AB339_Prevailing_Wage_Exemption.docx
DOCX document 113 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 4521
- Issued by
- Los Angeles County, San Francisco City, California
About this file
This is an internal email chain from the City of Santa Monica's procurement department regarding the application of Assembly Bill 339 (AB339) to public works projects. Teresa Villa, the Procurement Manager, provides clarification following consultation with the Legal and Compliance Wing (LCW), City Administrative Officer (CAO), and Human Resources regarding prevailing wage exemptions. The key determination is that public works projects are exempt from AB339 requirements, but only when they meet the specific definition of a public works project under the City's guidelines—which is when prevailing wage is applicable. The exemption applies exclusively to competed solicitations and renewed or extended contracts; non-competed solicitations and amended contracts are not exempt. This interpretation represents a point of distinction from guidance provided at the California Procurement Officers Association (CAPPO), and Villa acknowledges that the law's application remains subject to potential change pending future litigation adjudication.
Denise Mixon's inquiry raises a critical compliance question regarding public works projects in departments like Public Works that may overlap with services performed by unionized City employees, specifically those represented by the Teamsters union who work as skilled trades including painters, plumbers, and electricians. Villa's response confirms that the exemption applies to the nature of the project itself rather than the department requesting it, and that public works projects meeting prevailing wage applicability standards are exempt from AB339 regardless of potential overlap with existing City workforce capabilities. The email does not specify funding amounts, contract terms, or pricing structure, as it primarily addresses regulatory interpretation and compliance methodology for the solicitation process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Painting_Services_for_the_Water_Resources_Division_(Addendum_#1_Revision).pdf | ||
| Painting_Services_for_the_Water_Resources_Division.pdf | ||
| GREENSAND_C_(1).jpg | JPG image | |
| IMG_8217.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| IMG_8216.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| CSA_Insurance_Template.pdf | ||
| CSA_Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| Payment_Bond.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
From: Teresa Villa <Teresa.Villa@santamonica.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 6:38 PM To: Denise Mixon <Denise.Mixon@santamonica.gov> Cc: Tina Saloutos <Tina.Saloutos@santamonica.gov>; Kellee MacDonald <Kellee.MacDonald@santamonica.gov>; Nicole Hurd <Nicole.Hurd@santamonica.gov> Subject: RE: AB339 clarification for Public Works projects with potential overlap
Hi Denise, I understand and agree with your concern. I met with LCW, CAO, and HR today and LCW confirmed that public works projects are exempt from AB 339. To be clear, the exemption is for ”public works projects.” In other words, if we get requests from the department of Public Works, they are not automatically exempt. It is when the request meets the definition of a public works project, and by our City’s definition that would be when prevailing wage is applicable.
That said, LCW said what I’ve been saying from Jan 1, this is all new and until there is litigation adjudicated, this is subject to change. Based on your example below, it seems inevitable that the teamsters would be one of the first labor groups to contest. We’ll have to standby and see.
Related note: unlike the CAPPO legislative update, LCW interprets the law similar to how it was first introduced to me: This applies to only to competed solicitations and renewed/extended contracts only. So, while the actual law does not mention thresholds, LCW says if we have a solicitation that is not going out on the street, it is not subject to AB 339. I asked that specific question. Furthermore, LCW said it is only renewed and extended contracts, and not amended contracts that are subject; which again, is different than what has stated at CAPPO. Let me know if you still have questions.
Thanks, Teresa M. Villa, C.P.M., CPPB, Procurement Manager
(310) 458-8242 santamonica.gov Facebook | Twitter | Instagram Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Denise Mixon <Denise.Mixon@santamonica.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 9:39 AM To: Teresa Villa <Teresa.Villa@santamonica.gov> Cc: Tina Saloutos <Tina.Saloutos@santamonica.gov>; Kellee MacDonald <Kellee.MacDonald@santamonica.gov>; Nicole Hurd <Nicole.Hurd@santamonica.gov> Subject: AB339 clarification for Public Works projects with potential overlap Importance: High
Hi Teresa, As I support the Public Works department, I want to ensure that I understand and am being compliant with AB339. Are Public Works projects still exempt from AB 339 if the City employs workers represented by a bargaining unit who perform the same or similar types of work and could potentially perform the services included in the solicitation’s scope of work? The City currently employs various skilled trades, such as painters, plumbers, electricians, and others, who are represented by the Teamsters union?
If the Public Works project is exempt from AB339 what steps should be taken to comply with AB339?
Thank you, Denise Mixon Senior Buyer
(310) 458-2211 santamonica.gov Facebook | Twitter | Instagram Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates image2.jpeg image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .