Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Astaldi Construction Corporation et al.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendants in a dispute arising from a transportation design-build project and an unexecuted subcontract. The court held that the substitution procedures under Public Contract Code section 4107 did not apply because the plaintiff was not listed in the original bid and its proposed work was below the one-half-of-one-percent threshold incorporated through section 6826. The court also rejected reliance on the prime contract and Southern California Acoustics Co. v. C. V. Holder, Inc.

Holdings

1. Section 4107's substitution procedures are directed to substitution of a subcontractor listed in the original bid, and Golden State Boring was not listed in OC 405's original bid.
2. The substitution requirements of section 4107 apply only when the subcontractor's proposed work exceeds one-half of one percent of the prime contractor's total bid.
3. Section 7.2.3 of the prime contract did not independently require substitution procedures beyond those required by Public Contract Code section 4100 et seq.
4. Southern California Acoustics did not authorize Golden State Boring's benefit-of-the-bargain claim because that case involved a listed subcontractor wrongfully substituted under the Subcontracting Practices Act, not a subcontractor selected after the original bid under section 6826.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Public Contract Code section 6826, subdivision (c), afforded Golden State Boring the substitution protections of section 4107 even though it was not listed in the original bid.
2. Whether the substitution requirements of section 4107 apply to a subcontract whose proposed value is below the one-half-of-one-percent threshold in section 4104, subdivision (a)(1).
3. Whether section 7.2.3 of the prime contract independently required compliance with the section 4100 et seq. substitution procedures.
4. Whether Golden State Boring could pursue benefit-of-the-bargain damages under Southern California Acoustics Co. v. C. V. Holder, Inc.

Disposition

affirmed