Opinion ID: 2321104
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supplemental Briefs and Record

Text: Upon our initial review, we found it difficult to address a number of the parties' arguments on the basis of the stipulation they presented, and we directed them to provide correction or clarification per Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926. See Order, 500 James Hance Court v. PWAB, No. 49 MAP 2010 (Pa. Aug. 5, 2011) ( per curiam ). In particular, we were concerned with the absence of lease attachments containing material terms governing the Foundation's and Developer's contractual relationship. We also questioned the accuracy of the indication, in the parties' stipulation, that there was some early request for prevailing wages for the fit-out. [19] The implication [of the stipulation] seems to be that the lessee or the lessor (or at the very least someone besides the Bureau) considered interior construction to be subject to the Prevailing Wage Act prior to August 25, 2006, and requested prevailing wage rates in that time period per the Act. This is consistent with various representations made by the appellee[s] throughout the litigation. See, e.g., Brief for Appellants, 500 James Hance Court, L.P. v. PPWAB, 983 A.2d 792 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008 [2009]), 2008 WL 7276625, at  ([F]rom the outset, there has never been a question whether prevailing wages were mandatory for the fit out performed by the Foundation since public funds were used to complete this portion of the project.). Nevertheless, Bureau correspondence dated October 27, 2006, seems to contradict such an inference, as the Bureau's deputy chief counsel indicates that Pennsylvania prevailing wages were not requested for this project. Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). In response, a supplemental record was provided containing some of the exhibits to the leases, including Exhibit E to the October 1, 2006, lease. As previously noted, Exhibit E confirms that the $1.6 million security deposit to be provided by the Foundation was allocated largely to funding the procurement of materials necessary to the building fit-out. The parties also supplied documents confirming that the School took the position from the outset that no part of the project was subject to prevailing wage requirements. The Bureau and Appellees also filed supplemental briefs. The Bureau explained that the stipulation was materially inaccurate in its suggestion of an early request of the Department for prevailing wage rates. In fact, according to the Bureau's supplemental brief, the first actual request for rates (other than the Bureau's own request upon its determination that the Wage Act applied) occurred on May 11, 2007. On this point, Appellees' brief responds to this Court's query as to who other than the Bureaurequested prevailing wage rates by acknowledging somewhat of a mistake in the existing stipulation. Supplemental Brief for Appellees at 4. Unhelpfully, Appellees phrase their remaining explanation, again, in the passive voice, stating: [P]revailing wage rates for the construction of the `fit-out' work ... were requested on November 20, 2006. Id. [20]