Could a Maryland public agency avoid paying prevailing union wages on a big construction project just by hiring a construction manager to split it into many contracts, each under $500,000?

Plain-English summary

A member of Maryland's Advisory Council on Prevailing Wage Rates asked how the law's exclusion for "contracts of less than $500,000" applied when a public agency used a "construction manager" instead of a traditional general contractor. Under that newer approach, the manager splits a project into a series of separate contracts for different parts of the work, none of which individually might reach $500,000, even though the whole project easily does.

The Attorney General concluded that this arrangement did not let a public body escape the Prevailing Wage Law. If a contract was one stage of a single public works project whose total construction cost was $500,000 or more, the $500,000 exclusion did not apply to that contract, even though it was individually smaller, so long as the project was otherwise covered by the law. The opinion reasoned that reading the dollar-amount exclusion literally, contract by contract, would let a public agency dodge the entire wage-protection scheme simply by restructuring how it procured a large project, defeating the law's purpose. Because this was the first time the office had addressed the question, the opinion did not fault anyone who had previously proceeded in good faith without recognizing the rule, but going forward, both the contracting public body and its construction manager had oversight responsibility to make sure prevailing wages were paid at every stage.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

If Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law only applied to contracts of $500,000 or more, could a public agency avoid it by breaking a large project into several smaller contracts through a construction manager?
No, according to this opinion. The Attorney General concluded that if those contracts together made up a single public works project with total construction costs of $500,000 or more, the law still applied to each of them, regardless of the individual contract's size.

Was a construction manager treated differently from a traditional general contractor under Maryland's wage law?
Not for this purpose. The opinion concluded the Prevailing Wage Law's plain intent was to cover any project valued at $500,000 or more regardless of the contracting methodology used, so specialty contracts under a construction manager were treated the same as subcontracts would have been under a traditional general contractor.

Did contractors and construction managers who had already split up projects without applying prevailing wages face penalties once this opinion came out?
The opinion specifically declined to fault past good-faith conduct, since it acknowledged this was a question of first impression, but it made clear that going forward, contracting public bodies and construction managers had oversight responsibility to ensure prevailing wages were paid throughout every stage of a covered project.

Background and statutory framework

Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law, modeled on the federal Davis-Bacon Act, required public bodies to set minimum trade-specific wage rates for covered public works construction and required contractors and subcontractors to pay those rates throughout the project, with the law excluding "contracts of less than $500,000" from its coverage. The opinion traced that exclusion's history: the original 1969 bill would have covered all public works with no dollar threshold, and the $500,000 exclusion was added by amendment, with a later 1970 attempt to remove the exclusion defeated, leaving a purpose the opinion read as relieving small contracts of paperwork burdens and preserving competitive opportunities for small or minority-owned firms, not as a loophole for large projects.

The opinion found support for its reading of the exclusion in the statute's own text and legislative history: a provision addressing partial federal Davis-Bacon coverage explicitly kept state prevailing wage requirements applicable to "the remainder" of a public work, and a 1983 amendment's legislative history described the law's purpose as ensuring "major projects principally funded with State money" are built under prevailing wage rules. Because the law is remedial legislation meant to correct a labor-market harm, the opinion applied the established Maryland canon that remedial statutes are construed liberally to serve their purpose while exceptions to them are construed narrowly, and drew on the state's constitutional and statutory budgeting framework, which appropriates and tracks funds by total project cost rather than by individual contract, as further evidence that "total construction cost of the project" was the correct measuring stick, not the size of any one contract within it.

Citations

Statutes:

• SF §18-501(b), (c), and (d)(1), (d)(3) (definitions of "construction," "public works," the $500,000 exclusion, and "public body")
• SF §18-502(b) and (d) (liquidated damages for wage violations)
• SF §18-504(a), (b), and (c) (wage rate incorporation into contract specifications; mandatory payment; partial Davis-Bacon exemption)
• SF §18-505(a) and §18-507(a), (b), (c), (e) (Commissioner's investigation, hearing, and enforcement authority)
• SF §18-506(d) (payroll record submission and subcontractor obligations)
• SF §18-510(a) (wage determination request before bidding)
• SF §13-501 (payment and performance bonds under traditional contracting)
• SF §13-602(b) (contract modification assessed against total construction cost)
• SF §7-101(b), §7-104(a)(2)(i), §7-105, and §7-115 (state budget content and submission requirements)
• Article III, §52(2), (3), and (8) of the Maryland Constitution (Budget Bill and Supplementary Appropriation Bill requirements)
• Article VI, §3 of the Maryland Constitution (bond proceeds expenditure procedure)
• 40 U.S.C. §§276a through 276a-5, and §276a (federal Davis-Bacon Act and its $2,000 exclusion)
• Chapter 558, Laws of Maryland 1969 (enacting the Prevailing Wage Law with the $500,000 exclusion)
• Chapter 293, Laws of Maryland 1970 (failed attempt to remove the exclusion)
• Chapter 4, Laws of Maryland 1971 (partial Davis-Bacon coverage provision)
• Chapter 70, Laws of Maryland 1983 (amendment clarifying coverage based on state funding share)
• Chapter 125, Laws of Maryland 1985 (General Construction Loan of 1985, cited as an example of project-based appropriations)
• Chapter 840, Laws of Maryland 1986, and Chapter 48, Laws of Maryland 1988 (later recodifications, per the opinion's Editor's Note)
• COMAR 21.11.11.01C(2) (Commissioner's regulation treating "project" as the relevant unit)

Cases:

• Barnes v. Commissioner of Labor and Industry, 45 Md. App. 396, 403 (1980), aff'd 290 Md. 9 (1981)
• United States v. Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U.S. 171, 178 (1954)
• Smith v. Higinbothom, 187 Md. 115, 130 (1946)
• Radio Communications, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 50 Md. App. 422, 432 (1982)
• North Ga. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Goldschmidt, 621 F.2d 697, 708-09 (5th Cir. 1980)
• Hanna v. Board of Educ., 200 Md. 49, 55 (1951)
• Missouri v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207, 222-23 (1903)
• Ruark v. Engineers Union, 157 Md. 576, 581-82 (1929)
• Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230 (1940)
• Panitz v. Comptroller, 247 Md. 501, 513-15 (1967)
• Demory Bros. v. Board of Public Works, 273 Md. 320, 330 (1974)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1986/Volume71_1986.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

PREVAILING WAGE LAW

"Construction Manager" Projects—Applicability Of Law To Certain Contracts Under $500,000.

March 18, 1986

Mr. Charles H. Rush, President
Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council

As a member of the Advisory Council on Prevailing Wage Rates, you inquired about the application of Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law, Title 18, Subtitle 5 of the State Finance and Procurement Article ("SF" Article), to publicly funded construction projects that are carried out through a series of separate contracts, arranged on behalf of the contracting public body by a "construction manager." Specifically, you ask how the exclusion from the Prevailing Wage Law of "contracts of less than $500,000," as set forth in SF §18-501(c), is to be treated in this situation.

For the reasons given below, we conclude that the Prevailing Wage Law applies to a contract of less than $500,000, arranged on behalf of a public body by a construction manager, if (1) the contract embodies an aspect or stage of construction of a single public works project, (2) the total construction cost of the project is $500,000 or more, and (3) the project is otherwise within the scope of the law. Under these circumstances, the exclusion in SF §18-501(c) may not be given effect. The contracting public body, and the construction manager as its agent, must exercise oversight responsibility so that the provisions of the Prevailing Wage Law are in fact adhered to throughout the various stages of the public works construction. However, because this construction of the Prevailing Wage Law is a question of first impression, we do not intend to suggest any fault if a contracting public body, construction manager, or contractor has in good faith failed previously to recognize the applicability of the law in the circumstances discussed in this opinion.

I
Construction Manager's Role

Your inquiry involves the implications of an agency's use of a "construction manager" to oversee a construction project. As we understand it, a construction manager performs many of the tasks traditionally handled by a general contractor. These responsibilities might include the acquisition of materials and labor, regulation of construction costs, the pacing of the construction itself, and the procurement of specialty contractors to perform various stages of the construction work.

The difference in methodology can be illustrated by the following example: Suppose that the General Assembly allocates $1 million of bond proceeds for the construction of a building at a State facility. Under traditional procedures, the State agency would enter a contract with the low bidder for the entire cost of the project, somewhat under the $1 million appropriated for it. The general contractor, in turn, would enter into contracts with subcontractors for work on various aspects of the project. State procurement law generally reflects this traditional mode of public works construction. See, e.g., SF §13-501 (payment and performance bonds).

Under the "construction manager" approach, the manager, acting as agent for the State agency, would enter into separate contracts for the necessary components of the entire project. There would be no general contractor; hence, no single contract would reflect the entire project cost. In this simplified example, the construction manager would enter a series of separate contracts, all of which together would approximate the amount of the overall contract under the traditional method, but none of which individually would exceed $500,000.

II
Prevailing Wage Law

A. History and Purpose

Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law is to a great extent modeled on the federal Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. §§276a through 276a-5. Originally enacted in 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act requires that minimum wages be paid on all federal and federally assisted construction works, in order "to protect local contractors and workmen against what was deemed to be unfair and predatory competition from outsiders who, by importing cheap migratory labor, could obtain important public works projects by underbidding contractors in the community where the project was to be built." Barnes v. Commissioner of Labor and Industry, 45 Md. App. 396, 403 (1980), aff'd 290 Md. 9 (1981). That kind of competition also had the effect of "destabiliz[ing] wage rates generally prevailing in the locally based construction industry." Id. See generally S. Rep. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess. reprinted in [1964] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2339, 2340-41. See also United States v. Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U.S. 171, 178 (1954).

Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law was enacted in 1969. Chapter 558, Laws of Maryland 1969. By that time, the concept of minimum wage rates, or "prevailing wages," was viewed as a basic labor stabilization mechanism:

"By requiring contractors engaged in public construction to pay at least the same wage rates they would be expected to pay if engaged in non-public construction in the same community, the Legislature has endeavored to avoid unnecessary labor unrest that might especially affect public projects and delay their efficient completion. Viewpoints differ, of course, as to the efficacy and fairness of these laws, but that does seem to be their asserted purpose and function." Barnes, 45 Md. App. at 404.

As introduced, the bill that became the Prevailing Wage Law would have applied to "public works" generally, without any dollar amount exclusion. House Bill 376, 1969 Session. The exclusion of "contracts of less than $500,000" was added to the original bill by amendment. See Chapter 558, Laws of Maryland 1969. An effort the following year to delete the exclusion, in order "to broaden the law's application to all contracts without regard to dollar amount," was defeated. See Chapter 293, Laws of Maryland 1970 (indicating amendments to Senate Bill 570).1

Presumably, the purpose of the exclusion for comparatively small contracts is two-fold: to relieve both public agencies and contractors of the paperwork and other procedural burdens imposed by the Prevailing Wage Law, which on a small job might be regarded as disproportionate; and to open competitive opportunities for small, minority-owned, or newly formed companies that might not have the capacity to pay prevailing wages. Our interpretive task is to give full effect to the exclusion while preventing its use as a device to erode the underlying requirements of the law itself.

B. Obligations of Public Bodies

In general terms, the Prevailing Wage Law requires the establishment of a minimum wage rate for each trade classification on a given public works construction project (power equipment operators, laborers, ironworkers, masons, electricians, roofers, and so on) and the payment of those rates throughout all stages of the construction. "Construction" is broadly defined to include "all construction, reconstruction, improvement, enlargement, painting and decorating, alteration, maintenance or repair." SF §18-501(b).

As defined by SF §18-501(c), the term "Public works" includes buildings, bridges, roads, and a variety of other "structures or works, constructed for public use or benefit or paid for wholly or in part out of public funds." However, "for the purposes of [the Prevailing Wage Law], contracts of less than $500,000 shall be excluded."

The Prevailing Wage Law applies to the actions of a "public body," those entities authorized to contract for the construction of a public works project once the General Assembly allocates the necessary funds. The term includes "the State or any department, officer, board, commission, agency or instrumentality of the State, and shall include any other agency, political subdivision, corporation, person or entity of whatever nature when State public funds are used to provide 50 percent or more of the funds for the construction of a particular public works." SF §18-501(d)(1).2

The Prevailing Wage Law places several significant obligations on the public body authorized to contract for the construction of public works. First, the contracting public body must determine whether the project is subject to the Prevailing Wage Law. If so, the public body must then request the Commissioner of Labor and Industry ("Commissioner") to issue wage rate determinations, specific to each classification of trade or craft necessary to execute the project, before advertising for bids or proposals. SF §§18-504(a) and 18-510(a).

SF §18-504(a) provides for incorporation of the rates in the contract specifications:

"[The Commissioner's] determination or schedule of the prevailing hourly rate of wages shall be attached to and made a part of the specifications and the contract for the work.... The public body shall specify in the call for bids or proposals for the contract what is the prevailing hourly rate of wages, including the prevailing rate of wages for overtime work, in the locality for the various classifications of workmen and apprentices needed to execute the contract."

As a result, all contractors bidding on the public works project are competing on equal footing, in terms of projected labor costs.

Prevailing wage rates must be paid throughout all stages of the public works construction, regardless of the amount of the various construction subcontracts: "It shall be mandatory upon the contractor to whom the contract is awarded, and upon any subcontractor under him, to pay not less than the specified rates in the execution of the contract." SF §18-504(b) (emphasis added). SF §18-504(b) imposes on the public body awarding the contract the duty to embody this obligation in the contract:

"The public body awarding the contract shall cause to be inserted in the contract a stipulation to the effect that not less than the prevailing hourly rate of wages shall be paid to all workmen and apprentices performing work under the contract. [The public body] shall also require in all the contractor's bonds that the contractor include such provisions as will guarantee the faithful performance of the prevailing hourly wage clause as provided by contract."

In recognition of the lack of privity between the contracting public body and the various construction subcontractors engaged to work on the typical public works project, the Prevailing Wage Law is also peppered with clauses placing responsibility on the general contractor to ensure that each subcontractor observes its legal and contractual obligations under the Prevailing Wage Law, when engaged on public works. See, e.g., SF §§18-506(d) and 18-507(e).

Enforcement of the Prevailing Wage Law is primarily entrusted to the Commissioner. On receipt of a complaint of noncompliance, or as a result of an investigation, the Commissioner is authorized "to cause investigations to be made as may be necessary to determine whether there has been compliance" with the Prevailing Wage Law and regulations [SF §18-507(a)]; to hold hearings [SF §§18-505(a) and 18-507(c)]; and, if necessary, to issue orders requiring the contracting public body to withhold sums to cover unpaid wages and liquidated damage penalties from the monies due the contractor [SF §18-507(b)].

But the General Assembly has also vested the contracting public body with the responsibility to monitor and control the activities of its contractors. As a general matter, the contracting public body is obligated to "take cognizance of all complaints of all violations of the provisions of this law committed in the course of the execution of the contract." SF §18-504(b).

In addition, every contractor engaged on a public works project is required to submit a copy of its payroll records, and those of its subcontractors, to the contracting public body. §18-506(d). This statutory requirement provides a means of reinforcing the contractor's obligation to ensure that all wage rates set forth "are not less than those established by the Commissioner"; that employees are not working out of classification; and that all provisions of the Prevailing Wage Law are followed. SF §18-506(d). Accordingly, the contracting public body has the obligation to review these payroll records, if only to ascertain that the work performed by and payments made to employees of the various contractors and subcontractors engaged on the project in fact conform to the wage determinations incorporated into the original contract specifications.

Finally, the Prevailing Wage Law imposes penalties on contractors for their, or their subcontractors', failure to pay the required rates or to work employees only in the proper classification, including "liquidated damages at the rate of $10 per day" for each underpaid employee. SF §18-502(b) and (d). A general contractor may recoup from the subcontractor penalties attributable to that subcontractor's noncompliance. SF §18-507(e).

III
Application of Prevailing Wage Law to "Construction Manager" Projects

A. Introduction

As the discussion in Part II above indicates, the Prevailing Wage Law seeks to achieve its policy goal through a detailed and comprehensive regulatory scheme. Though the law is phrased with the traditional public body-general contractor-subcontractors methodology in mind, nevertheless we believe that its plain intention is to assure the application of prevailing wages to projects valued at $500,000 or more, even if a different methodology is used. Because the bedrock principle of statutory construction is to effectuate the intent of the General Assembly, the exclusion of "contracts of less than $500,000" in SF §18-501(c) cannot be read so as to potentially undermine the entire law.

B. Statutory language and legislative history

The Prevailing Wage Law itself reflects the General Assembly's understanding not only that large projects have component parts but also that prevailing wages are to apply to the entire project. Under SF §18-504(c), federally funded public works construction is exempt from the Prevailing Wage Law if the public works are covered by the federal Davis-Bacon Act. However: "If only a portion of a particular public work or public works [is subject to Davis-Bacon], the provisions of [the Prevailing Wage Law] shall apply to the remainder of said public work or public works." (Emphasis added.) See also Chapter 4, Laws of Maryland 1971 (bill title).3

In addition, when the General Assembly amended the Prevailing Wage Law in 1983, the title of the bill described its purpose as "providing that the State Prevailing Wage Law applies to wages paid to workmen and apprentices employed in certain public works construction projects when the State provides at least a certain amount of the funds for the project." Chapter 70, Laws of Maryland 1983 (emphasis added). The Governor's Chief Legislative Officer, testifying in support of this legislation, observed that: "Maryland Prevailing Wage Law now applies to projects which cost $500,000 or more and which are totally funded by the State." Testimony of Carl E. Eastwick Before the Senate Budget and Taxation and the House Economic Matters Committees on Senate Bill 304/House Bill 439, at 1 (1983) (emphasis added). He continued:

"The purpose of these bills is to correct an anomaly in the coverage of those laws so that the State policy can be given full effect. The bills require that major projects principally funded with State money must be bid and constructed on the basis of the Prevailing Wage Laws. The current law . . . does not apply to projects which should be covered by the Prevailing Wage Laws. . . . [T]he law must apply to projects made possible by and carried out to a major extent with State funds." Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added).

C. Legislative intent

The Prevailing Wage Law is a remedial measure, intended by the General Assembly to respond to a perceived harm. See Part II A above. As such, it "should be liberally construed in the public interest to carry out its purpose." Smith v. Higinbothom, 187 Md. 115, 130 (1946). In turn, exceptions from its coverage should be "strictly and narrowly construed." See Radio Communications, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 50 Md. App. 422, 432 (1982).

If the exception were read with a literalism that disregards the statutory purpose, many subcontracts even on a very large, traditionally organized project would be excluded as "contracts of less than $500,000." But, as discussed in Part II B above, all subcontracts are covered if the general contract is for $500,000 or more. Similarly, specialty contracts that would be covered as subcontracts in a traditionally organized project are not to be excluded simply because they are labeled "contracts," rather than "subcontracts," in a project run by a construction manager. Cf. North Ga. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Goldschmidt, 621 F.2d 697, 708-09 (5th Cir. 1980) (federal Davis-Bacon Act applicable to municipal project when, "[a]s a practical matter, everyone knew that federal funds would be required").

It is axiomatic that public bodies authorized to enter into contracts for public works also may fix the terms of those contracts, as long as those terms do not contravene law or public policy. When a statute sets certain conditions on the use of public funds, an agency may not evade the law by indirectly authorizing what it is prohibited from doing directly. See Hanna v. Board of Educ., 200 Md. 49, 55 (1951). Where the work is of a public character, is funded by the State, and is carried out by agents acting under the State's authority, "it belongs to the state, as the guardian and trustee for its people, and having control of its affairs, to prescribe the conditions upon which it will permit public work to be done on its behalf." Missouri v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207, 222-23 (1903). See also Ruark v. Engineers Union, 157 Md. 576, 581-82 (1929). If the expenditure of State funds by a public body for a public works project is conditioned on the application of the Prevailing Wage Law, a construction manager acting on behalf of the contracting public body is obligated to enforce that law.

In our view, the intent underlying the Prevailing Wage Law is best served by construing the exclusion in SF §18-501(c) as inapplicable to contracts that are integral to a public works project with total construction costs of $500,000 or more, even if some or all of those contracts do not exceed $500,000.4 As a practical matter, a construction manager must know what the total costs will likely be, even as he or she negotiates individual contracts. See SF §13-602(b) (contract modification to be assessed for its effect "on the project budget or the total construction cost").

D. Budgetary requirements

Our view that total project costs are the proper criterion for Prevailing Wage Law application is reinforced by the State's constitutionally required budgetary procedures. The Constitution authorizes appropriations only in accordance with "a Budget Bill, or a Supplementary Appropriation Bill." Article III, §52(2). One of the key aspects of the budget system is that the intended objects of expenditure be clearly identified: "Each Budget shall contain a complete plan of proposed expenditures," and each supplementary appropriation "shall be embodied in a separate bill limited to some single work, object or purpose therein stated." Article III, §52(3) and (8). See Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230 (1940).

The statutory framework carries forward the requirement that expenditures be clearly identified, so that coherent fiscal decisions can be made. The draft budget is to "be comprehensive" and to include "capital improvements." SF §7-104(a)(2)(i) and (b). See also SF §7-105 (budget to contain "the detail that the Governor or law requires"). The budget books, which contain detail beyond that in the budget itself, are themselves submitted to the General Assembly. SF §7-115.

In compliance with these requirements, appropriations for construction are stated in terms of total project costs. To cite but a few examples, Chapter 125 of the Laws of Maryland 1985, the General Construction Loan of 1985, sets aside $780,000 to correct building deficiencies in the Annapolis State Government Center, including construction of an electrical duct bank and replacement of outmoded equipment; $950,000 for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant at Bowie State College; and $635,000 for development of Sandy Point State Park, including construction of office and chemical storage buildings, an underground fuel system, roads, and parking.5

The actual flow of funds from the State fisc for the various construction projects, detailed in Section 1(3) of Chapter 125, also reflects the budgetary focus on specific project costs: "The actual cash proceeds of the sale of [State general obligation] bonds shall be paid to the Treasurer ... and thereafter shall be credited on the books of the State Comptroller and expended, upon approval by the Board of Public Works, for the following [enumerated] public purposes." See also Article VI, §3 of the Maryland Constitution. In addition, Section 1(5) of Chapter 125 cautions: "Before a State agency or institution named in this Act as responsible for an individual item may begin work with funds secured under this Act, the agency or institution shall provide satisfactory assurances to the Board of Public works that the work described in the individual item can be completed with the funds specified for that item." (Emphasis added.)

When a construction project is budgeted at $500,000 or more, the fiscal assessment necessarily takes into account the impact of the labor costs that result from the application of the Prevailing Wage Law.6 In this way, the public officials responsible for the budget give effect to the Prevailing Wage Law in precisely the way that we believe the law itself contemplates, by reference to total construction costs on a public works project.

III
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the Prevailing Wage Law applies to a contract of less than $500,000, arranged on behalf of a public body by a construction manager, if (1) the contract embodies an aspect or stage of construction of a single public works project, (2) the total construction cost of the project is $500,000 or more, and (3) the project is otherwise within the scope of the law.

Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General
Lynette M. Phillips
Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice

Editor's Note: The Procurement Law has been recodified twice since the issuance of this opinion. Chapter 840, Laws of Maryland 1986; Chapter 48, Laws of Maryland 1988. The Prevailing Wage Law is now codified as Title 17, Subtitle 2 of the State Finance and Procurement Article.

1 The Davis-Bacon Act excludes contracts of $2,000 or less. 40 U.S.C. §276a.

2 The intricate wording of the definition of "Public body" effectively excludes from the operation of the Prevailing Wage Law (i) State construction projects funded wholly from non-State sources and (ii) county and municipal construction projects, "when less than 50 percent of the funds used for the construction of a particular public works are State funds." SF §18-501(d)(1). The law is also inapplicable when a political subdivision contributes 25 percent or more of the cost of public school construction. SF §18-501(d)(3). See 69 Opinions of the Attorney General 220 (1984).

3 The Commissioner's regulations also reflect the understanding that a "project" is the proper referent for Prevailing Wage Law obligations. See, e.g., COMAR 21.11.11.01C(2).

4 We recognize that questions will arise as to whether a particular contract is properly viewed as part of a larger project, or is instead a separate project in and of itself. This opinion does not purport to resolve such case-by-case questions. Rather, our conclusion is simply that contract size alone, i.e., the isolated fact that a contract is under $500,000, does not automatically bring into play the exclusion.

5 A bill of this kind, providing for the use of debt proceeds, is a "Supplementary Appropriations Bill," within the meaning of Article III, §52(2) and (8). Panitz v. Comptroller, 247 Md. 501, 513-15 (1967).

6 To be sure, an appropriations line item might include costs that are not properly regarded as part of the costs of construction. See Demory Bros. v. Board of Public Works, 273 Md. 320, 330 (1974) (cost of land acquisition not a cost of construction). However, even if a budget line item does not itself differentiate between construction and other costs of a project, the schedules supporting the budget do. See SF §7-101(b).