AB 361 authorizes California school district governing boards to use a ‘‘best value’’ procurement method for public projects over $1,000,000, subject to procedural safeguards and a built-in sunset. The law defines ‘‘best value’’ as a competitive process that selects the bidder offering the optimum combination of price and qualifications, and it requires districts to adopt and publish objective evaluation procedures when they choose this method.
The statute creates a scoring formula, sets prequalification rules (including workforce and apprenticeship commitments), limits retention when bonds are required, and requires an independent, district-funded evaluation of the pilot by January 1, 2030. The measure is temporary and contains transparency, protest, and reporting hooks designed to allow assessment of whether best-value procurement produces better project outcomes than traditional lowest-responsible-bidder awards.
At a Glance
What It Does
Permits school districts (except Los Angeles Unified) to use a best-value selection process for projects above $1 million by combining price and quantified qualifications; districts must publish their evaluation criteria, methodology, and weights and keep certain bidder information confidential when allowed under public-records law.
Who It Affects
Local K–12 governing boards that opt in, general contractors and subcontractors bidding on school projects over $1 million, district procurement and legal staff who must design and administer scoring systems, and unions/ apprenticeship programs that enforce skilled-and-trained workforce requirements.
Why It Matters
This creates a time-limited experiment that shifts procurement discretion toward qualifications as well as cost, potentially rewarding contractors with stronger safety, financial, or management records while changing how bidders price jobs and how districts run procurements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 361 sets up an optional best-value procurement track for school districts to use on larger projects. Rather than awarding purely to the lowest responsible bidder, districts may adopt a scoring system that converts a bidder’s price and a numerical ‘‘qualification score’’ into a best value score by dividing price by that qualification score; the law anticipates awarding to the bidder with the lowest best value score.
A district must adopt and publish its procedures and the specific criteria and weights it will use before soliciting bids.
The statute requires districts to run a prequalification process. A prequalified bidder must provide an enforceable commitment that it and its subcontractors will use a skilled-and-trained workforce for apprenticeable occupations, unless the bidder is bound by a qualifying project labor agreement (including certain renewals or agreements entered into by the bidder).
Solicitation documents must identify the exact criteria, methodology, and relative weights used to evaluate qualifications, and the district must score qualifications before revealing bidder identities or prices.The law also addresses contract mechanics and protections: when a performance and payment bond is required in the solicitation, the district’s retention withheld from the selected contractor cannot exceed 5 percent, and that cap generally flows down to subcontractors unless a subcontractor cannot supply a bond, in which case the contractor may withhold a higher retention from payments to that subcontractor. If the chosen awardee refuses to sign, the district may move to the bidder with the next lowest best value score.
Finally, districts that use best value must pay for an independent report—covering awards, amounts, protests, weighting, and completed-project performance—due to the Legislature by January 1, 2030; the entire article sunsets January 1, 2031.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines best value score as price divided by a bidder’s qualification score and contemplates awarding to the bidder with the lowest best value score.
Districts may use the best-value method only for projects over $1,000,000 and only for procurements conducted before December 31, 2030; the statute itself expires January 1, 2031.
Prequalification requires an enforceable commitment that the bidder and its subcontractors will use a skilled-and-trained workforce for apprenticeable trades unless a qualifying project labor agreement applies, with narrow grandfathering and exception rules.
If the solicitation requires a performance and payment bond, the district’s retention from the selected contractor cannot exceed 5 percent, and that percentage must generally be passed on to subcontractors; however, contractors may withhold more from subs that cannot furnish required bonds.
A district that uses best value must commission and pay for an independent, third-party report (single reports may cover multiple districts) detailing awards, award amounts, protest resolutions, evaluation weights, and, where complete, project performance; that report is due to the Legislature by January 1, 2030.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scoring basics
This section supplies the core vocabulary—‘best value’, ‘best value score’, and the components of ‘qualifications’ (financial condition, relevant experience, management competency, labor compliance, and safety). The statute standardizes safety metrics (average EMR and injury rates) and requires financial-condition evaluation to include capacity for bonds and insurance, which anchors subjective judgment to concrete metrics when districts construct qualification scores.
When districts may opt in and award mechanics
Governing boards may elect to use best value for projects exceeding $1 million prior to the 12/31/2030 cutoff. The board must publish fair-evaluation procedures and may, if the selected bidder refuses to execute the contract, award to the second- or third-lowest best value scorer. The section also prescribes retention rules when bonds are required and protects subcontractors under existing statutory chapters, establishing how financial protections flow through the contracting chain.
Prequalification, workforce rules, and solicitation content
Districts must prequalify bidders and may keep prequalification submissions confidential to the extent allowed by the California Public Records Act. A prequalified bidder must commit to a skilled-and-trained workforce for apprenticeable trades unless a qualifying project labor agreement applies; the statute lists three narrow exceptions, including project labor agreements entered before January 1, 2025. Solicitations must disclose the evaluation criteria, the exact weighting methodology, and ensure the qualification scoring occurs blind to bidder identities and prices.
Independent reporting requirement
Every district that uses best value must pay for an independent third-party report—districts may join to submit a consolidated report—due to legislative policy and fiscal committees by January 1, 2030. The mandated report is detailed: it must list awards and contract amounts, contractors’ names, protests and resolutions, the prequalification process, the weights and effectiveness of evaluation criteria, and completed-project performance including delays or cost overruns. The provision signals legislative intent to treat this as a pilot with evidence-based review.
Relationship to lowest-responsible-bidder rule
The bill explicitly states that best value is not intended to change other governing-board rules about letting contracts to the lowest responsible bidder except where the board opts into this article. That creates a legal boundary: districts retain their traditional discretion unless they formally adopt the best-value procedures required here, which must be followed when they choose that route.
Sunset and temporary status
The article is repealed effective January 1, 2031. The temporary window combined with the reporting requirement frames the statute as an experimental policy: districts get a multi-year trial period, but the Legislature will receive data before the law lapses so it can decide whether to extend, modify, or terminate best-value authority.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- School districts — Gain more discretion to weigh contractor qualifications (safety, management, experience) alongside price, which can reduce risk of poor performance on complex projects.
- Contractors with strong non-price credentials — Firms with better safety records, bonding capacity, or demonstrated management capacity stand to win more contracts even if their nominal price is higher.
- Labor and apprenticeship programs — The prequalification requirement for a skilled-and-trained workforce, and the exceptions tied to project labor agreements, strengthen demand for apprenticeships and union-constructed workforce standards.
- Project owners and local communities — Potentially benefit from higher-quality construction outcomes and fewer contractor-driven delays or safety incidents if qualifications are properly weighted and enforced.
Who Bears the Cost
- Smaller or lowest-cost contractors — Firms that compete primarily on price may lose awards and face higher barriers if they cannot demonstrate strong qualification scores or provide bonds.
- Subcontractors unable to obtain bonds — The rule allowing contractors to withhold higher retention from subs that can't furnish bonds shifts cash-flow and default risk down the chain and can strain small specialty firms.
- School district procurement and legal teams — Districts must design, publish, and administer objective scoring systems, run confidential prequalification processes, and pay for independent evaluations, increasing administrative and legal workload and expense.
- Taxpayers/funders — If best-value awards trend toward higher-priced contractors, taxpayers may see higher upfront costs even if intended to reduce lifecycle overruns; districts also bear the cost of the mandated third-party reporting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between awarding contracts that minimize upfront price versus awarding contracts that minimize overall project risk and long-term costs: the bill pushes districts toward valuing qualifications and safety, which can improve outcomes on complex projects but also reduces the objectivity and transparency of strictly price-based awards and can disadvantage lower-cost bidders and small subcontractors.
The statute converts qualitative attributes (safety, management competency, labor compliance) into numerical qualification scores that feed directly into a price-over-score formula. That creates two practical challenges: choosing metrics and setting weights in a way that is defensible, and training staff to apply them consistently.
If weights or scoring rubrics are poorly designed, districts may unintentionally favor higher-priced firms or invite legal protests alleging arbitrary or capricious evaluation.
The retention and bonding rules attempt to strike a balance between contractor protections and subcontractor liquidity, but they can produce perverse incentives. Requiring or anticipating bonds while capping district retention at 5 percent shifts bond-related costs onto contractors and potentially onto subcontractors who cannot secure bonds, who then face larger withholdings.
The confidentiality carveout for prequalification materials reduces public transparency in exchange for protecting commercial information, raising oversight and accountability questions. Finally, the independent-report requirement is comprehensive but adds cost and relies on evaluators who must assess subjective methodologies; interpreting whether best-value produced better outcomes versus simply higher costs will be analytically fraught.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.