Opinion ID: 1160921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether state or local competitive bidding law applies

Text: As a charter city, San Francisco enjoys autonomous rule over municipal affairs pursuant to article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, subject only to conflicting provisions in the federal and state Constitutions and to preemptive state law. ( Domar, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 170, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 521, 885 P.2d 934; Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, 397, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 841 P.2d 990; California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 12, 283 Cal.Rptr. 569, 812 P.2d 916.) ABC argues the size and scope of the airport expansion renders the project a matter of statewide concern. It asserts that the airport is located outside the city limits of San Francisco, in San Mateo County, the project is funded with state and federal money and is subject to state prevailing wage laws, and the airport itself is projected to serve 51,000,000 passengers per year by 2006. These circumstances, ABC argues, necessarily remove the project from the category of purely municipal affairs. ABC contends, therefore, that the legality of the PSA specification in the airport expansion project bid must be determined with reference to Public Contract Code section 20128, rather than San Francisco Administrative Code section 6.1 (respectively the state and local competitive bidding laws). The Commission disputes some of these assertions, noting that the airport is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, that San Mateo County's (not the state's) prevailing wage rates apply only because the San Francisco Board of Supervisors selected those rates as the applicable measure (see S.F. Charter, appen. A, § A7.204; S.F. Admin. Code, §§ 6.38, 6.39; Vial v. City of San Diego (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 346, 348, 175 Cal.Rptr. 647), and that the project is funded through airport revenue bonds, not state or federal funds. Even apart from these factual disputes, the Commission contends ABC focuses on an inapt issue. The relevant inquiry, according to the Commission, is whether the mode of contracting, not the subject matter of the contract, is a municipal affair. In support, the Commission relies on Smith v. City of Riverside (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 529, 110 Cal.Rptr. 67, which reasoned: Plaintiffs' contention that distribution of electricity and water are matters of statewide concern misses the mark. The municipal activity at issue is not the distribution of electricity and water but the mode chosen to build and extend the distribution facilities. `... Whatever the subject matter of a municipal contract, it is manifest that the mode in which a city chooses to contract is a municipal affair....' ( Dynamic Ind. Co. v. City of Long Beach [(1958)] 159 Cal. App.2d 294, 299 [323 P.2d 768].) ( Smith v. City of Riverside, supra, at p. 536, 110 Cal.Rptr. 67; see also Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1081, 44 Cal. Rptr.2d 472 [San Francisco, as a charter city, has adopted its own laws requiring competitive bidding on public works contracts involving expenditure of more than $50,000]; id. at p. 1094, fn. 9, 44 Cal. Rptr.2d 472 [competitive bidding requirements for general law cities are governed by the Local Agency Public Construction Act, Pub. Contract Code, § 20100 et seq.]; Piledrivers' Local Union v. City of Santa Monica (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 509, 512, 198 Cal.Rptr. 731 [observing that state interest in the project is not the same thing as state interest in competitive bidding and concluding that state legislation demonstrating an interest in the operation of piers did not preempt local regulation of contract letting].) The Commission's argument appears the better supported by authority, but we need not resolve the question, because the parties point to no substantive difference in the outcome of this case dependent on the application of state or local competitive bidding law. In resolving whether state or local law applies, the court must first determine whether a genuine conflict between those laws in fact exists. ( Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 400-01, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 841 P.2d 990.) Only if the court concludes an actual conflict exists should it go on to analyze whether the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern. ( California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 16-17, 283 Cal.Rptr. 569, 812 P.2d 916.) As the Court of Appeal in this case recognized and as all parties seem to agree, California Public Contract Code section 20128, requiring contracts be let to the lowest responsible bidder, and San Francisco Administrative Code section 6.1, using the formulation lowest reliable and responsible bidder, do not conflict. We therefore need not determine whether the inclusion of the PSA specification in the airport project bid request involves a matter of statewide concern.