Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor and subcontractor say Homekey procurement procedures were not followed; supervisors to get more information
Summary
Public commenters at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ Dec. 31 special meeting said a listed subcontractor on a Homekey project was improperly substituted by the prime contractor and that the housing department declined to intervene; the GSA director was asked to follow up.
Speakers at the Dec. 31 Alameda County Board of Supervisors special meeting urged the board to investigate a procurement dispute on a Homekey project, saying a listed subcontractor was later substituted without the process required by public contract rules.
Javier Chavez, who identified himself as the owner of JC Project (a Homekey contractor), said his firm submitted a proposal that was accepted and that he later received notice they were being held off the job. "We submit our, our proposal and it got accepted," Chavez said. He described uncertainty about the status and invited a colleague to explain further.
Bendu Griffin, introduced by the clerk as a speaker on the matter, gave a detailed account alleging the prime contractor substituted the listed subcontractor without following the public contract code's substitution procedures. Griffin said the prime contractor had negotiated an increased subcontract value and later sent a subcontract that added work (including metal framing and requiring a hygienist); when the listed subcontractor objected and returned a revised submittal, Griffin said the prime contractor later notified them they had been substituted.
Griffin recounted outreach to county staff and said the housing department responded by email, effectively declining to reverse the substitution. "We finally spoke to the housing department and told them according to the contract code... once a listed subcontractor is listed, they cannot be substituted by the agency, awarding agency, unless in their stipulations," Griffin said, adding he sent the relevant public contract code language to staff. Griffin said he received an email that said, in effect, "I'm sorry. We there's nothing we can do."
The chair said the GSA director would speak with the commenters to gather more information and see what next steps are possible. No board action or formal finding was made at the meeting.
The speakers asked supervisors to intervene so the small contractor that expended money and prepared submittals is not left without recourse; the housing department's exact rationale for declining to act was not explained in the public remarks recorded in the meeting.
