May 27, 2026
Maxwell Walshaw, Principal
Riviera Construction Group
414 Olive Street, Suite 6
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
SBS Corporation
c/o Emily A. Kromke
Huntormann Attorneys at Law
301 North Lake Avenue, 7th
Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101-1807
Re: CITY OF CAMARILLO
ARNEILL ROAD HOUSING PROJECT, PUBLIC PROJECT NO. CUP-400
BID PROTEST
Gentlemen:
The City of Camarillo (“City”) received Riviera Construction Group’s (“Riviera”) bid protest on the Arneill Road housing Project, Public Project No.
CUP-400 (“Project”). For the reasons stated below, Riviera’s protest is rejected.
California Public Contract Code § 20161 requires the City to award the contract to the apparent low bidder, in this case SBS, unless (1) SBS bid is not responsive or (2) SBS is not responsible. (Cal. Public Contract Code § 20161; City of Inglewood v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 861, 867.) City staff has determined that the SBS bid is a responsive, that Riviera’s bid protest has no merit, and has no reason to believe SBS is not responsible, and therefore intends to recommend the City Council award a contract for construction of the Project to SBS.
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2026, bids were opened on City of Camarillo’s Arneill Road Housing Project, Public Project No. CUP-400. The project to be constructed consists of nine residential units, approximately 1,000-square-foot of office and community space, and related work located at 268/276 Arneill Road (between Jiffy Lube and Brake Masters). Two two-story buildings are to be constructed along with an associated parking lot, landscaping, trash enclosure, and associated off-site improvements.
May 27, 2026
City staff determined the apparent low bidder to be SBS with a total bid amount of $5,941,786.67, and the second apparent low bidder to be Riviera with a total bid amount of $6,453,537.1
On May 19, 2026, Riviera submitted its formal protest of SBS’ bid. On May 21, 2026, SBS submitted a written response to Rivera’s protest.
RESPONSE TO BID PROTEST
1. Riviera contends SBS’s bid bond was not properly notarized – no merit 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.
Section 8.2 of the Instructions to Bidders 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. The bid bond requires signatures from the principal and the surety. The City’s bid bond form instructs bidders to notarize all signatures. Notarization is a City bidding requirement. The City uses an online bidding service so bidders are required to upload a scan of their bid bond with their bids. The Notice Inviting Bids further directs the three lowest bidders to submit their original bid security postmarked by or delivered to the City within three business days after bid opening.
A notary’s declaration need only state that the signer came before notary in-person, established their identity to the notary’s satisfaction, and acknowledged to the notary that it was his signature on the bid bond. “A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity.” Civil Code § 1189. Notarization, or the lack thereof from a scanned copy, does not effect the validity of the original bond.
Here, SBS uploaded a bid bond with a notary public’s certificate for the surety’s signature, but neglected to upload a notary’s certificate for the company principal’s signature. However, SBS did timely deliver the original bid 1 A bid submitted by McGillivray Construction was rejected as non-responsive.
May 27, 2026
bond with proper notarization of both the principal’s and the surety’s signatures.
The City has accepted SBS’ original bond as valid. Moreover, the uploaded scan of the bond shows the bond was signed by both SBS and its Surety and manifests their intent to be bound by the terms of the bond. SBS’ timely submittal of the original bid bond cured any defect.
2. Riviera contends SBS did not list a qualified electrical subcontractor – no merit
Riviera contends that SBS did not list a qualified electrical subcontractor for low voltage electrical work related to the electronic security and network system. SBS's bid lists Hero Electric and states that its scope of work includes low voltage work. The City has verified that Hero Electric has the appropriate specialty license to perform low voltage electrical work.
Riviera further contends, without citing any statute or provision in the bid documents, that the Invitation for Bids calls for a Verkada certified vendor or installer. There is no such requirement in the Invitation for Bids. Moreover, Riviera has provided no evidence that SBS’s subcontractor cannot perform the work.
Riviera also does not provide any evidence that SBS would not be able to obtain Verkada certification by the time the work needs to be installed.
3. Riviera contends that SBS’s listed subcontractors, Green World Windows and Summer Construction, are not properly licensed – no merit City staff has verified both of SBS’ subcontractors 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 enables it to perform most general construction work including demolition and grading.
4. Riviera contends that SBS did not list a demolition and grading subcontractor – no merit
Staff’s response is that demolition has already been done, and this contract only requires incidental demolition, e.g. a sidewalk may have to be removed. SBS has a Class A license and is qualified to do any incidental demolition.
5. Bidder qualifications – Riviera challenges SBS list of qualifying projects – no merit
May 27, 2026
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. . . " SBS represents that it has twenty-eight years of experience in construction.
The Bid Proposal form asks bidders to list “three recently completed construction works similar in character and magnitude to the work included in the bid”. The instruction does not require the construction works to be public works. SBS listed four projects.
Riviera contends that the projects listed by SBS are not similar in character because they do not appear to be public works and are not similar in magnitude because the contract amounts, which range from $1.4 million to $2.4 million, are substantially less than current bids. Riviera also takes issue with the fact that the listed projects were performed during the period 2018-2021 and therefore not recently completed.
Staff has reviewed the proffered projects and is satisfied they are a sufficient indicator of SBS’ experience and ability to perform the work.
Having received no further correspondence on this matter, City staff deems the matter submitted.
We trust this letter addresses each of the issues raised by Riviera’s protest.
In the event you disagree with City staff’s intended recommendations to the Camarillo Council as set forth herein, please advise the City and the other recipient of this letter in writing by close of business on May 29, 2026 of your intention to appeal City Staff’s initial findings and recommendations to the City Council. Should either party timely provide notice of its intention to appeal, City staff will convene an informal protest proceeding to occur the week of June 1, 2026.
The City appreciates the time and attention devoted by both parties to this matter. Be assured we take this matter seriously and have carefully studied the facts and applicable law so as not to delay the award of this very important construction contract any further.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Bradley Calvert
Community Development Director