Surprise Layoffs at the AOC today?

Now the number is up to 17 and comprises most of (if not the entire management team of) the facilities management unit. (Those that dealt with the overpriced work and unlicensed contractors)

We’re still trying to confirm the names as we only currently have 7 names. Most of the AOC is unaware of these changes as they happened rather quietly.

Meanwhile, right across the street from the AOC in the Judicial Council VS. Jacobs lawsuit, (the unlicensed contractor that had the central and southern portion of the state wrapped up) has heated up again with Jacobs trying to demonstrate substantial compliance with respect to contractors licenses when there was no effort at compliance whatsoever.

APPENDED:

Keeping in mind that hundreds, if not thousands of similarly titled documents are in the AOC’s possession, here is an example of substantial compliance shortly before Jacobs was sued by the AOC.

Link to generator-follow-up

This document cited above is an official estimate from “Team Jacobs” to the AOC. As an estimate of work to be done from a contractor to a client, there are some legal requirements that would define “substantial compliance”. A few examples would be the companies licensed physical address and contact information found nowhere in the document. Another would be a contractors license, also a legal requirement of a licensed contractor, found nowhere in the document. Similarly deficient “substantial compliance” documents can be found in courthouse filing cabinets and email boxes from the Bay Area to San Diego. This basic information is required on all business cards of a licensed contractor. The license # must appear in any solicitation made by a licensed contractor. None of these materials, dozens of which are posted on this site, meet the substantial compliance argument.

Note: we’re not naming any names until we can confirm them (and it is more difficult than it should be) and even then, only to strike the names out of digital purgatory.