Opinion ID: 2286511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Construction & Maintenance Work Under The Prevailing Wage Act

Text: The issue in this case is whether the contracted work falls under section 290.210(1)'s definition of construction, which requires payment of prevailing wages. Section 290.210(1) provides a broad definition of construction that includes construction, reconstruction, improvement, enlargement, alteration, painting and decorating, or major repair. Contractor argues that the application of this definition is limited by the definition of maintenance work under section 290.210(4). Contractor contends that work is maintenance work, not construction, if it is the repair, but not the replacement, of existing facilities when the size, type or extent of the existing facilities is not thereby changed or increased. Although the parties apparently concede that some quantitative value of work transforms maintenance work to construction, no statute provides a guide for assessing the magnitude of work that requires payment of prevailing wages for construction work under section 290.210(1). Without such statutory guidance, this Court considers the Department's interpretation and construction of the Act. See Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davis, 488 S.W.2d 193, 197 (Mo. banc 1972) (noting that [t]he interpretation and construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration is entitled to great weight). The Department's regulations relating to the Act should not be judicially invalidated except for weighty reasons and are to be sustained unless unreasonable and plainly inconsistent with the [statutes]. See Purler-Cannon-Schulte, Inc. v. City of St. Charles, 146 S.W.3d 31, 47 (Mo.App.2004) (internal quotations omitted).