Prevailing Wage Analyses 14   As our society becomes more litigious, benefit and compensation consultants are called more and more often to testify in courts regarding pay practice matters, including expenditures related to compensation.  This testimony must be both relevant and reliable.  In March of 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)  case that defined when a reliability challenge exists. The Supreme Court ruled that reliability must be established in all types of expert testimony, both scientific and nonscientific.  The Court held that the role of a trial judge was that of "gatekeeper" regarding both the relevance and reliability of all expert testimony.  The Court stated that the Daubert opinion (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)) was not intended to be limited to scientific cases only. Instead, it should apply to all fields of expert testimony.  Providers of expert witness testimony must be prepared to describe why an analysis was utilized and why the analysis and related data can be considered reliably sufficient.  For "reliability", the Supreme Court has established four separate, nonexclusive tests: 1) it can be illustrated that the theory or technique can be tested, 2) the data has been subjected to peer review and publication, 3) there is a known or potential rate of error (i.e., the Standard Error) and 4) there is a level of general acceptance in that particular discipline's community.  In addition, the area of "prevailing wages" has several U.S. Government Regulations (GAL 01-00 and 2-98) that govern prevailing wage analyses.  This course is designed to assist the first time consultant or agent (or one who wishes to refresh his or her knowledge) regarding the demands placed on the expert witness.