GOVERNMENT RELATIONS


California’s World Leadership Demands Smart Thinking


By Felipe Fuentes, AGC Legislative Advocate C


alifornia is a world leader in every sense of the word – in the size of its population, as a leader of the


innovation economy, as a global goods mover, and a producer of agriculture that helps feed the world, to name just a few. It is also a state with many pressing needs. Our crumbling infrastructure and the nation’s worst housing crisis create immense public policy challenges for California and its elected leaders. Despite the needs of our state,


many elected officials are engaging in an ideological war with the federal government rather than battling the pressing issues here at home. Te healthy competition of differing views and discourse of competing ideologies is what makes our democracy great. Recent legislative proposals, however, show that the construction community may be drawn into the crossfire of this ideological battle.


Unprecedented Proposals In an attempt to thwart the federal


government’s plans on border security, some of our state’s executive and legislative leaders have begun to fight these plans with unprecedented public policy proposals. One state legislative proposal would disqualify contractors that have performed any federal work on the border. Yet another would require that state public pension funds must divest from publicly traded companies that have contracted with the federal government on such projects. Te use of lawsuits based on environ-


mental concerns has been suggested as another tool to block border project approval. Equally disconcerting are measures passed by a handful of local governments blacklisting contractors that bid on border security work. Historically, policy debates and


political differences have played out in a capitol committee room, local government chamber or on the


6 May/June 2017


campaign trail. Tat’s the way it should be. Our elected leaders should fight for their policy beliefs, but they should not use their constituents as leverage over their adversaries. To do so is to revert to times that stifled competition and in which favoritism reigned.


140 Years of Court Precedent AGC opposes any legislation that


penalizes contractors based on work that has been bid or performed on projects that elected officials deem politically unpopular. Prohibiting a contractor from bidding on a construction project because of a previous contract in which the contractor was lawfully engaged is simply discriminatory and unfair. Such proposals are contrary to more than 140 years of California Supreme Court precedent with regard to competitive bidding that focuses on the bidding process and not on what is being built.


Our elected leaders should fight for their policy beliefs, but they should not use their constituents as leverage over their adversaries. To do so is to revert to times that stifled competition and favoritism reigned.


Te importance of competitive


bidding is ingrained in the California Constitution to “eliminate favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds; and stimulate advanta- geous market place competition” (Konica Business Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of University of California, 206 Cal. App. 3d 449 (1988). Congress, the state Legislature and local governments lawfully have the


right to exercise which projects should or should not be funded. Likewise, contractors should be able to enjoy a comparable right to choose which projects they wish to bid on without fear of reprisal or discrimination. Tis is a fundamental right that should not be abridged or denied. Legislation that places a political judgement on a type of construction project is to pick indis- criminate winners and losers, not based on the merits of the construction job, but instead on the underlying construction project.


Promoting a Fair Construction Environment


Te AGC works to promote


a healthy and fair environment in construction for its members in the state of California. Our members bid on a multitude of private and public works on either a low-cost bid or alternative delivery basis. At times, these projects may cross geographic, policy and political lines. However, these projects are tendered and deemed necessary by those whom we elect to govern. To prevent contractors from


competing on bids for reasons other than performance or compliance is wrong and sets California on a slippery slope.


Fighting for Integrity in Bid Process


AGC will stand ready to protect


the interests of its members when bid discrimination occurs. AGC will continue to advocate for objective bid procedures, integrity in bid selection and the elimination of abuses in the compet- itive bid process. AGC members should not be the


collateral damage of an ideological war but rather an ally to further good public policy such as competitive bidding. Our membership is willing and able to help California’s elected leaders continue to make California a world leader. We can do so competitively, intelligent and fairly. 


California Constructor


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24