Questions Regarding Long Beach for the Judicial Council

Posted on July 6, 2015


There’s been a bit of a change of heart. Initially, we were going to post the whole story which we’re still working on.

Then we thought about giving the judicial council the opportunity to respond…. but over the weekend we figured that it was beneficial that you dear readers should know the questions that we asked the Judicial Council. With their standard fare of taking ten days to get back with the public just to tell us how many days, weeks or months that would elapse to produce answers responsive to our request we figured that you should be able to follow the dots and come to your own conclusions about the states most expensive courthouse and when you do, we think that you too will demand some answers.

What is written below is an excerpt from an email written to

The questions below pertain to the Long Beach courthouse PPP project and were directed at that project. The information was gleaned from a variety of public records, one of which was the actual Long Beach contract that we obtained from the state Department of Finance because the Judicial Council wouldn’t turn it over.

The State Department of Finance turned it over less than 48 hours after we requested it.


1. In a few different sources, it was presented that there were initially 11 potential consortium bidders on this project, yet I can find no record of whom the 11 potential consortiums were. Can you please provide me a list of all 11 potential bidders that initially responded? Specifically, I am looking for their legal DBA name(s) of the consortiums and comprised companies and their business address at the time of their response.

2. These 11 potential bidders were whittled down to 5 potential bidders selected for the interview.

2a) Who were the 5 potential bidders selected for the interview? and

2b) Who were the members of the committee that whittled down the 11 potential bidders to the 5 potential bidders selected for the interview?

2c) Who were the “interviewers” of the 5 potential bidders?

3. At each stage of this process there must have been criteria that qualified or disqualified the proposers and interviewees. Can you please disclose the criteria that caused you to

3a) Select the initial 5 interviewees from a field of 11 potential bidders?

3b) Select the subsequent 3 proposers from a field of 5 interviewees?

4. On May 8, 2009 the AOC announced that 3 proposers were selected to bid on this project. Balfour Beatty Capital, Inc, California Judicial Partners LLC and Langford-Phelps Long Beach Judicial Partners LLC yet on May 8, 2009, only one of the selected entities was legally permitted to do business in California. Later, at the time of the award of the project, only one of the selected entities was legally permitted to do business in California. Oddly, the entity that was selected was none of the above, it was an entity named Long Beach Judicial Partners LLC which was first registered with the department of corporations on May 21, 2009.

4a) If, on May 8, 2009 as department of corporations records show, only one entity was legally permitted to do business in California, why were the other two short-listed to make a proposal?

4b) Your contract required the successful bidder to compensate the unsuccessful bidders a half of a million dollars each for their time and effort in making their proposals. Yet at the time of the award, the unsuccessful bidders were not qualified or otherwise licensed to do business in California. Were these half million dollar payments made to the unqualified bidders and can you provide a 1099 or copy of checks made to the unqualified, unlicensed and unsuccessful bidders?

4c) If these payments were not made, have you recovered these funds from Long Beach Judicial Partners, LLC?