Case Title: Andersen Constr. Co. v. Weltmer

Citation: 224 Kan. 191, 577 P.2d 1197

Docket Number: 49,872

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1978-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
224 Kan. 191 (1978)
577 P.2d 1197
R.D. ANDERSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Kansas Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
W. KEITH WELTMER, Secretary of Administration for the State of Kansas; CARL OSSMANN, Director of Architectural Services for the State of Kansas; CURT T. SCHNEIDER, Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Defendants.
No. 49,872

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 6, 1978.
Stewart L. Entz, of Colmery, McClure, Funk, Letourneau & Entz, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the plaintiff.
John R. Martin, first assistant attorney general, argued the cause and Curt T. Schneider, attorney general, was with him on the brief for the defendants.
Elwaine F. Pomeroy, of Pomeroy & Pomeroy, of Topeka, was on the brief amici curiae for Douglas Construction Co., Inc.; Frisbie Bridge Co., Inc.; M.W. Watson, Inc.; Dahlstrom & Ferrill Construction Co., Inc.; Casson Construction Co., Inc.; and B.A. Green Construction Co., Inc., Kansas corporations.
Stanley L. Basler, of Blake & Uhlig, of Kansas City, was on the brief amicus curiae for Kansas Building and Construction Trades Council.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the opening of sealed bids which have been submitted for the construction of the Honey Bee Lodge and Hospital Care Facility at the Kansas Neurological Institute, a state owned and operated institution.
By virtue of the issues presented in this case, bidding on other state construction contracts was delayed until this case was resolved. Hearing of this matter was expedited by a preferential setting for argument upon joinder of the issues and stipulation of the facts. The case was briefed by the parties and amici curiae and was orally argued on March 28, 1978. A brief memorandum opinion was filed April 6, 1978, the same to be augmented by a *192 subsequent formal opinion. With this procedural background, we turn now to the formal opinion:
K.S.A. 44-201 provides:
The specifications for the Honey Bee Lodge and Hospital Care Facility incorporated the provisions of K.S.A. 44-201 which require the contractor to pay its employees the "current rate of per *193 diem wages," as defined therein. Specific wage rates were not included in the specifications. This is the standard procedure on state contracts. The plaintiff and others submitted bids based on these specifications. Prior to the opening of the bids, the Attorney General advised the Director of Architectural Services and the Secretary of Administration that the specification requiring contractors to pay the "current rate of per diem wages" was not in compliance with K.S.A. 44-201 as the statute required the inclusion in the specifications of a detailed statement of the precise prevailing wage for each classification of workmen whose services would be required in the construction of the Honey Bee Lodge. The Attorney General further advised that the opening of the sealed bids should be deferred until the wage rates were determined, an appropriate addendum added to the specifications, and bidders afforded an opportunity to submit amended bids. The Director of Architectural Services subsequently returned the unopened bids. The plaintiff brings this action to compel the opening of the bids.
The plaintiff contends K.S.A. 44-201 is unconstitutionally vague and defies meaning and effect; is violative of the rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and infringes upon the contract rights of the citizens of Kansas. The plaintiff argues that, in effect, determining the current rate of per diem wage for each class of workmen is so difficult as to fail for vagueness. The constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiff are based on the statute as interpreted by the Attorney General. The plaintiff, in reality, is contending that the statute is unconstitutional if the Attorney General's interpretation is correct. With various modifications this law has been in effect since 1891. Originally criminal penalties were provided for violation of the eight-hour day provisions, but were not held applicable to the wage provisions (State v. Blaser, 138 Kan. 447, 26 P.2d 593 [1933]).
The Attorney General's interpretation of K.S.A. 44-201 would, for all practical purposes, expand the statute into a mini Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. § 276a et seq.). The Attorney General argues that this was the legislative intent all along although 87 years elapsed before such an "intent" surfaced in Attorney General Opinion No. 78-42. One of the many difficulties with this rationale is that the Davis-Bacon Act expressly mandates the setting *194 forth of wage scales in the specifications as well as how and by whom such determination shall be made, contrary to K.S.A. 44-201. Also, our original act was passed 40 years prior to the enactment of the Davis-Bacon Act.
K.S.A. 44-201 clearly intends that for each day a workman labors on a contract covered by the statute, he shall be paid the current per diem rate for the type of work he is performing. The previous actions before the court for violation of the statute primarily involve workmen who felt they performed work at less than the requisite wage or worked more than eight hours per day. The provisions contained in the statute are adequate for determining specific current rates of per diem wages on such controversies. The statute adequately serves this purpose and is a constitutionally valid enactment by the legislature.
The interpretation of K.S.A. 44-201 by the Attorney General which would require the specifications to include the current rate of per diem wages for each class of workmen who might be employed by the winning contractor and his subcontractors to work on the construction job is an erroneous and improper expansion of the statute beyond its clear meaning, import, and intent.
The Director of Architectural Services correctly applied the statute when he included in the specifications the statutory requirement that workmen be paid the current per diem wages and the sealed bids received thereon should have been opened. The plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Upon due consideration by a unanimous court, we conclude that: (1) K.S.A. 44-201 is a constitutionally valid enactment of the legislature; (2) the requirement in the specification that the contractor pay the "current rate of per diem wages" without enumerating specific wage rates was a correct application of the statute; (3) the interpretation by the Attorney General that K.S.A. 44-201 requires the inclusion of specific wage rates in bid specifications is erroneous; and (4) a writ of mandamus should be issued. Defendant Director of Architectural Services is ordered to proceed forthwith with the bidding process on the Honey Bee Lodge and Hospital Care Facility in accordance with conclusions reached herein.