1854236.1 2859.023
301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor • Pasadena, CA 91101-1807 • Voice: (626) 440-5200 • Fax: (626) 796-0107 • www.huntortmann.com EMILY A. KROMKE
Shareholder
E-mail: [email protected]
May 21, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
[email protected]
[email protected]
City Clerk
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Re: Arneill Road Housing Project
Project No. CUP-400
SBS Corporation Response to Riviera Construction Group's Bid Protest
Dear City Clerk:
This law firm represents SBS Corporation ("SBS") with regard to the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to respond to Riviera Construction Group's ("Riviera") May 19, 2026 protest of SBS Corporation's bid for work on the Arneill Road Housing Project (the "Project").
Riviera's bid protest should be rejected by the City of Camarillo ("City") for the following reasons:
1. SBS Provided the Lowest Responsive and Responsible Bid The Project Instructions to Bidders Section 8.2 requires that the bid bond be submitted on the form provided with the bid proposal or a form substantially similar complying with Public Contract Code §20170. Notarization of a bid bond is not required under Public Contract Code §20170 et seq. To the extent the City may have sought a notary acknowledgement, omission of a notary acknowledgement form is not a material deviation of the bid requirements and may be waived by the City. SBS notes it did in fact provide the notary acknowledgement to the City promptly upon the City's request. There is no question that the Project bid bond was issued to SBS by the surety and is enforceable.
A public works construction project must be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, in this case SBS. What makes a bid "responsive" is a matter of case by case interpretation of the facts by the owner. Usually whether a bid is responsive can be determined
City Clerk
May 21, 2026
1854236.1 2859.023
from the face on the bid. See Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Davis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1438. A bid is responsive if it is in compliance with the material terms of the bidding instructions. See Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Educ . (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1331, 1341. Immaterial deviations from the bid requirements may be waived by the owner, but material variations impacting the cost of the work may render a bid non-responsive.
MCM Const., Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 373-374 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 44].
SBS provided a fully signed and enforceable bid bond with its Project bid. The notary acknowledgement form does not relate to the cost of the work and is not a material term of the bid requirements. Lack of a notary acknowledgement form relating to a fully executed bid bond is not a material deviation from the bid requirements and should be waived by the owner. Also the form was provided. Riviera's argument must be rejected by the City.
2. SBS 's Electrical Subcontractor Will Perform the Project Low Voltage Work SBS's bid listed electrical subcontractor's scope of work includes the Project low voltage work. Riviera's argument is a red herring. SBS intends to subcontract the low voltage work to bid listed subcontractor Hero Electric.
The instructions to bidders Section 12.11-12.12 identifies City's concerns when evaluating the list of subcontractors. A bid missing the list of subcontractors will be rejected (Section 12.11).
A bid in which the listing of subcontractors is incomplete or inaccurate may be rejected (Section
12.12). SBS's bid lists twenty one (21) different subcontractors covering all relevant scopes.
Riviera has proffered no evidence supporting its position that SBS's bid is not responsive based upon its subcontractor listing. It has provided no basis for its argument that a subcontractor requires some kind of approved vendor, and even if it did, whether or not a subcontractor is an approved Verkada vendor is not shown on the face of the bid and would go to the bidder's responsibility. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, SBS's bid must be evaluated for responsiveness by examining the bid on its face. SBS listed all relevant subcontractors.
3. SBS's Subcontractors Are Properly Listed in the Project Bid Riviera argues that SBS’s bid listed subcontractors, Green World Windows and Summer Construction, are not properly licensed to perform the bid listed scopes of work. Riviera is wrong.
First, both contractors are properly licensed to do the work. Green World Windows has an active C-17 glazing license, which permits it to install both doors and windows in any structure.
Summer Construction possesses a Class A General Engineering license which is requires "specialized engineering knowledge and skill" and enables such license holder to perform most general construction work including demolition and grading. See Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros. Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 681, 691-692 [130 Cal.Rptr.3d 430].
City Clerk
May 21, 2026
1854236.1 2859.023
Second, according to well settled case law, a bid cannot be rejected simply based upon whether a subcontractor possesses the proper license at bid time. The Court in the case of D.H.
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School District found that a subcontractor is not required to be properly licensed for the work at the time the bids are submitted . (2007) 43 Cal.App.4th 757. If the City determines that something other than the current license classification is required, either the subcontractor can acquire that classification and be awarded the work or else SBS has the right to substitute the listed subcontractor for another subcontractor pursuant to Pub.
Cont. Code §4104(a)(2)(A). The City cannot legally reject SBS’s bid on this basis.
4. SBS's Bid Identified Four Projects of Similar Character and Magnitude Section 4.6 of the Instructions to Bidders states that the bidder must have at least 3 years of experience in "constructing work similar in character and magnitude to the work included in the bid. . . " It makes no distinction between public and private work nor did it provide parameters for what constitutes a comparable project.
SBS's bid notes that SBS has twenty eight (28) years of experience in construction. SBS then provides four examples of what it considered to be comparable projects in character and magnitude that it has completed recently.
SBS's bid is responsive in that it identified four comparable projects. Were the City to dig into the details of those projects, its inquiry would change from one of responsiveness to one of responsibility. Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified School Dist. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425 [115 Cal.Rptr.3d 378], as modified (Sept. 30, 2010). The issue of SBS's responsibility as a bidder was not raised by Riviera and is not part of this protest.
It is within the City's discretion to determine whether or not the four comparable projects identified by SBS met the requirements of Section 4.6.
5. Riviera's Bid Is $500,000 More than SBS's Bid, and Award of the Project to Riviera Would Constitute A Waste of Public Funds
Riviera's bid protest is improper and cannot be considered by the City.
Riviera does not have standing to protest SBS's bid as it fails to protest all other low bidders. Riviera was the third low bidder for the Project, submitting a bid of $6,453,537.00 versus SBS's low bid of $5,941,787.67. Riviera provides no explanation to the City as to why it should be awarded the Project over second low bidder Mcgillivray Construction or why the City should pay more money for the same work.
The City has a statutory and ethical obligation to award the Project to the lowest bidder.
The City has an obligation to the taxpayers to use the funds delegated to it wisely and to not unnecessarily waste public funds. These are the principles that underly the entire public works bidding process.
City Clerk
May 21, 2026
1854236.1 2859.023
Riviera has failed to identify any material deviation in SBS's bid that would justify the additional cost of awarding the job to any contractor other than SBS.
6. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, SBS respectfully requests that the City proceed with issuance of the Project contract to SBS.
Very truly yours,
EMILY A. KROMKE, ESQ.
EAK:eak
cc: SBS Corporation
Larry Lubka