Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey
GAO-11-152: Published: Mar 22, 2011. Publicly Released: Apr 6, 2011.
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.
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.
- Review Pending
- Closed - implemented
- Closed - not implemented
Matter for Congressional Consideration
Matter: 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.
Comments: Although Congress held hearings and introduced legislation and amendments related to the Davis-Bacon Act, these actions did not specifically address the substance of our matter for consideration.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To improve the quality and timeliness of Labor's Davis-Bacon wage surveys, the Secretary of Labor should 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.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Comments: While having taken some steps to reduce the time needed for certain components of its survey, the department has not implemented the recommendation. It indicated that having the survey's methods and design evaluated by an independent and objective statistical organization may be premature because of changes that are currently being implemented based on a 2004 McGraw-Hill Construction Analytics review. We found no evidence that the McGraw-Hill review specifically assessed the survey's design and methodology.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency of wage determinations while maintaining the confidentiality of specific survey respondents, the Secretary of Labor should 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 Affected: Department of Labor
Comments: The department issued All Agency Memorandum No. 213 describing the policies and processes related to requests for additional classifications and wage rates, and continues to conduct prevailing wage events to explain the survey process to interested parties. It has also added language to its Web site about the survey appeals process. In terms of publicly providing additional information on how the wage rates are calculated, including the number and wages of workers used in each wage calculation, the department is working to update its IT systems. Once completed it should be able to provide this information more expeditiously; however, this update is not expected to be completed for about two years.