Code of Federal Regulations Title 41. Public Contracts and Property Management § 41.50–201.2 Administration of the Act

(a) The Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to administer the provisions of the Act, to make investigations, findings, and decisions thereunder, and to make, amend, and rescind rules and regulations with respect to its application (see sections 4 and 5). The Supreme Court has recognized that the Secretary may issue rulings defining the coverage of the Act. (“Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, supra”.) According to the Court (ibid.), in the statute as originally enacted “Congress submitted the administration of the Act to the judgment of the Secretary of Labor, not to the judgment of the courts.” An amendment to the Act in 1952 added specific provisions for judicial review (see section 10). The Secretary has promulgated regulations to carry out provisions of the Act, which are set forth elsewhere in this chapter (Part 50–201 (General Regulations);  Part 50–202 (Minimum Wage Determinations);  Part 50–203 (Rules of Practice);  and Part 50–204 (Safety and Health Standards)). The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division through the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards the authority to promulgate regulations and to issue official rulings and interpretations. So long as such regulations, rulings, and interpretations are not modified, amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial authority to be incorrect, they may be relied upon as provided in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 84, 29 U.S.C. 251, et seq., discussed in 29 CFR Part 790). Furthermore, these interpretations are intended to indicate the construction of the law which the Department of Labor believes to be correct and which will be followed in the administration of the Act unless and until directed otherwise by Act of Congress or by authoritative rulings of the courts. (“Skidmore v. Swift & Co.”, 323 U.S. 134 (1944), “Roland Co. v. Walling”, 326 U.S. 657 (1946);  “Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, supra”, and “Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., supra”.)

(b) The courts have held that the “interpretations of the Walsh–Healey Act and the regulations adopted thereunder, as made by the Secretary of Labor acting through his Administrator, are both correct and reasonable.” (“Jno. McCall Coal Company v. United States,” 374 F. 2d 689, 692 (C.A. 4, 1967);  see also “United States v. Davison Fuel and Dock Company,” 371 F. 2d 705, 711–714 (C.A. 4, 1967).) These policies are designed to protect not only employees but also the competitive interest of all firms qualified to compete for covered contracts.