BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 815
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 815 (Ma)
          As Amended  May 18, 2009
          Majority vote 

           JUDICIARY           10-0        LOCAL GOVERNMENT    6-0         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley,    |Ayes:|Caballero, Knight,        |
          |     |Skinner, Jones, Knight,   |     |Arambula, Davis, Duvall,  |
          |     |Krekorian, Lieu, Monning, |     |Skinner                   |
          |     |Nielsen                   |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  States legislative intent regarding certain public  
          construction statutes.  Specifically,  this bill  provides that it  
          is the intent of the Legislature to consider the issues raised  
          in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Ins.  
          Co. (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 944, review granted, 193 P.3d 280;  
          84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 35 (2008) as needed once they are ripe for  
          consideration after the California Supreme Court has rendered a  
          decision interpreting the parties rights and obligations under  
          existing law.

           EXISTING LAW  :  
           
          1)Prohibits a local public entity, charter city, or charter  
            county, from requiring a bidder on a public works project to  
            assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of  
            architectural or engineering plans and specifications on  
            public works projects, except on clearly designated  
            design-build projects.  

          2)Permits a local public entity, charter city, or charter county  
            to require a bidder to review architectural or engineering  
            plans and specifications prior to submission of a bid, and  
            report any errors and omissions noted by the contractor to the  
            architect or owner.  

          3)With respect to state agencies, provides that before entering  
            into any contract for a project, the department shall prepare  
            full, complete, and accurate plans and specifications and  
            estimates of cost, giving such directions as will enable any  








                                                                  AB 815
                                                                  Page  2


            competent mechanic or other builder to carry them out.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None
           
          COMMENTS  :  This measure is substantively identical to AB 983  
          (Ma) of 2008, which was vetoed by the Governor with the  
          following message:

               This bill would require a local public entity before  
               entering into a design-bid-build contract, to provide full,  
               complete, and accurate plans, specifications and estimates  
               of cost that would enable any competent mechanic or other  
               builder to carry them out.

               This bill is premature.  The California Supreme Court  
               recently agreed to review the case, Los Angeles Unified  
               School District v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al.,  
               that involves the issues raised by this bill.  I believe it  
               is prudent for the court to rule on current law before  
               making any unnecessary or ill-advised changes.

          In anticipation of a possible ruling by the court during this  
          legislative session, the author has introduced this bill.  In  
          light of the prior veto and the substantial opposition, however,  
          and in order to allow the bill to meet legislative deadlines  
          while maintaining flexibility regarding the precise proposal  
          that may be needed to respond to the important issues raised by  
          the case, depending on the outcome of Supreme Court's decision,  
          the author has judiciously agreed to the bill's intent language.


           Analysis Prepared by  :  Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 

                                                                FN: 0000796