Tag Archive for California Department of General Services

San Diego Unified School District: the Only Local Government in California Evading Labor Compliance Fees to the California Department of Industrial Relations

The Ziggurat Exterior

I requested public records from the State Allocation Board‘s Office of Public School Construction (part of the California Department of General Services) to find out which educational districts in California were slipping out of the state’s new requirement to pay fees to the State Public Works Enforcement Fund, which supports the Compliance Monitoring Unit of the California Department of Industrial Relations.

The Ziggurat Interior

School districts (K-12), community college districts, and other local governments pay these fees to support the agency’s monitoring and enforcement of contractors complying with laws related to state-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”).

Personnel at the state’s obscure but powerful Office of Public School Construction were prompt and efficient in getting me the information, and I was able to obtain the records in person at the Department of General Services offices in the beautiful Ziggurat in West Sacramento.

Only one school district is avoiding the fees: the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD). It submitted four applications for state grants to the State Allocation Board via the Office of Public School Construction to fund “New Construction (Overcrowding Relief Grant)” on four projects: The Language Academy (low bid $10 million), Euclid Elementary School (low bid $7 million), Zamorano Elementary School (low bid $8.4 million), and Encanto Elementary School (low bid $5.7 million). See the four applications here.

Administrative offices of the San Diego Unified School District.

In the funding applications for each of those projects, the San Diego Unified School District checked off a box in Question 17 (“Prevailing Wage Monitoring and Enforcement Costs”) indicating that the monitoring requirement to be used by the school district will be “Collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.3(b)(3).”

This means that the San Diego Unified School District won’t need to pay fees to the state for labor law compliance activity on these projects because contractors working on them have to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. (See the special SDUSD “Project Stabilization Agreement” web page here for details.) In other words, the state is exempting the San Diego Unified School District from paying mandatory labor compliance fees because the school board requires contractors to sign a union agreement!

Under state law (Assembly Bill 436) and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 16452, the fee assessed by the Department of Industrial Relations cannot exceed one-quarter of one percent of the total amount of the total project construction costs. The State Allocation Board includes the costs of these fees in the funds it distributes to school districts.

The total cost of these four San Diego Unified School District projects is $31.1 million, meaning the school district was able to evade costs of $777,500 in fees to the California Department of Industrial Relations as a result of the school board requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions.

Unions Have Promoted Complex Labor Compliance Schemes in California for Twenty Years

Since the early 1990s, construction trade unions have lobbied the California State Legislature to implement various schemes meant to supplement the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (headed by the Labor Commissioner) in its monitoring and enforcement of construction contractor compliance with California’s laws related to state-mandated construction wage rates (“prevailing wages”) on public works projects.

Basically, union leaders and lobbyists imposed and expanded complicated, convoluted, burdensome wage rate mandates on public works contractors for each trade in various geographical regions (based on the jurisdictions of unions as defined in collective bargaining agreements). Then they complained when the state bureaucracy could not actively scrutinize all of their non-union competitors for possible violations of those laws.

For example, as cited in the committee bill analyses for Senate Bill 588 (2001), which allowed union-affiliated labor-management cooperation committees to obtain addresses and (initially) names of workers on certified payroll records, unions argued that “Because DLSE has only 20 field investigators and 6 auditors in the public works unit, that agency cannot adequately enforce the law on more than 22,000 public works projects each year.”

Reflecting the political priorities of unions during the administrative of Governor Gray Davis (1999-2003), the University of California Labor Program – flush with taxpayer funding starting in 2000 – produced a report about the history and status of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. Even while continually pushing for new labor laws, union officials and lobbyists called for more state funding for labor law enforcement, perhaps as part of the plot outlined in the guidebook first widely circulated in the early 2000s entitled Using the California Labor Laws Offensively: Organizing Through Enforcement of State Employment Laws.

Unions Exempted Their Construction Monopolies Under Project Labor Agreements from Labor Compliance Fees with Assembly Bill 436

The latest union-backed labor compliance scheme was enacted in 2011, after the California State Legislature gutted and amended Assembly Bill 436 on August 30, 2011 and turned it into a bill establishing new guidelines for local governments building projects using funding from four statewide bond measures. Here is a list of the four state bond measures covered by this law:

  1. The $13.05 billion Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 47, approved by 59% of voters in November 2002).
  2. The $12.3 billion Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004 (Proposition 55, approved by 50.9% of voters in March 2004).
  3. The $3.34 billion Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 50, approved by 55% of voters in November 2002 – note, don’t confuse this proposition with the $2.6 billion Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 – Proposition 40 – on the statewide ballot in March 2002).
  4. The $9.95 billion Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A, approved by 54% of voters in November 2008).

AB 436 requires school districts, community college districts, water districts, the California High Speed Rail Authority, and the now-disbanded San Diego Model School Development Agency to pay a fee to the California Department of Industrial Relations, in an amount “sufficient to support the department’s costs in ensuring compliance with and enforcing prevailing wage requirements” as well as “labor compliance enforcement” on projects funded by the four state bond measures listed above.

The bill included a couple of exceptions under which these local governments do not have to pay a fee to the state for labor law monitoring and enforcement. One exception applies to local governments that already established in-house labor compliance programs under old laws that the state enacted in 2002 (but subsequently repealed) – a technical matter.

But there was also an exception based on politics that earned the criticism of business associations and various newspaper editorial boards. Assembly Bill 436 was peppered with this provision for every kind of local government: “if it enters into a collective bargaining agreement that binds all of the contractors performing work on the project and that includes a mechanism for resolving disputes about the payment of wages.”

A “collective bargaining agreement that binds all of the contractors performing work on the project” is a Project Labor Agreement.

Assembly Bill 436 was authored by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Anaheim) and supported by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

A Project Labor Agreement Doesn’t Ensure Contractors Are Complying with Labor Laws

I’ve heard union officials say at local government meetings over the years that there would be no need for the government to monitor contractors for labor law compliance if the government required all of its contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with unions. Allegedly, unions check the paperwork and certified payroll records of their signatory contractors to make sure those companies aren’t violating the law.

Associated Builders and Contractors – California Cooperation Committee (ABC-CCC) investigated contractor labor law compliance for projects at the City of Milpitas and the Los Angeles Unified School District on which contractors were required to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions. ABC-CCC found numerous violations and disproved this contention. In fact, the discovery suggested that having a Project Labor Agreement (ironically) encourages labor law violations because chances are lower than people will be snooping around looking for them.

Despite these cases, the California State Legislature passed AB 436 to ensure that school districts that require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions are rewarded for reducing the number of bidders and participating subcontractors (i.e. cutting competition) and raising costs of behalf of construction unions.

Did the San Diego Unified School District Operate a Flawed Labor Compliance Program?

A study commissioned by the San Diego Unified School District and released by Rea & Parker Research in November 2011 about the performance of the district’s Project Labor Agreement reports “There has been an increase in reporting violations and deficiencies pertaining to labor compliance since the PSA was adopted.” Without evidence, the report goes on to contend that “the increase is due to increased attention to worker payroll and benefits under the PSA than before…” It also suggests that “It is known that PSA projects grant access to union representatives and that deficiencies may be due to increased attention to labor issues, and it may be that this increased attention may have resulting (sic) in increased protection of the wages and benefits of workers than may have existed prior to the PSA.”

Well, the unions will certainly cite this sentence as (unsubstantiated) “proof” that Project Labor Agreements provide sufficient monitoring and enforcement of contractor compliance with laws concerning state-mandated construction wage rates. But how did Rea & Parker isolate the Project Labor Agreement as a cause of the increase in discovered violations? There is at least one additional variable Rea & Parker Research should have considered: the operations of the twelve-year old San Diego Unified School District’s in-house labor compliance program.

The California Department of Industrial Relations has allowed the San Diego Unified School District to operate its own in-house labor compliance program under the strict criteria of California Labor Code 1771.5(b) since it first approved the program on September 14, 2000. When the school district sought permanent approval for its own labor compliance program a year later, it claimed that the program was “successfully operated since September 14, 2000” and provided documentation to the Department of Industrial Relations that “demonstrates SDUSD’s ability to monitor and enforce Public Works Prevailing Wage law consistent with CCR §16434 and Labor Code §1771.5.”

Was the San Diego Unified School District labor compliance program failing to fulfill its claims of successful operation, and if so, should the California Department of Industrial Relations retroactively revoke the program’s approval for the nine years before the school district implemented the Project Labor Agreement for the first project in the fall of 2009?

This is a serious matter that has implications for school district finances and for the paychecks of construction trade employees of many contractors that worked for the school district over the past twelve years. The standard project cost threshold for state-mandated construction wage rates is $1000. But local governments operating labor compliance programs approved under California Labor Code Section 1771.5 are qualified to set a higher project cost threshold of $25,000 for construction work and $15,000 for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance work.

For example, according to this report, in 2009-10 the San Diego Unified School District was able to exempt 114 contracts worth a total of $11,583,770.80 from state-mandated construction wage rates. In 2010-11, the San Diego Unified School District was able to exempt 258 contracts worth $61,822,251.08 from state-mandated construction wage rates, as reported here.

I expect there will be much more extensive research into the labor compliance program at San Diego Unified School District, now that the school board has placed a $2.8 billion bond measure on the November 6, 2012 ballot and passed a resolution to lock that taxpayer-funded work under a union Project Labor Agreement.

$500 Million California School Construction Funding Program for Career Technical Education – 5 1/2 Years Later, Is the Program a Success?

I think California taxpayers deserve to hear and know a lot more about the status and results of the significant investment of taxpayer funding on the construction and improvement of California school district facilities designated for career technical education (vocational education).

For example, has statewide demand for building these school facilities faded since the big mid-2000s push for career technical education led by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? How many students have been using these facilities, and is the rate of use increasing?

Why have some school districts not claimed the funds approved by the State Allocation Board for their career technical education facility funding?

Have there been cases in which school districts used career technical education funds to build facilities that were not used for that purpose in the end? Which school districts are guilty?

Has anyone investigated or audited some of these new or renovated facilities to determine they are actually being used for their intended purposes?

Which of the 15 sectors of career technical education have been most popular in terms of requests for state funding? Here’s the list:

  1. Agriculture and Natural Resources
  2. Arts, Media, and Entertainment
  3. Building Trades and Construction
  4. Education, Child Development, and Family Services
  5. Energy and Utilities
  6. Engineering and Design
  7. Fashion and Interior Design
  8. Finance and Business
  9. Health Science and Medical Technology
  10.  Hospitality, Tourism, and Recreation
  11.  Information Technology
  12.  Manufacturing and Product Development
  13.  Marketing, Sales, and Service
  14.  Public Services
  15.  Transportation

I’ll open this issue by presenting some of the background on funding and grants.

Voters Approved $500 Million in State Matching Grants in 2006

Go back in your memory to the halycon days of the fall of 2006: the economy was booming, house prices were sky-high, construction was happening everywhere, people were paying for luxury goods and services, and taxpayers were feeling generous. And the Schwarzenegger Administration was focused on encouraging “career technical education” to train the future workforce of California for all of the anticipated new construction jobs and other jobs requiring craft skills (see list of 15 sectors, above).

So, it was a ripe time to ask California voters to approve a $10.4 billion bond called the Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006. It was placed on the ballot through Assembly Bill 127, supported by most Democrat legislators, opposed by many Republican legislators, and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The ballot measure included $500 million for the construction of facilities related to career technical education programs – see California Education Code Section 101012 (a)(4).

The 2006 ballot argument in support of Proposition 1D claimed that “Many students need vocational training instead of college, but our schools do not have up-to-date facilities to provide it. 1D will enable schools to provide the career and technical training many students need to get jobs.” The 2006 ballot argument against Proposition 1D claimed the program was “untested.” (See ballot arguments here.)

Well, more the five years later, the Career Technical Education Facilities Program (CTEFP) has been “tested.” How is it doing? Have the difficult economic circumstances of the past five years cooled the enthusaism for career technical education in California schools?

Some School Districts Aren’t Asking for Their Approved Funding. Why?

The State Allocation Board allocates or apportions school construction matching grants administered by the Office of Public School Construction in the California Department of General Services.

I was inspired by an article posted on the web today (Dormant School Construction Projects Face Closer Scrutiny – June 5, 2012 – SI&A’s Cabinet Report) to examine the list provided by the Office of Public School Construction of construction projects approved for state matching grants but not funded to date. There is a large cluster of career technical education projects on the list. See the list – arranged by school district – at the end of this article. No reasons are given on the chart as to why the school districts have not requested the funds.

Funding Approval Has Declined, and Money Is Unexpectedly Still Not Allocated

The State Allocation Board reports that it made $33,031,490 in unfunded approvals available to fund applications submitted for a third funding cycle – a cycle not required in law but made possible when the $500 million was not used up in the first two rounds. It reported awarding $199 million in the first round. Despite a claim from the California Department of Education that “it is anticipated that all of the funds will be exhausted,” the second round resulted in apportionment of another $220 million for a total of about $420 million. (It is hard to pin down the exact numbers, for example, this legislative committee analysis for Senate Bill 1380, dated June 30, 2010, claimed that a total of $409 million had been apportioned in the first two cycles, while this analysis for SB 1380 dated April 15, 2010 reported that a total of $417.2 million had been apportioned in the first two cycles.)

According to a “Report of the Executive Officer” for the April 25, 2012 State Allocation Board meeting, “74 Career Technical Education Facilities Program applications totaling approximately $103.6 million in State funds have been received by the Office of Public School Construction as part of the third funding cycle, but have not been approved by the Board due to insufficient bond authority…An additional 73 Career Technical Education Facilities Program Board-approved projects totaling $94.4 million in State funds are currently on the Unfunded List (Lack of AB 55 Loans).”

The California Department of Education has a web site summarizing the program. For some reason, the Department of Education has not posted statutorily required status reports about the program since 2010. The State Allocation Board also has a web site about the program.

As a layperson looking at this program, I find it frustrating and difficult to figure out what’s going on. There should be a single site that informs taxpayers of what has been allocated to specific Career Technical Education Facilities Program projects, which applications for funding are up for approval, which projects are approved, and which projects have been approved but not funded and the reason why they are not funded. Perhaps I am naive to expect that kind of information?

In addition, there is a lot of terminology thrown about, such as “approved,” “allocated,” “apportioned,” “disbursed,” “awarded,” and “available.” It’s hard to untangle.

Proposed Legislation Suggests Either Fraud or Changing Needs in School Districts

Senate Bill 1380 (introduced in 2010) would have changed the Career Technical Education Facilities Program (authorized by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998) to require school boards to pass a resolution indicating that school facilities constructed or modernized with specified bond funds set aside for career technical education purposes would be used for career technical education purposes for a minimum of five years. SB 1380 also allowed a school board to seek a waiver of the career technical education use requirement from the State Allocation Board if school district enrollment changed, if enrollment in career technical programs changed, if the district was unable to hire qualified instructors, or if “labor market demands” changed.

In support of this bill, Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), a member of the State Allocation Board, cited “several implementation problems with the CTEFP program, including LEAs constructing or modernizing CTE facilities and then using them for non-CTE programs.”

Despite passing through the legislature without any votes against it, Senate Bill 1380 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with this message:

For years many career technical education (CTE) programs and facilities have been ignored or eliminated altogether. However, during my time in office the state has made substantial investment in CTE. This bill stands to threaten the recent investments in this area, as well as the significant momentum we have achieved. By allowing CTE bond funds to be used for CTE investments with just a five year minimum lifespan, and for non-CTE related purposes, this bill seriously risks jeopardizing the quality and scope of investments we make in these facilities.

Note that this bill originally proposed transfering $200 million from the Overcrowded Relief Grants Program to the Career Technical and Education Facilities Program (CTEFP), because it was anticipated that the $500 million would be exhausted in the third round of funding. According to this legislative committee report for SB 1380, applications totaling $231 million were submitted for the third round. (Once again, figures are inconsistent from source to source.)

More Suggestions of Fraud or Changing Priorities for School Districts?

When Senator Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad/San Juan Capistrano) was appointed to the State Allocation Board in January 2012, he issued a press release entitled “Shaking Things Up at the State Allocation Board” with these remarks:

In addition to exploring in-depth how funds are allocated, this position also creates an opportunity to further promote career technical education (CTE). CTE courses engage and stimulate students with hands-on training in a wide array of fields, leading to greater student success following graduation.

Under a law I authored in 2007, applicants for bond money are required to detail how schools would use funds to house CTE programs. Unfortunately, it appears that many applicants fail to meet this requirement. With this new position I intend to bring attention to CTE and ensure that California’s schools are offering students the opportunities and resources that they deserve.

School Districts with Unfunded Approvals for Career Technical Education Construction Facility Matching Grants from the State Allocation Board under Proposition 1D

ALAMEDA COUNTY – DUBLIN UNIFIED 59/75093-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/11/2010  $533,605

ALAMEDA COUNTY – NEW HAVEN UNIFIED 59/61242-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/23/2010  $394,342

BUTTE COUNTY – CHICO UNIFIED 55/61424-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 6/6/2008  $3,000,000

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – PITTSBURG UNIFIED 59/61788-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 2/26/2010  $1,409,655

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED 55/61804-00-005 Career Tech New Construction 3/25/2010   $817,130

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED 55/61804-00-006 Career Tech New Construction 3/25/2010   $412,085

EL DORADO COUNTY – EL DORADO UNION HIGH 59/61853-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/26/2010  $821,617

FRESNO COUNTY – KINGS CANYON JOINT UNIFIED 55/62265-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $3,000,000

KERN COUNTY – KERN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 55/10157-98-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/29/2010  $723,600

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-017 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $434,224

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-019 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $79,997

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-020 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $826,720

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-021 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $838,925

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-022 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $192,803

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-027 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $596,824

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-029 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $723,188

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-030 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $152,203

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – ARCADIA UNIFIED 55/64261-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $2,316,200

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – ARCADIA UNIFIED 59/64261-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010  $470,962

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LONG BEACH UNIFIED 59/64725-00-003 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/11/2010  $1,500,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LONG BEACH UNIFIED 59/64725-00-004 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/11/2010  $1,500,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-007 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,963,579

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-008 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $3,000,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-009 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,225,266

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-009 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,774,734

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-011 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $2,413,880

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-013 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,533,959

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 59/64733-00-027 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010  $50,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 59/64733-00-028 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010  $1,401,783

MADERA COUNTY – CHAWANAKEE UNIFIED 55/75606-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/16/2010   $2,086,640

MONTEREY COUNTY – MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 59/10272-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010  $660,837

NAPA COUNTY – NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED 55/66266-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010   $465,127

ORANGE COUNTY – TUSTIN UNIFIED 59/73643-00-003 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010   $73,732

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – BEAUMONT UNIFIED 59/66993-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010   $1,335,796

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 55/67058-00-003 Career Tech New Construction 3/10/2010   $2,130,036

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 55/67058-00-005 Career Tech New Construction 3/10/2010   $1,040,611

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 55/67058-00-006 Career Tech New Construction 3/10/2010   $2,666,732

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – RIVERSIDE UNIFIED 59/67215-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010   $579,687

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – COLTON-REDLANDS-YUCAIPA ROP 59/74138-00-015 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010   $2,050

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – RIALTO UNIFIED 55/67850-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/3/2010   $1,926,384

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – RIALTO UNIFIED 59/67850-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/3/2010   $1,114,449

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – SWLINE JOINT UNIFIED 55/73957-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/3/2010   $1,093,051

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – SWLINE JOINT UNIFIED 55/73957-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/3/2010   $1,031,968

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – CORONADO UNIFIED 59/68031-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,360,199

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – GROSSMONT UNION HIGH 55/68130-13-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 55/68338-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $2,918,735

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 55/68338-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $986,812

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 55/68338-00-004 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $1,470,162

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,427,767

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-002 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $473,045

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-004 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,380,824

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-006 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $473,110

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-007 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,022,484

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-008 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,500,000

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – MANTECA UNIFIED 55/68593-00-004 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $2,253,216

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – STOCKTON UNIFIED 55/68676-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/29/2010   $3,000,000

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – STOCKTON UNIFIED 59/68676-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/29/2010   $1,499,715

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – TRACY JOINT UNIFIED 59/75499-00-007 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $514,087

SAN MATEO COUNTY – SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 55/69062-00-004 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $2,073,405

SAN MATEO COUNTY – SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 55/69062-00-006 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SAN MATEO COUNTY – SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 55/69062-00-007 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 55/69401-00-007 Career Tech New Construction 3/8/2010   $625,964

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 59/69401-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/8/2010   $1,003,238

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 59/69401-00-002 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/8/2010   $610,353

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – GILROY UNIFIED 59/69484-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $1,191,901

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – PALO ALTO UNIFIED 55/69641-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SIERRA COUNTY – SIERRA-PLUMAS JOINT UNIFIED 55/70177-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010   $174,412

SISKIYOU COUNTY – SISKIYOU UNION HIGH 55/70466-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010   $296,772

SISKIYOU COUNTY – SISKIYOU UNION HIGH 59/70466-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $143,380

SONOMA COUNTY – SANTA ROSA HIGH 55/70920-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/26/2010  $1,332,711

STANISLAUS COUNTY – CERES UNIFIED 59/71043-00-003 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/25/2010   $1,201,300

STANISLAUS COUNTY – MODESTO CITY HIGH 59/71175-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $337,760

SUTTER COUNTY – YUBA CITY UNIFIED 59/71464-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010   $839,622