Close Menu
AGC NewsAGC News
  • Home
  • News
    • Advocacy
    • Economics
    • Energy & Environment
    • Infrastructure
    • Building
    • Procurement
    • Labor & HR
    • Safety & Health
    • Technology
    • Workforce Development
  • AGC Videos
  • Constructor Magazine
    • Digital Publications
    • Online Exclusives
    • Sponsored Content
  • ConstructorCast
  • News Releases
Latest News

AGC Tech Conference: Measuring A.I.’s Impact

May 30, 2025

Trump Administration Pauses Enforcement on Portions of the Mental Health Parity Rules

May 29, 2025

AGC Supports the Rollback of Beneficial Reporting Requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act; Urges President Trump to go further.

May 29, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
AGC NewsAGC News
  • Home
  • News
    • Advocacy
    • Economics
    • Energy & Environment
    • Infrastructure
    • Building
    • Procurement
    • Labor & HR
    • Safety & Health
    • Technology
    • Workforce Development
  • AGC Videos
  • Constructor Magazine
    • Digital Publications
    • Online Exclusives
    • Sponsored Content
  • ConstructorCast
  • News Releases
AGC NEWSLETTERS
AGC NewsAGC News
Home » AGC Takes the Stand on Davis-Bacon Final Rule
Labor & HR

AGC Takes the Stand on Davis-Bacon Final Rule

June 13, 2024Updated:October 1, 2024No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
Capitol
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

On June 10, AGC of America, and several of its members, took to the witness stand in federal court to halt three unfair provisions in the new Davis-Bacon final rule impacting its coverage to truck drivers, contractors with material supply operations, and where an owner fails to include the requirement in the bidding documents/contract. Doug Walterscheid (J. Lee Milligan Inc., AGC of Texas member), John Ramage (71 Construction, AGC of Wyoming member), Doug Tabeling (Carroll Daniel Construction, Georgia AGC member), and Jimmy Christianson (AGC of America) testified in the U. S. District Court for The Northern District of Texas in Lubbock on behalf of the association’s legal challenge to the U.S. DOL’s unlawful expansion of Davis-Bacon coverage to construction contractors. The court hearing was on AGC of America’s motion for preliminary injunction that, if granted, would halt the U.S. Department of Labor’s enforcement of the three aforementioned provisions.

These members articulated in court how the Davis-Bacon final rule:

  1. Creates a bait-and-switch situation when an owner fails to include Davis-Bacon requirements in bidding documents or the contract. Some owners, like schools, are using federal covid funds and don’t realize Davis-Bacon applies. Now, because of the Davis-Bacon final rule, when owners forget to include Davis-Bacon requirements in contracts, it still applies. Contractors are required to retroactively cover workers’ wage differentials and submit certified payrolls, even after project completion. 
  2. Creates significant administrative burdens and an unlevel playing field for truck driver coverage. The final rule expanded Davis-Bacon requirements to truck drivers who spend more than an undefined “de minimis” amount of time on the jobsite. The administrative difficulty of tracking truck drivers’ time on site has led many contractors to automatically apply Davis-Bacon requirements to truck drivers on applicable projects. However, not all contractors are necessarily undertaking this safe compliance approach, creating an unlevel playing field in a low bid environment.
  3. Creates a competitive disadvantage for contractors with material supply operations. The final rule expanded Davis-Bacon requirements to contractors that use their own material supply operations on Davis-Bacon covered projects but exempts from Davis-Bacon requirements companies that only provide material supplies. As a result, contractors are both disincentivized and penalized for using their own material supply operations on their Davis-Bacon covered projects whereas contractors without material supply operations have a competitive advantage in using bona fide material suppliers because those suppliers do not have to follow and pay for Davis-Bacon requirements on the projects. 

The judge is expected to issue a ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction within 30 days. AGC’s involvement in this case was made possible thanks to your contributions to the Construction Advocacy Fund. 

For more information, contact Claiborne Guy at Claiborne.Guy@agc.org or visit the AGC Judicial Advocacy News site.

Building Davis-Bacon Federal/Heavy Highway Infrastructure Judicial Advocacy Utility
Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related News

AGC Supports the Rollback of Beneficial Reporting Requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act; Urges President Trump to go further.

May 29, 2025

SCOTUS Narrows the Scope of Environmental Review

May 29, 2025

Construction Jobs Increase In 184 Metro Areas Between April 2024 And April 2025

May 28, 2025

DOD and GSA Must Follow PLA Mandate for Now, Court Rules

May 27, 2025
Add A Comment
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Latest News

AGC Tech Conference: Measuring A.I.’s Impact

May 30, 2025

Trump Administration Pauses Enforcement on Portions of the Mental Health Parity Rules

May 29, 2025

AGC Supports the Rollback of Beneficial Reporting Requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act; Urges President Trump to go further.

May 29, 2025

Your source for AGC news. Find us on social media to learn more about the Associated General Contractors of America.

Connect with us:

Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram YouTube LinkedIn
© 2025 Associated General Contractors of America.
  • Home
  • AGC.org
  • Get In Touch
  • Convention
  • Notice of Permission to Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Antitrust Policy

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.