Committee advances policy to screen county bidders for wage-theft liability under AB 520

The Alameda County Procurement & Contracting Committee on Nov. 17 moved to send a draft procurement policy to the full Board that would screen bidders and add contract language to reduce the county’s exposure to joint-and-several liability under AB 520 (amending Labor Code 238.5).

Kimberly Gassaway, director of the county General Services Agency, told the committee the law—signed Oct. 10, 2023 and effective Jan. 1, 2024—makes public entities potentially liable for unpaid wages if a contractor providing property services or long-term care staffing is found liable by the Labor Commissioner. Gassaway said the proposed policy would require pre-award certifications and ongoing notice obligations, allow county audits, and permit withholding, suspension or termination for noncompliance. “Each bidder must certify under penalty of perjury that it has no unsatisfied final judgments, and they provide written notice of any such judgments prior to award,” she said.

The policy as presented would apply prospectively to solicitations, contracts, amendments, extensions, renewals and purchase orders for property services (security, landscaping, valet and similar services) and long-term care services. Gassaway said departments that manage contracts must report any notice of claim or judgment to GSA, procurement and county counsel within five business days.

Supervisors pressed staff on how the statute and the proposed policy affect workers’ knowledge and on the scope of services covered. County Counsel representative Cathy Liam said the law requires the employer to provide notice of a judgment to the contracting party but that failure to provide that notice does not remove the county’s potential liability. “Employees may not know that it’s a county contract,” she said, adding that the notice requirement addresses judgments not whether employees always learn the contracting arrangement.

Union representatives and a county security worker urged a stronger approach. Alex Garcia, a political organizer with SEIU USWW, asked the county to require that bidders demonstrate workforces covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), saying CBAs protect workers and prevent a “race to the bottom.” Security worker Zaid Elamin said unions function as a watchdog that secures paid breaks and health care for members.

Gassaway and counsel noted implementation constraints. They reported staff could not find any collective bargaining agreements that expressly waive county liability—an explicit waiver in a CBA is the statutory condition that would relieve county exposure—and said it would be legally and practically challenging to require unions to waive county liability. Staff recommended phasing the work: adopt the proposed screening and contract language for the high-risk categories now and return with research on whether and how collective-bargaining conditions or CBA-based requirements could be pursued.

The committee voted to forward the draft policy to the full Board and directed staff to research collective-bargaining approaches for the same categories and report back in the spring. The motion passed with Supervisors Marquez and Miley voting Aye.

Next steps: staff will prepare a board letter and resolution and outline the implementation timeline tied to the RFP and contract schedules; expansion beyond the identified categories would be considered after a pilot and legal review.