Published date: 08/18/2026
Aliecia Taormina, CCEP, MCA has over 20 years of experience in construction (including a role as a Senior Compliance Manager of a Fortune 300 contractor), accumulating extensive prevailing wage and Davis-Bacon knowledge over her career.
Question
Do Nevada prevailing wage laws allow an owner-operator with no employees to submit non-performance reports in place of certified payroll reports? If not, what authority requires submission?
Answer: Thank you for your question. Nevada law recognizes certain distinctions for owners who perform work personally and have no employees. However, contractors working on Nevada prevailing wage public works projects must still comply with the Labor Commissioner’s reporting requirements.
Accordingly, a sole owner-operator performing work on a prevailing wage project is required to submit Certified Payroll Reports (CPRs) for that work. Owner-operators must report their hours worked and meet the applicable wage and fringe benefit requirements for the project.
A Non-Performance Report is appropriate only for periods in which no prevailing wage work was performed. Therefore, an owner-operator who is actively performing work on a public works project cannot submit only Non-Performance Reports in place of CPRs.
The attached letter from the Nevada Labor Commissioner further confirms that owner-operators are generally covered by prevailing wage requirements.
If you have questions about a specific project or reporting period, please provide additional details and we would be happy to review the circumstances further.
Question
If a contractor submitted a certified payroll showing total monthly fringe benefit contributions as an hourly fringe rate (meaning the amount does not match the employee’s pay stub or actual compensation), is this an issue? How should fringe benefits be reported?
Answer: The reporting method described is generally not acceptable. If a contractor reports an employee’s total monthly fringe benefit contribution as though it were an hourly fringe rate, the employee’s reported hourly compensation may be significantly overstated, resulting in an inaccurate payroll record.
Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), fringe benefit contributions claimed toward prevailing wage requirements must be converted to an hourly equivalent. The fringe benefit amount reported on a certified payroll should reflect the hourly value of the contribution attributable to hours worked on covered projects, not the total monthly contribution.
For example, if a contractor contributes $1,000 per month to a bona fide health and welfare plan and the employee works 173 hours during that month, the hourly fringe credit would be approximately $5.78 per hour ($1,000 ÷ 173 hours), not $1,000 per hour.
The U.S. Department of Labor has consistently stated that contractors claiming credit for fringe benefit contributions must calculate the hourly equivalent of those contributions. Fringe benefit costs are generally annualized and allocated across hours worked during the applicable period to determine the allowable hourly credit.
For additional guidance, see Chapter 15 of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Field Operations Handbook, which addresses the calculation and annualization of fringe benefit credits.
Question
The USDOL and Nevada Labor Commissioner have aligned prevailing wage classifications and rates for federal and state-funded projects in Nevada. How does this affect prevailing wage compliance, payroll reporting, and wage determinations?
Answer: This is a great question. From my perspective, the alignment of prevailing wage classifications and rates between the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) and the Nevada Labor Commissioner, effective March 31, 2026, should make compliance easier on projects that are subject to both federal Davis-Bacon requirements and Nevada prevailing wage laws.
In practical terms, contractors and subcontractors should see fewer differences between federal and state wage determinations. That can help reduce the risk of underpayments caused by different classifications, wage rates, or fringe benefit requirements. That said, employers still need to review the applicable wage determination for each project. There can still be differences in areas such as coverage thresholds, apprenticeship requirements, reporting obligations, enforcement procedures, and future wage updates.
From a payroll reporting standpoint, this change may reduce the need to track and reconcile separate wage rates for the same classification on dual-covered projects. Contractors should still verify whether separate federal and state reporting requirements apply, as reporting formats and submission procedures may remain different even when the wage rates themselves are aligned.
I also expect the alignment to create more consistency in the classifications and rates included in bid documents and contract specifications. Even so, contractors should continue to verify that the correct wage determination is included in the solicitation and contract, monitor updates, and review any project-specific requirements before relying on a single wage schedule.
.
.
Have a burning question about labor compliance that you’ve been eager to ask? Submit it anonymously to our live submission form and you might just see it answered in a future entry of our monthly Ask the Expert series! You can also check out our past entries here.
.
.
Want to get notified the moment we publish a new edition of Ask the Expert? Sign up for LCPtracker’s monthly newsletter. We’ll also update you with trending news, educational webinars, important software updates and more.
.
.
.
These materials are being issued with the understanding that LCPtracker is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional services and is providing these for informational purposes only. If legal, accounting, or tax expert assistance is required, the services of a competent legal, accounting or tax professional should be sought.
