Ask the Expert: November 2025

When a manufacturer’s representative comes out to perform equipment startup, are they exempt from prevailing wages? Several of these companies are saying they don’t have a prevailing wage coordinator and have never paid prevailing wage before.

Answer:
I appreciate this question because it highlights one of the most common realities of prevailing wage compliance: it depends.

For Davis-Bacon Act projects, equipment startup work may be covered by prevailing wage requirements if it occurs before the project is officially turned over to the owner. If startup takes place after turnover, there may be circumstances where the work is no longer considered covered.

Another important factor is the nature of the work being performed. If the manufacturer’s representative is performing the duties of a laborer or mechanic, including hands-on or manual work, prevailing wage requirements may apply. However, if the representative is acting solely in a highly specialized advisory role and simply observing or directing others without performing physical work, the activity may not be considered covered work.

For state prevailing wage projects, including those in California, equipment startup activities are generally more likely to be treated as covered work and should be approached with prevailing wage compliance in mind.

A general contractor just told me that I cannot submit a final “no work” certified payroll. I’ve never heard of that before. Is this correct for the state of Pennsylvania?

Answer:
Interesting question. Based on my understanding, Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage regulations (9.103(12)) require contractors to submit a final certified payroll at the conclusion of a public works project, even if no work was performed during the reporting period.

While I don’t always like giving this response, this is one of those situations where I would strongly recommend contacting the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry directly and obtaining their guidance in writing. Doing so provides clarity and documentation should questions arise later.

We’re on a DBA project in California and have a question about Working Foreman hours. The DBA 20% rule requires tracking all hours (labor and supervisory) to determine if a foreman exceeded the 20% labor threshold for the week. But the owner’s daily man-hour report does not allow us to include non-labor/supervisory time. What is the proper recordkeeping method to stay compliant with DBA weekly classifications while also adhering to the owner’s daily reporting restriction?

Answer:
I haven’t encountered this exact scenario before, but the practical approach would be to maintain two separate records that serve different purposes.

First, contractors should keep complete internal time records documenting all hours worked on-site, including both labor and supervisory time. These records provide the information necessary to determine whether a foreman exceeds the Davis-Bacon 20% labor threshold and ensure certified payroll reporting remains accurate.

Second, the contractor can limit the owner-facing daily man-hour report to labor hours only, consistent with the owner’s reporting requirements.

When preparing certified payroll reports, labor hours should be reported under the appropriate prevailing wage classification. Purely supervisory hours that do not involve physical labor generally would not be reported as laborer or mechanic time under Davis-Bacon.

While maintaining separate internal and external records may not be ideal, it creates a complete and accurate audit trail. If questions arise later, the contractor can demonstrate compliance with both Davis-Bacon requirements and the owner’s reporting restrictions.