72 Cal.App.5th 884
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Fair Education Santa Barbara (FESB) challenged two one-year no-bid contracts (2018–19 and 2019–20) between Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD) and Just Communities Central Coast (JCCC) for anti-bias/diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
- JCCC provided specialized DEI training and customized programming; facilitators had significant training, some were former educators, and many had local community ties; SBUSD said no public resource could provide comparable services.
- FESB sought a writ of mandate to invalidate the contracts as subject to competitive bidding under Pub. Contract Code §20111.
- The trial court denied the petition, characterizing SBUSD’s award as a quasi-legislative decision and finding the contracts exempt from bidding as “professional services” and as “special services” under Gov. Code §53060.
- On appeal, FESB argued the court used an overly deferential standard and misapplied the professional, special-services, and common-law exemptions; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for awarding a no-bid public contract | Awarding a contract subject to bidding warrants close judicial scrutiny; the act is ministerial | The award is quasi-legislative; review should be deferential (arbitrary/capricious standard) | The award was quasi-legislative; deferential review applies to SBUSD’s discretionary determination, with de novo review for statutory interpretation |
| Whether JCCC contracts fall within the "professional services" exemption (Pub. Contract Code §20111(d)) | "Professional services" requires a statutory license/certification; JCCC doesn’t qualify | "Professional services" includes services requiring specialized knowledge/training even if no license; record shows JCCC meets that standard | Court held "professional services" includes specialized intellectual services; substantial evidence supported SBUSD’s finding that JCCC qualified |
| Whether JCCC contracts qualify as "special services" (Gov. Code §53060) | JCCC’s DEI services aren’t among the specifically listed categories and thus not exempt | "Special services" is broader; courts have applied it where services are specialized, temporary, or unavailable from public sources | Court held substantial evidence supported that JCCC provided "special services" (specialized, qualified, not available from public sources) |
| Applicability of the common-law exemption to competitive bidding | Competitive bidding should apply; no showing that bidding would be impractical or unavailing | Common-law exemption applies where competitive proposals would be unavailing or impractical given the subject-matter | Court did not need to resolve this separately because statutory exemptions were sufficient; common-law exemption was not necessary to decide the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cal.4th 161 (Cal. 1994) (explains purpose of competitive bidding and that bidding procedures are strictly construed)
- Weinstein v. County of Los Angeles, 237 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (awarding a no-bid contract is legislative; deferential review for discretionary determinations but de novo for statutory interpretation)
- Cobb v. Pasadena City Board of Education, 134 Cal.App.2d 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955) (Government Code §53060 special-services exemption applied to non-listed specialized services)
- Sunnyvale Elementary v. California School Employees Assn., 36 Cal.App.3d 46 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (services involving highly trained personnel and unavailable from public sources qualify as special services)
- Konica Business Machines U.S.A. Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 206 Cal.App.3d 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (cases involving defective bidding processes receive close judicial scrutiny)
- Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency, 104 Cal.App.3d 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (common-law exemption where competitive proposals would be unavailing)
- Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., 119 Cal.App.4th 1241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (discusses limits on emergency exceptions and review of legislative determinations)