Semper Tek, Inc. v. Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL (agency decision, August 12, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Semper Tek sought review of two Davis-Bacon Act wage-conformance decisions issued by the Wage and Hour Division. The Board questioned whether those decisions were final agency rulings that it could review. The company and the Acting Administrator jointly requested dismissal without prejudice, and the Administrator confirmed that the decisions were not final. The Board dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for a final Wage and Hour ruling. The company may seek review of a final ruling when one is issued.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 40 U.S.C. § 3141; 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(iii); 29 C.F.R. § 7.1(b); 29 C.F.R. § 7.9(a)
• Outcome: Petition dismissed without prejudice; matter remanded for a final agency ruling.
• Key point: Board review under the cited Davis-Bacon regulation requires a final agency decision.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor           Administrative Review Board
                                   200 Constitution Ave. NW
                                   Washington, DC 20210-0001

IN THE MATTER OF:


SEMPER TEK, INC.,                              ARB CASE NO. 2025-0071

               COMPLAINANT,                    DATE: August 12, 2025

     v.

ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

               RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Daivd O’Neill, Esq.; Doug Hibshman, Esq.; Fox Rothschild, LLP;
Washington, District of Columbia

For the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division:
Jonathan L. Snare, Esq.; Jennifer S. Brand, Esq.; Sarah J. Starrett,
Esq.; Jonathan T. Rees, Esq.; U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the
Solicitor; Washington, District of Columbia

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and BURRELL, Administrative Appeals Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHOUT PREJUDICE

  This case arises under the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and its implementing

regulations. 1 On July 15, 2025, Complainant Semper Tek, Inc. filed a Petition for
0F

Review with the Administrative Review Board (Board). In the Petition for Review, Complainant states that it seeks review of two conformance decisions issued by the United States Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Branch of

1 40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3148; 29 C.F.R. Parts 1, 5, and 7. 2

Construction Wage Determinations (BCWD) on June 16, 2025, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(iii). Respondent attached copies of the conformance decisions to its Petition for Review.

   The Board only has jurisdiction over “final decisions” issued by the agency

under the DBA. 2 The conformance decisions attached to Complainant’s Petition for
1F

Review did not appear to be “final decisions” of the WHD, and thus, on July 28, 2025, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Complainant to explain why the Board should not dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    On August 5, 2025, Complainant and Respondent, the WHD Acting

Administrator (Administrator), filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (Motion) requesting the Board to dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand for issuance of a final decision. In the Motion, the parties claim that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal at this time under 29 C.F.R. § 7.9(a), which provides that “[a]ny party or aggrieved person shall have a right to file a petition for review with the Board . . . from any final decision in any agency action under [29 C.F.R.] part 1, 3, or 5.” Furthermore, the Administrator represents that the two conformance decisions were not “final decisions” of WHD. The parties also represent that, if the Board dismisses this appeal, Complainant will, if desired, have an opportunity to appeal any WHD final decisions when they are issued.

   Without a final decision from the Administrator as provided in 29 C.F.R.

§ 7.9(a), the Board lacks jurisdiction to render a decision in this matter. Accordingly, we DISMISS the Petition for Review without prejudice and REMAND the case to WHD for a final ruling.

  SO ORDERED.

                            RANDEL K. JOHNSON
                            Chief Administrative Appeals Judge


                             THOMAS H. BURRELL
                             Administrative Appeals Judge

2 29 C.F.R. §§ 7.1(b), 7.9(a).

                                       2