift:
Rates: $13.50;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Grader/blade:
Rates: $13.73;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Loader:
Rates: $12.20;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Paver:
Rates: $11.20;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Roller:
Rates: $10.59;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Screed:
Rates: $10.77;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Tractor:
Rates: $9.91;
Fringes: $0.00.
Operator: Trencher:
Rates: $11.75;
Fringes: $0.00.
Roofer (Metal Roofs Only):
Rates: $14.26;
Fringes: $0.59.
Roofer, Including Built Up, Hot Tar, Modified Bitumen, Shake &
Shingle, Single Ply and Slate & Tile (Excluding Metal Roof);
$13.06
0.00
Tile Setter:
Rates: $14.21;
Fringes: $1.74.
Truck Driver: Dump Truck;
Rates: $10.00;
Fringes: $0.00.
Truck Driver: Lowboy Truck;
Rates: $12.16;
Fringes: $0.00.
Welders - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing operation to
which welding is incidental.
Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope
of the classifications listed may be added after award only as
provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29 CFR
5.5(a)(1)(ii)).
In the listing above, the "SU" designation means that rates
listed--.ender the identifier do not reflect collectively bargained
wage and fringe benefit rates. Other designations indicate unions
whose rates have been determined to be prevailing.
Wage Determination Appeals Process:
1) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can be:
* an existing published wage determination;
* a survey underlying a wage determination;
* a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on
a wage determination matter;
* a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling.
On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests
for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour Regional
Office for the area in which the survey was conducted because those
Regional Offices have responsibility for the Davis-Bacon survey
program. If the response from this initial contact is not
satisfactory, then the process described in 2) and 3) should be
followed.
With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal process
described here, initial contact should be with the Branch of
Construction Wage Determinations. Write to:
Branch of Construction Wage Determinations:
Wage and Hour Division:
U.S. Department of Labor:
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210:
2) If the answer to the question in 1) is yes, then an interested party
(those affected by the action) can request review and reconsideration
from the Wage and Hour Administrator (See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR
Part 7).
Write to:
Wage and Hour Administrator:
U.S. Department of Labor:
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210:
The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the interested
party's position and by any information (wage payment data, project
description, area practice material, etc.) that the requester considers
relevant to the issue.
3) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an
interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative Review Board
(formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to:
Administrative Review Board:
U.S. Department of Labor:
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210:
4) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final.
End Of General Decision:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Wage and Hour Division:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
March 7, 2011:
Andrew Sherrill:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Sherrill:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled "Methodological
Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey." Many of the concerns discussed
in this report are in the process of being addressed by the Department
of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and as noted in this
response it is too early to fully assess the effectiveness of WHD's
improvements. This letter contains information the GAO may find useful
as it considers its final report.
Since 2005 the WHD has been working to address recommendations for the
Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) wage survey and wage determination process from
reviews conducted by the Department of Labor Office of the Inspector
General and McGraw Hill Construction Analytics involving improvements
in the IT system, timeliness and accuracy of process, personnel, and
performance measures. As WHD staff acknowledged to the GAO auditor,
these improvements are ongoing. A brief discussion of these efforts
follows.
Improvements in the IT System:
WHD adopted a systematic approach to implement improvements in the
wage determinations IT system. From 2005 through January 2011, 29
major releases and updates were made to WHD's Automated Survey Data
System (ASDS) and 17 major releases and updates were made to the Wage
Determination Generation System (WDGS). The changes were designed to
increase the speed of processing so that surveys could be completed
and published in a more timely manner. In 2007, a "bridge" connecting
both IT systems became operational, which resulted in improvements to
performance measurements and reports. For example, preparation of
documents for on-site verification was reduced from one month to one
day and area practice resolution was reduced from weeks to one day.
IT development and subsequent system improvements are still ongoing to
further increase the accuracy and timeliness of DBA wage surveys and
wage determinations. In addition, reports to assess the performance of
IT development and subsequent system improvements have been developed
and implemented, and will continue to be reviewed for further
improvement.
Process (Timeliness and Accuracy):
WHD reviewed its survey processes in those key areas in which there
was substantial time expenditure. As a result, regional WHD analysts
are now performing analysis and clarification of data within two weeks
of the receipt of such data; contractor, third party, and on-site
verification is being performed within an average of six to eight
months from survey cut-off date; and responses from all parties to
verification requests have substantially increased. All 22 surveys
considered backlogged were completed and published in either FY 2009
or FY 2010.
The new survey process for building and heavy construction began in
2009. Of the nine statewide building and heavy construction surveys
started in 2009 with data collection cut off dates from December 31,
2009 to February 28, 2010, four (Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire and
Vermont) have been or are being published at this time; three (North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Maine) will be published within the next
two months; and two (West Virginia and Nebraska) are in on-site
verification resulting in an average of 24 months from start of survey
to publication of wage determination.
As a result of increased relationship building with state Department
of Transportation (DOT) offices, 33 states now work with WHD to issue
and maintain current prevailing highway wage rates. Upon publication
of upcoming surveys, 44 of the 50 highway surveys will have been
completed within three years. A survey plan is being developed with a
schedule of publishing rates for 17 DOL surveyed states each year so
that highway construction wage rates are no older than three years.
Improvements have also been made to address difficulty in residential
surveys. These surveys will now be conducted separately, allowing for
use of strategies to address response and participation rates. WHD
began its revised residential construction program in 2010 with a
statewide survey of Missouri. Residential surveys of Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nevada,
Washington, and Oregon will follow in 2011 and 2012.
Personnel:
WHD has increased both its survey staff capacity to provide support
for the increase in the number of surveys and the reduced timeframes
in which surveys are to be conducted. Training is being emphasized. In
2006 WED instituted a training program for survey staff and an updated
manual of operations is pending approval. Improved communication is
also a focal point. Yearly planning meetings, monthly conference
calls, regular calls, and on-site visits are key components of the
communication strategy.
Performance Measures:
WHD has instituted performance measures for the survey program which
address the timeliness of the DBA wage survey and wage determination
program. These measures include wage rates, the period of time from
completion of the survey to publication, and the time required to
conduct surveys. The GAO Draft Report indicates that start dates were
being entered into the system differently by regions and, therefore,
the ability to accurately measure the survey timeliness was affected
accordingly. Any differences in reporting by the regions have been
accounted for. In the planned April 2011 release, ASDS will
automatically populate these fields when the region enters data so
there will be uniformity in reporting. This report along with the
analysts' time reports will allow WHD to monitor those processes in
which large amounts of time are being spent and allocate resources
accordingly. Furthermore, a number of initiatives have resulted in
more accurate reporting of information, specifically allowing national
office personnel to monitor time spent on specific survey activities,
and more closely align staff performance standards with the agency's
program performance goals and measures.
Responses to Additional Issues Raised and Recommendations:
Below are responses to additional issues raised in the Draft Report:
Pages 13”25 of the Draft Report discuss survey quality. WHD has
implemented numerous changes over the last five years and continues to
monitor the survey and wage determination program as discussed briefly
above. As GAO acknowledges on page 15 of the Draft Report, "it is too
early to fully assess the effects of Labor's 2009 changes."
However, we think it is important to note that these changes have
indicated improved efficiency thus far. For building and heavy
construction, prior to 2009, it took WHD several years to complete and
publish a survey. New processes instituted in 2009 and 2010 broke down
the survey process for these types of construction with the goal of
completing building and heavy construction surveys within 19 months.
WHD is now, on average, completing surveys within 24 months.
Improvements and changes continue to be made so that WHD may
eventually meet this goal.
The lack of survey response rate on page 23 is being addressed by WHD.
Development of response rate calculations began in 2009. The December
2010 IT release and update provided WHD the ability to trace responses
for every contractor and interested party. The subsequent April 2011
release will give reporting capability. The breakdown of this
information by construction type will be included in a future update
to be released in late 2011 or early 2012.
Pages 26”37 of the Draft Report address incentives to participate and
transparency as key issues for stakeholders. As the Draft Report
notes, participation in the survey process is voluntary and there is
no penalty for providing inaccurate information. These circumstances
may affect incentives to participate.
WHD understands that any confusion about the survey form by any
stakeholder is undesirable. However, the data errors discussed in the
Draft Report typically (if not always) result from errors in the
information provided by survey respondents, not from errors by WHO
employees. There is no indication in the Draft Report that these error
rates had any impact on the accuracy of the wage determinations
themselves. WHD agrees that greater transparency will enhance the
process and it has already.
Page 29 of the Draft Report implies that errors may have occurred
because WHD did not pretest a redesigned form. However, this form is
not a new form. It is the old WD-10 data placed in a scannable format.
The scannable format eases the information collection process for the
participant.
Regarding outreach concerns, contact is made with unions and contractor
associations in every survey. For Florida and New York mentioned in
the Draft Report, the contractor associations did not respond to WHD
offers of pre-survey briefings. WHD will continue to work with the
contractor associations, unions, and other interested parties to
ensure that every effort is made to increase participation and solicit
the necessary wage information. As surveys are conducted more
regularly, WHD anticipates that participating in these surveys will
become routine for the stakeholders, thus decreasing confusion and
increasing the overall response rates.
The Draft Report contains two recommendations for DOL, The responses
for which are as follows:
Recommendation #1: WHD has previously enlisted McGraw Hill Construction
Analytics to assess WHD's process and operations. The recommendations
from McGraw Hill have been implemented and are beginning to show
results. Given that further changes to the process are currently being
implemented or will be implemented in the near future, contracting to
a different organization to evaluate the efforts of WHD may be
premature, especially in light of cost considerations.
Recommendation #2: WHD agrees with the recommendation that the public
should have more information to clearly understand the information
being requested and the calculations and codes that are used on the
wage determinations and is already undertaking steps to address these
concerns. The wage determinations are housed on the Website "WDOL."
WDOL was a collaboration of the Department of Labor, OMB, National
Technical Information Service, the General Services Administration and
the Department of Defense. Any changes to the Website must be made in
collaboration with these other entities and cannot be made
unilaterally by DOL.
As noted in this response, the concerns GAO identifies in this Draft
Report regarding the wage determination process are being addressed by
WHD. Many of the changes to correct the outlined issues are in their
infancy and their effectiveness cannot yet be fully assessed.
WHD will continue to track the effectiveness of its actions to improve
the wage determination process.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the
Draft Report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Thomas M. Markey:
Deputy Administrator Program Operations:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Andrew Sherrill (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, the following staff made key
contributions to this report: Gretta L. Goodwin, Assistant Director
and Amy Anderson, analyst-in-charge, managed all aspects of this
assignment; and Brenna Guarneros, analyst, made significant
contributions to all phases of the work. In addition, John J. Barrett,
analyst, made significant contributions to design and data collection;
Christopher Zbrozek, intern, assisted in data collection and analysis;
Walter Vance, Melinda Cordero, and Carl Barden provided assistance in
designing the study and conducting data analysis; Susan Aschoff
assisted in message and report development; Mimi Nguyen created the
report's graphics; Alexander Galuten provided legal advice; Erin
Godtland, Barbara Steel-Lowney, and Yunsian Tai referenced the report;
and Roshni Dave, Ronald Fecso, Kim Frankena, Mark Gaffigan, Charles A.
Jeszeck, David Marroni, Mary Mohiyuddin, Stuart Ryba, David Wise, and
William Woods provided guidance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Davis-Bacon Act: Process Changes Could Raise Confidence That
Wage Rates Are Based on Accurate Data, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-130] (Washington, D.C.: May
31, 1996) and Davis-Bacon Act: Labor Now Verifies Wage Data, but
Verification Process Needs Improvement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-21] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
11, 1999).
[2] GAO, Davis-Bacon Act: Labor's Actions Have Potential to Improve
Wage Determinations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-97] (Washington, D.C.: May 28,
1999).
[3] Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Concerns Persist
with the Integrity of Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Determinations, 04-
04-003-04-420 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 30, 2004).
[4] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.
[5] The Congressional Budget Office estimated in early 2009 that the
combined spending and tax provisions of the Recovery Act would cost
$787 billion from 2009 through 2019. In April 2009, the Congressional
Research Service estimated the budget authority for Division A of the
act to be more than $300 billion for the same time period. Division A
consists primarily of discretionary spending, with some exceptions.
[6] In the OMB guidance, "objectivity" focuses on whether the
disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear,
complete, and unbiased manner; "utility" refers to the usefulness of
the information to the intended user; and "integrity" refers to the
protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, and to
ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or
falsification. For the purposes of our report, we are defining
"quality" by these OMB guidelines. See Office of Management and
Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by
Federal Agencies (effective date Jan. 3, 2002). For additional OMB
guidance on agency surveys see Office of Management and Budget,
Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys (September 2006) and
Office of Management and Budget, Questions and Answers When Designing
Surveys for Information Collections (January 2006). For Labor
guidance, see Department of Labor, Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the Department of Labor (Oct. 1, 2002).
[7] The other two regional offices are the Midwest region (Chicago)
and the West region (San Francisco).
[8] See appendix I for information on the construction types included
in the surveys we analyzed.
[9] Pub. L. No. 71-798, 46 Stat. 1494 (1931), as amended; codified at
40 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.
[10] 40 U.S.C. §§ 3142, 3141(2)(B). Laborers and mechanics include
those workers whose duties are manual or physical in nature as
distinguished from mental or managerial duties. 29 C.F.R. § 5.2(m).
[11] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 § 1606 (2009).
[12] GAO, Recovery Act: Officials' Views Vary on Impacts of Davis-
Bacon Act Prevailing Wage Provision, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-421] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24,
2010).
[13] Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget
of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Special Topics,
"Table 20-2. Federal Investment Budget Authority and Outlays: Grant
and Direct Federal Programs."
[14] Interested third parties include contractor associations; labor
unions; federal, state, and local agencies; and Members of Congress.
[15] Surveys are conducted statewide except in large states, such as
Texas and California.
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-130].
[17] Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Inaccurate Data
Were Frequently Used in Wage Determinations Made Under the Davis-Bacon
Act, 04-97-013-04-420 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 1997).
[18] BLS is part of the Department of Labor. Its mission is to
collect, analyze, and disseminate essential economic information to
support public and private decision making.
[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-21].
[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-97].
[21] "Peak week" refers to the work week in which the contractor
employed the largest number of workers in a particular job
classification for a specific construction project.
[22] The Davis-Bacon wage survey process described here is based on
Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1.1 et seq.), procedures manuals and
documents, and statements by officials. GAO did not verify whether all
procedures were followed in all cases.
[23] McGraw-Hill Construction publishes the Dodge Reports, which
provide information on the project type, project value, and
contractors.
[24] The five Labor regional offices that process Davis-Bacon wage
surveys are Northeast (Philadelphia), Southeast (Atlanta), Midwest
(Chicago), Southwest (Dallas), and West (San Francisco).
[25] Contractors or interested parties who submitted wage data but
have declined to provide payroll documentation in response to three
requests will be kept on a list for 1 year during which time their
data will not be used to calculate wage rates. However, because of the
length of time between surveys, a senior Labor official said it is
unlikely a contractor or interested party would be surveyed frequently
enough to be put on the list.
[26] 29 C.F.R. § 1.2 (a)(1).
[27] Key job classifications across all four construction types
include bricklayer, boilermaker, carpenter, cement mason, electrician,
heat and frost insulator/asbestos worker/pipe insulator, iron worker,
laborer-common, painter, pipefitter, plumber, power equipment
operator, roofer, sheet metal worker, tile setter, and truck driver.
[28] 40 U.S.C. § 3142(b).
[29] 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(a).
[30] 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(b).
[31] 29 C.F.R. §§ 1.8, 1.9.
[32] A Labor official said the agency started planning new surveys
again in late 2008.
[33] Contractors and subcontractors working on federally funded or
assisted construction projects are required to submit weekly payrolls,
referred to by Labor as "certified payrolls," to an agency in charge
at the site of the work. A Labor official said state departments of
transportation collect certified payrolls and provide them to Labor
upon request. Assessing the accuracy of certified payrolls was not
part of our review.
[34] Although Labor generally does not conduct on-site verification of
certified payroll data, the agency's revised timeline includes 1 day
to review data submitted by interested parties and determine whether
they require on-site verification.
[35] The building and heavy surveys were conducted in the states of
Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
[36] Labor officials said they used Recovery Act funding to update 11
of the oldest highway surveys under the new survey process.
[37] The 14 state surveys were Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York Rural, Tennessee, Texas
Rural, District of Columbia, West Texas Metropolitan, Utah, and
Washington.
[38] This includes building, heavy, and highway surveys only. In
addition, for building and heavy surveys the estimated time period
includes data collection, as data collection, clarification, and
analysis happen concurrently under Labor's new processes. We were
unable to assess time frames for data clarification and analysis for
surveys started under the new processes because, according to a senior
official, Labor manually records the dates a survey enters and exits a
specific processing activity at the end of the survey.
[39] While a census survey attempts to collect data from the entire
population, a sample survey collects data from a subset or sample of
the population. When the sample is selected by a probability sampling
method such that each member of the population has a known chance of
being selected and that information is used with proper estimation
techniques, the results are generalizable to the entire population
with a known level of confidence in the precision of the estimates.
Further, by reducing the data collection effort, more can be done to
assure other aspects of data quality.
[40] The state surveys with data 5 or more years old when results were
published are Arkansas 2004 (heavy and residential construction
types), Florida 2005 (heavy and residential), Maryland 2005 (all
construction types), Missouri 2005 (building), New Jersey 2004
(building, heavy, and residential), and Oregon 2004 (building, heavy,
and residential). The state surveys with data 7 or more years old when
results were published are Connecticut 2002 (building, heavy, and
residential), Minnesota 2002 (building, heavy, and residential), and
Washington 2002 (building, heavy, and residential-metropolitan).
[41] Labor officials said that to avoid issuing a wage determination
with a large number of missing wage rates for job classifications, the
agency also requires sufficient wage rate data for at least 50 percent
of the key job classifications for each construction type in order to
publish a wage determination.
[42] Davis-Bacon wage rates include all four construction types:
building, heavy, highway, and residential. For BLS unionization
figures, see Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release: Union
Members-2010, "Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary
workers by occupation and industry" (Jan. 21, 2011).
[43] According to Labor documentation, initial steps to update the
survey database started in December 2010, but a final implementation
date had not yet been determined as of November 18, 2010.
[44] 29 C.F.R § 1.7(a).
[45] We analyzed wage rates for key job classifications because wage
rates for nonkey job classifications can only be issued at the county
or group level, but not at the supergroup or state level.
[46] Regional office officials said they may combine rates from
counties with the exact same wage and fringe benefit data in the final
WD-22, which is a wage compilation report. However, the rates being
combined may have been calculated at different geographic levels--for
example, one county's rates may have been calculated at the group
level while another county's rates may have been calculated at the
supergroup level. The geographic level at which rates for combined
counties were calculated is not reported on the WD-22; therefore, we
reported the percentage of these rates separately.
[47] 40 U.S.C. § 3142(b).
[48] A metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is an area containing a
large population center and adjacent communities that have a high
degree of integration with that center. Specifically, an MSA is a
statistical area associated with at least one urbanized area that has
a population of at least 50,000. An MSA comprises the central county
or counties containing a densely settled concentration of population
plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the central county or counties as measured
through commuting.
[49] The Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency within the
Department of Commerce. It collects source data, conducts research and
analysis, develops and implements estimation methodologies, and
disseminates economic statistics to the public.
[50] We interviewed a total of 30 stakeholders; however, one
stakeholder did not address this issue.
[51] On the wage survey, Labor enters the name of construction
projects it has identified through Dodge Reports, but also asks
contractors to provide information on other construction projects they
may be working on that meet survey criteria.
[52] Labor uses federal data in all highway and heavy surveys because
of the high percentage of federal projects in both these construction
types.
[53] We did not ask the representatives from academia about the form
because they generally would not be asked to fill out the form as a
survey respondent.
[54] The four surveys we reviewed--Florida 2005, Maryland 2005,
Tennessee 2006, and West Texas Metropolitan 2006--were conducted prior
to new survey processes being implemented. No verification reports for
surveys conducted under the new processes were available in time for
our review.
[55] Labor's contractor asks employers the following questions during
on-site verification: (1) Did you have difficulty understanding the
information requested on the WD-10 form? (2) Do you have any
suggestions for the improvement of the WD-10? (3) Were there specific
blocks on the form that you found particularly confusing or difficult
to complete? (4) Are you aware that you can complete the WD-10 form on
the computer screen and send it in by Internet?
[56] The Web site address is [hyperlink, http://www.wdol.gov]. A
search for a wage determination can be defined by state, county,
construction type, or wage determination number.
[57] 29 C.F.R. § 1.5(b)(1). When requesting the wage rate for a
classification not listed on the wage determination, agencies must
provide a description of the work and construction type, the county
(or other civil subdivision) and state where the proposed project is
located, and any pertinent wage payment information that may be
available. Conformances are requested after a federal construction
project has been bid and awarded and generally take at least 30 days
to process.
[58] During our review, the wage surveys in Arizona, North Carolina,
and West Virginia were ongoing, with Labor officials clarifying and
verifying survey data. While we interviewed contractor associations in
these states, we did not directly interview contractors so as not to
inadvertently affect Labor's survey results. See appendix I for more
information.
[59] We did not ask the representatives from academia about pre-survey
briefings because they would generally not be one of the groups Labor
would notify about an upcoming survey.
[60] Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Concerns
Persist with the Integrity of Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage
Determinations, 04-04-003-04-420 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 30, 2004);
and Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Inaccurate Data
Were Frequently Used in Wage Determinations Made Under the Davis-Bacon
Act, 04-97-013-04-420 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 1997).
[61] GAO, Davis-Bacon Act: Process Changes Could Raise Confidence That
Wage Rates Are Based on Accurate Data, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-130] (Washington, D.C.: May
31, 1996); Davis-Bacon Act: Labor Now Verifies Wage Data, but
Verification Process Needs Improvement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-21] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
11, 1999); and Davis-Bacon Act: Labor's Actions Have Potential to
Improve Wage Determinations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-97] (Washington, D.C.: May 28,
1999).
[62] Letter from Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards, U.S.
Department of Labor to Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, Committee on Appropriations, United States
Senate and Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
and Related Agencies , Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives, Jan. 17, 2001; letter from Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Labor to Director, Office of Management and Budget, Aug.
8, 2002; and letter from Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards,
U.S. Department of Labor to Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, May 8, 2006.
[63] We selected a cutoff date of September 1, 2010, to allow time for
data review and analysis.
[64] See Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (effective Jan. 3, 2002);
Office of Management and Budget, Standards and Guidelines for
Statistical Surveys (September 2006); Office of Management and Budget,
Questions and Answers When Designing Surveys for Information
Collections (January 2006); and U.S. Department of Labor, Guidelines
for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Department of Labor (Oct.
1, 2002).
[65] The WD-22 provides, for each job classification, information on
the final prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates, the total number
of workers reported, the method of rate calculation--for example,
whether the rate was based on a majority or an average--and whether
federal data were used in the rate calculation.
[66] When data from a county are insufficient to issue a wage rate for
a job classification, a group of counties is created by combining a
rural county's data with data from one or more contiguous rural
counties. A metropolitan county's data are combined with data from
counties within the metropolitan statistical area (MSA). When data
from a group are still not sufficient to issue a wage rate, a
supergroup wage rate is created by combining a rural county's data
with data from additional contiguous rural counties, while a
metropolitan county's data are combined with county data from other
MSAs or the consolidated MSA counties. Finally, if supergroup wage
data are not sufficient to issue a wage rate, a statewide rate is
created by combining the data for all rural counties or all
metropolitan counties in the state. Counties are combined based on
whether they are metropolitan or rural, and cannot be mixed.
[67] Labor's fiscal year 2010 performance plan goal was for 90 percent
of wage rates for building, heavy, and highway construction types to
be no more than 3 years old.
[68] The two remaining Wage and Hour Division regional offices that
process Davis-Bacon wage survey forms are the Midwest region (Chicago)
and the West region (San Francisco).
[69] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release: Union Members -
2010, "Table 5: Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers
by state" (Jan. 21, 2011). According to BLS, the percentage of all
employed workers represented by unions is 8.1 percent in Arizona, 26
percent in New York, 4.9 percent in North Carolina, and 16.5 percent
in West Virginia.
[70] Survey data collection for the Florida 2005 survey and the New
York Rural 2006 survey was completed in 2006. According to BLS's 2010
report, the percentage of all New York workers represented by unions
is 26 percent, the highest in the nation, while the percentage of all
Florida workers represented by unions is 6.9 percent.
[71] 40 U.S.C. §§ 3141(2)(B), 3142.
[72] The process described here is based on Labor regulations,
procedures manuals and documents, and statements by officials. GAO did
not verify whether all procedures were followed in all cases.
[73] 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.
[74] 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(a),(b).
[75] A wage determination is the listing of wage and fringe benefit
rates for each job classification of workers that the Wage and Hour
Division Administrator has determined to be prevailing in a given area
for a type of construction.
[76] Labor's fiscal year 2010 performance goal was for 90 percent of
wage rates for building, heavy, and highway construction types to be
no more than 3 years old.
[77] McGraw-Hill Construction publishes the Dodge Reports.
[78] Contractors with the biggest impact include those whose data were
used for a job classification with enough data to issue a prevailing
wage rate. Of those, contractors with the most employees are selected
for on-site verification.
[79] Labor also has procedures for surveys of specialized
construction, such as dam and dredging projects, as well as American
Indian reservation construction.
[80] 29 C.F.R. § 1.2(a)(1).
[81] 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(b).
[82] See 29 C.F.R. § 1.5(b)(1).
[83] 29 C.F.R. §§ 1.8, 1.9.
[84] 29 C.F.R. § 1.8.
[85] 29 C.F.R. § 1.9.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
