Auermvi~.TgxAe ;
SOIlmlUJmv azsEPFELu)
r-o- .
'_
'*.
- .' _,
.. : Jhuiry 3, 1956 ,~
:
,. :
Honorable Dallas J. Matthetis,
Dltiector Opinion No~.s-185
Texas'NatlohalGuard Armory Board .
Austin, Texas Re: .Conatruction
OS.
~Armorleeb
Dear Mr. Matthews: .. : .
.
You have requested an opinion as to ~whetherthe pr~vl- ,
alon of Article 5159a, Vernon'8 ClviZ Statutes,~.prescrlblng
the wage .schedulaapplicableto publ-icworka on-b&?half.of the
State and politicalsubdlv&lons.are~ln conS.llot with thti.pro-
vlsidns oS.the Davis-@&on Act, 40 U.S.C.A., Sectiqn,276a,pm-
..scriblngthe wage schedule applicable to,conritruc2lonof .publlc
worldson behalf of.'theFederal:Goveynment. '.- '.
Under the @rovislonsOS.Article 51598, &We"agencg.oS'the
restate awardlng a contract.18requlred.tod+teren* the Prevail2
lng r&e of per diemwages and to specl~Sy%uch.rateln.the Cop’
trai2t. :
2.;
In.Tex& HI&way Commission vi~El +aao.Buildinu& Ccn-
striictlon !Pradee :Councll ‘&gi*-~;-&-&;~&
1110 my: un %tb S U 26 ti _ __
t 19561
it' #a8 he~ld, in construj '~
&lcle5&59a. '
that %ie a&&n oS~t;he .HighwayOonnnisalon In determiningi&d
aacertinlng the !generalprevailingrate of per diem wages' Is
final g~not stibjectto revlew.by the.Courts in this proceedb
in&"
me United States Supreme Court.,cons&ed'thi provlaloni
of theBavls-Bacon Act in United State6 v. BintzhamtonConstruc-
tlon 00.; 347 U.S. 171 (1.9531: ; _
%%e Davis-Bacon Aotrequ%re& th+6