Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Walsh/Granite JV
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 462
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- PennDOT received RTKL request from Walsh/Granite JV (part of Plenary Walsh Keystone Partners consortium) seeking copies of all proposals (excluding its own consortium) submitted for the Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement P3 project.
- The P3 Law (74 Pa.C.S. § 9111) expressly requires disclosure of the successful development entity’s identity, response contents, final proposal and form of agreement, but lists categories that "shall not be public."
- PennDOT denied the request, asserting Section 9111 limits public disclosure to only the successful proposer and that various exemptions (personal data, trade secrets, financials, evaluation records) apply.
- OOR ordered release in part, holding unsuccessful proposals are generally public under the RTKL and only certain information may be withheld under RTKL exceptions and P3 Law § 9111(4).
- Commonwealth Court majority reversed OOR, concluding the P3 Law provides a separate, closed-ended disclosure scheme limiting public access to only the successful proposer’s proposal; other proposals are not public records under that statute.
- The court agreed, however, that even if unsuccessful proposals were public, personal phone numbers, financial-capability information, and trade-secret/proprietary information are exempt under § 9111(4) and RTKL exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9111 of the P3 Law exempts unsuccessful bidders’ proposals from RTKL disclosure after award | Requestor: § 9111 is silent as to unsuccessful proposals; RTKL presumption of disclosure applies and RTKL § 708(b)(26) governs (proposals become public after award) | PennDOT: P3 Law is a standalone, subsequent statute that specifically makes only the successful proposal public and therefore excludes unsuccessful proposals | Held for PennDOT: P3 Law is a separate, closed-ended scheme enacted after RTKL; only successful proposer’s proposal is required to be public, so unsuccessful proposals are not public records under § 9111 |
| If proposals are public, whether specific categories (personal contacts, financials, trade secrets, evaluation records) may be withheld | Requestor: sought full proposals subject to RTKL exceptions only where applicable | PennDOT: even if subject to disclosure, specific categories are exempt under RTKL and § 9111(4) | Court: agreed those categories can be withheld (personal phone numbers, financial-capability info, trade secrets/proprietary info) under § 9111(4) and relevant RTKL exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (other statutes’ disclosure schemes operate independently of RTKL)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (RTKL presumes records are public absent a statutory exemption)
- Ali v. Philadelphia City Planning Comm’n, 125 A.3d 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (an exemption under RTKL requires a statute to expressly declare records confidential)
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius: inclusion of specific items implies exclusion of others)
- Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013) (courts must not supply statutory omissions by adding language)