1. Employer must be given opportunity to present evidence relating to fringe benefits

In prevailing wage determinations the CO should permit the employer to submit evidence of fringe benefits if it wishes to demonstrate that its hourly rate of pay is significantly enhanced by these benefits. Sections 656.40(a)(1) (occupations covered by Davis-Bacon Act) and 656.40(a)(2)(ii) (wage rates determined under union contracts) allow for the consideration of fringe benefits in prevailing wage determinations. Kids "R" Us, 89-INA-311, 312, 344, 90-INA-20, 75, 81, 181, 187, 216 (Jan. 28, 1991) (en banc). See also Suckno Brothers Co., 90-INA-177 (Dec. 12, 1991) (remand for consideration under Kids "R" Us).

Where the CO refused to consider fringe benefits in determining whether the employer was offering the prevailing wage, and the employer did not establish that the benefits were "uncommonly good," the panel remanded the case for the employer to establish the value of its fringe benefits or amend its wage to the prevailing wage determined by the CO. Koba Corp., 91-INA-11 and 91-INA-12 (May 29, 1991).

2. Required showing by employer

Where an employer is relying on its fringe benefits in its wage offer, it bears a heavy burden to demonstrate to the CO the fairness and bona fides of its proposal. The employer must show the value of its benefits and that they are not common to the comparable jobs upon which the prevailing wage is based. Additionally, where the employer is relying on unique fringe benefits, these must be disclosed in its advertisements and postings. Kids "R" Us, 89-INA-311, 312, 344, 90-INA-20, 75, 81, 181, 187, 216 (Jan. 28, 1991) (en banc); Suckno Brothers Co., 90-INA-177 (Dec. 12, 1991); Peddinghaus Corp., 88-INA-79 (July 6, 1988).