CSLB Employees of the Month

April 12, 2016 by Leave a Comment

Today we are highlighting the outstanding efforts put forward by two CSLB employees who go above and beyond the call of stupidity.CSLB Employee of the Month

Employee #1 rejected an application because some of the experience provided went past the ten year limit. IF, the experience provided needed to include the time that went past the ten year limit, I could clearly see the need for the rejection.

But NO… the part of the experience submitted that did fall within the last ten years was sufficient to meet the CSLB’s 4 in 10 yr requirement. So why did this CSLB employee reject this application? Either this person is just flat out stupid, they are so completely anal that they can’t seem to get out of their own way, or they just prefer making more work for themselves. The jury is still out on that one.

Any way you slice it, total the amount of time the applicant provide that does fall within the ten year requirement and complete the processing of the application. Why put the applicant, who has been waiting many weeks for the CSLB to get through their ridiculous backlog only to have to wait more because the person reviewing his application is an imbecile.

Employee #2 rejected an LLC application because the LLC name (as filed with the Sect. of State) has the word “Construction” in it. Shocker, I know. A contractor wanting to use the word “Construction” in their business name! Call the cops… this person should be locked up! How dare they want to use the “C” word in their business name!

Here’s the catch… this company is applying for an A-Gen Engineering license. So the CSLB wants them to add Engineering to their business name. i.e. ABC Smith “Engineering” Construction LLC, instead of ABC Smith Construction LLC.

Am I the only one that finds this completely absurd?!?! Is the CSLB suggesting that A-Eng contractors (uh oh… another form of the “C” word) do not CONSTRUCT anything?!?!

And do they really think that any consumer with half a brain (which is more than some CSLB techs have) would be confused by this? They are making a lot of assumptions that are just not based in fact or reality.

Some things have changed for the good at the CSLB, but hiring/retaining stupid technicians is something that they’ll probably, most assuredly, never change.

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

CSLB Scrutinizing Workers Comp Exemptions

February 5, 2016 by 2 Comments

CSLB Scrutinizing Workers Comp ExemptionsThe Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is turning their attention to contractors who they believe should be carrying workers compensation.

In the newsletter article below, the CSLB discusses their plan to look into whether or not a licensee who submitted a workers comp exempt form should actually be carrying a workers comp policy.

Right off the top, any licensee who has employees must and should have workers comp. It’s the law. It benefits the contractor and his employee’s and their families. If you know me, you know that I’m always on the side of the law. If, or course, it just and not abusive.

Regarding the CSLB plan… if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a governmental agency abusing its power and authority…. Yet again!

What they’re saying is that if you hold the A-Gen Eng., C8 Concrete, C10 Electrical, C20 HVAC, C36 Plumbing, or the C46 Solar classification, you could be part of their “random” checks. I wonder why they didn’t include the B-Gen??

As with everything else the CSLB does randomly, what exactly is their process for choosing their random sample? Throw darts at a board, pull license numbers out of a hat?

The law states: “Pursuant to Section 7065, the registrar shall conduct a comprehensive investigation of no less than 3 percent of applications filed under this section to ensure that the applicants met the experience requirements of this section.” This is the go to section for a lot of what the CSLB licensing department does. They throw this thing out like it was a coup-fourre card in a Mille Borne game.CSLB Coup Forre

They must look at an app and decide there is something about it and…..BAM!! 7065 COUP FORRE! Unless of course your application is one of the critical classifications, then the minimum 3% rule turns into a mandatory 100% rule!

 

Anyway… back to the random workers comp sampling of the classifications listed above. I personally know plumbers, electricians, HVAC guys, and some B-Gen Bldg. guys who work alone. The fact that the cslb has selected those classifications to focus their attention shows they really have no clue what actually takes place outside of their doors.

A one man shop is going to get a call, letter, or visit from a CSLB enforcement rep and he’s going to have to stop everything he’s doing to prove that he doesn’t have employees. Just what every small business wants to deal with… the heavy hand of State Government. No thank you!

Begin article

Workers’ Comp Exemptions Will Get Extra Scrutiny From CSLB

CSLB will be taking a much closer look at licensees who file exemptions from having to purchase workers’ compensation (WC) insurance, particularly those working in trades likely to need a partner or employees.

At its December meeting, the Board agreed to a strategy to bring more contractors into compliance with California law on WC insurance. More than 50 percent of all licensees have filed WC exemptions with CSLB, a rate suspected to be too high considering the nature of the contracting work done.

Business and Professions Code section 7125 requires contractors to purchase a WC policy and submit proof to CSLB when an active license is issued, an inactive one reactivated, or at the time of renewal, unless the licensee does not employ anyone subject to California WC or files a certificate of self-insurance with CSLB. (All C-39 Roofing contractors, however, must carry WC insurance even if they work on their own.)

To identify contractors who may be improperly claiming a WC exemption, and encourage them to purchase WC policies for employees, CSLB’s Enforcement division will:

  • Perform an analysis and reach out to contractors registered with the state Department of Industrial Relations who bid on public works projects. CSLB staff will perform random checks of those contractors, and send letters to those claiming WC exemptions about the need to provide insurance if they employ workers.
  • Review a sampling of the overall consumer complaints that CSLB receives for contractor WC compliance.
  • Conduct random checks of licensees in classifications most likely to need employee labor, but who hold WC exemptions. Staff will look at those with C-46 Solar, C-36 Plumbing, C-20 Warm-Air Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning, C-10 Electrical, C-8 Concrete, and “A” General Engineering licensees who have declared they have no employees.
  • Review permit activity in partnering counties to determine if contractors pulling permits for large projects have WC insurance.
  • Coordinate with other state agencies to further identify WC violators. Representatives from CSLB, state Department of Insurance, and Division of Labor Standards will discuss ways to raise WC compliance among contractors.

Contractors who falsely claim WC exemptions are taking a great risk to save a little money. WC violators not only face CSLB disciplinary action, but they expose themselves and their clients to liability if uninsured workers get hurt on the job.

End of article

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , ,

CSLB Changing the Rules

February 2, 2016 by Leave a Comment

CSLB Changing the RulesThe CSLB is changing the rules again!

I spoke to an applicant today who’s application was voided by the CSLB.

After months of back and forth with the Contractors State License Board where they continued to ask for more and more documentation, they voided his application without offering the “options” letter. The “options” letter is something they’ve sent to countless other applicants. The letter gives the applicant the option of withdrawing the app, using someone else as a qualifier, or sending the app to a formal investigation. As you’ll see below, this applicant to not get the “options” letter. My question is why???

Did they change the rules again? And without any notification to anyone?

This particular applicant has an over abundance of experience, plus a college degree that should have given him at least up to two years of experience credit. With his experience and the overwhelming experience documentation he provided that covered more than 10 years (when only two years was required), why did they void his app?

Granted, there were some issues with the experience outline on the application (something I could have helped him avoid with my app review service), but the fact remains that he was not given the “options” letter. I firmly believe that if he’d been given the option of having a formal investigation he could have dealt with an investigator that actually has some construction experience… unlike those who work in the application unit of the CSLB who have none. The same people who were reviewing his application and made the determination to void his app.

We all know that the federal and state governments play by their own rules, but why can’t there be some consistency? How can anyone play the game when the rules are constantly changing?

Another issue I have with this particular application is that they granted an extended void date on January 8th. Did they grant a 30 days extension as is standard? No. If they had, the app would have been voided on February 8th. But they voided the app on January 26th! What the %*&# is going on here!!!

I gave the applicant some options, all of which we will pursue… bottom line… This kind of government abuse is unacceptable, and we as a society have to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

Application is void

  • 08/24/2015 – APPLICATION RECEIVED
  • 08/31/2015 – PRINTED ACKNLDGMNT LTTR TO APPLCNT
  • 09/10/2015 – APPLICATION RETURNED FOR CORRECTION
  • 09/10/2015 – WORK EXPERIENCE BLANK/PROBLEM
  • 09/10/2015 – CRITICAL CLASS DUTIES NOT SPECIFIC
  • 09/10/2015 – CERTIFIER RELATIONSHIP DISCREPANCY
  • 09/10/2015 – SPEC PROJ – EXPERIENCE VERIFICATION
  • 09/10/2015 – ADD’L SELF EMPLOYMNT INFO REQUESTED
  • 10/16/2015 – RETURNED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
  • 10/23/2015 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
  • 10/23/2015 – APPLICATION RETURNED FOR CORRECTION
  • 10/23/2015 – WORK EXPERIENCE BLANK/PROBLEM
  • 10/23/2015 – CERT DUTIES STILL NOT ACCEPTABLE
  • 10/23/2015 – SPEC PROJ – EXPERIENCE VERIFICATION
  • 10/23/2015 – ADD’L SELF EMPLOYMNT INFO REQUESTED
  • 12/09/2015 – RETURNED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
  • 12/24/2015 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
  • 12/24/2015 – APPLICATION RETURNED FOR CORRECTION
  • 12/24/2015 – WORK EXPERIENCE BLANK/PROBLEM
  • 12/24/2015 – CERT INCOMPLETE
  • 12/24/2015 – CRITICAL CLASS DUTIES NOT SPECIFIC
  • 12/24/2015 – EMAILED CERTS FOR ADDL CORRECTION.
  • 01/08/2016 – EXTENDED VOID DATE
  • 01/08/2016 – RETURNED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
  • 01/08/2016 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
  • 01/13/2016 – APP SENT TO SUPERVISOR FOR REVIEW
  • 01/25/2016 – ROUTED TO EXP ANALYST FOR REVIEW
  • 01/26/2016 – APPLICATION RETURNED TO PROGRM TECH
  • 01/26/2016 – DOCS INSUFF – EXPER NOT VERIFIED
  • 01/26/2016 – APP VOID – APP NOT PROCESSED
  • 01/26/2016 – APPLICATION IS VOID
  • 01/26/2016 – VOID LETTER SENT

Don’t put yourself in this position where you’re dealing with the CSLB changing the rules on you! Let me help you!!

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Contractor RMOs for Hire

February 1, 2016 by Leave a Comment

The CSLB released their Winter 2015-16 newsletter last week. One article discussed contractor RMOs for hire.CSLB Gestapo Tactics

Section 7068.1 of the Business and Professions code states: …”responsible for exercising that direct supervision and control of his or her employer’s or principal’s construction operations to secure compliance with this chapter and the rules and regulations of the board.” And Code 823(b) states: “For purposes of Section 7068.1 of the Code, “direct supervision and control” includes any one or any combination of the following activities: supervising construction, managing construction activities by making technical and administrative decisions, checking jobs for proper workmanship, or direct supervision on construction job sites.”

823 states “any one or any combination,” so if you are using an RMO that is not directly related to your business you need to ensure that he/she is following these guidelines.

I talk to people almost daily who need to use an RMO who is not directly related to their business. I tell them that the RMO must be involved in the construction activities that will be conducted under the license and the same rules and responsibilities apply as they do to the license they currently hold.

What I think is at issue here is the broad definition of “direct supervision and control.” Does the RMO need to be on the job site to manage or make technical and admin decisions? Not according to the law. Remember, it states “any one or any combination” is allowed, that suggests “direct supervision on construction job sites” does not have to be a mandatory choice.

With this ambiguity I’m left wondering what the CSLB gestapo task force is finding during their “investigations”, what are they citing these contractors with, and what are the criminal cases truly about?

I’m sure any attorney worth his hourly fee would be able to punch holes in any CSLB case that involved 7068.1 and 823. So if you are using an RMO or you are an RMO and you do not have a direct relationship with the business, I suggest you become as active as possible with the work being done. Log all phone calls, keep all emails, review contracts and sign them if possible, review photographs, and yes… even drop by the job site if you can (even though the law cited by the CSLB does not require it).

Last comment…. if this is such a big problem that the CSLB had to create a “task force”, why don’t they just amend or remove B&P Code 7068.1? Get rid of the 20% rule altogether? Or is it easier to create an unregulated task force, pry into the business activities of licensee’s, write citations and criminal cases, and collect 100’s of thousands of dollars? Well…. they even say it themselves… “yielded big dividends”!

Full CSLB article below

RMOs-for-Hire Better Know What They’re Getting Into

CSLB has zeroed in on licensees who rent their services as Responsible Managing Officers (RMOs) for companies over which they have little or no control. Due to the work of a special CSLB task force that targets suspected RMO abuses, those who act as little more than paid license qualifier for companies are being identified and disciplined for violating state contractor law.

Contractors who serve as qualifiers for a company’s construction operations must exercise direct control and supervision, and, by law, maintain at least a 20 percent ownership stake in each firm for which the person acts as a qualifier. Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 7068.1 authorizes CSLB to discipline the licensed entity when the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the license they are representing. In addition to administrative penalties, the individual falsely serving as a qualifier on the license can be charged with a misdemeanor and be sentenced to serve up to six months in jail, and required to pay a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

CSLB’s effort to uncover straw men RMOs has yielded big dividends. There have been a total of 304 complaints filed against those suspected of misusing their qualifier status (many still under investigation), 31 accusations filed to revoke or suspend a license, 12 citations issued for violations of contractor law, 11 criminal cases filed by local district attorney’s offices, and $215,000 in restitution ordered for wronged consumers.

CSLB has strong words of caution for those who would enter these arrangements: If you act as an RMO and do not have active and financial involvement in the construction and business operations, you risk CSLB administrative penalties against your license(s) as well as criminal prosecution, regardless of whether you’re aware of substandard work being performed by unqualified individuals.

The task force also is watching for exam waiver requests from applicants suspected of only seeking to rent their name for a fee. CSLB also will seek to revoke qualifier status previously granted to anyone whose actions demonstrate they do not have an ownership stake or are not active decision makers listed on a license.

A review of BPC section 7065 will provide further explanation of examination waiver laws.

End of article

Very last comment…. do I think the CSLB should be taking action against the extremely small percentage of contractor RMOs for hire? Yes.  Should they create an unregulated task force with no oversight to invade the businesses of California contractors? …. Not just no, but hell no!

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Email from a Client

January 18, 2016 by Leave a Comment

Contractors License Customer SatisfactionI received an email from a client who I have been helping since August of last year.

As with many applications there are twists and turns, and special circumstances. All of which need to be dealt with in a certain way and handled in a particular timeline. This client had been registered on a license as a Salesperson. I gave him advice on how he needed to explain his salesperson registration so that his license experience would be accepted.

He also had questions regarding workers comp, when he needed it, when he should buy it, etc. I am a licensed insurance broker and I answered his questions but suggested he contact my broker, Shilo, for more detail. She is an expert in workers comp for contractors and felt he would be best served by speaking with her.

Here is his email….

“I had spoke to Shilo right before I got your email, she answered every question I had and then some. Man you guys got this system down, I really wish more people could be so easy to work with. I’m a very honest person and I always expect people to treat me the same way but that rarely happens.

If someone told me how easy the test would be if I used your materials I wouldn’t believe them but it was easy and you’ve been spot on since the first time we spoke in August.

The technician at CSLB was very impressed with my application and he told me it saved him a lot of time because I disclosed the info about my HIS Lic and also sending in proof of employment with a B Lic for 4 years (sent in w-2’s/ last pay sub) and I used my brothers to sign for my experience. (Also send print out of criminal background even if it’s only traffic related, it cost $1)

I think the best thing was to be completely honest with them and send in as much info as I could without going overboard with it. The CSLB phone operator told me “do not send in your proof of employment or we will return your application” LOL !  I trusted you and sent it in anyway.

The only thing that happened to me was that owed $300 for a citation that I had inherited from my parents company and by the time the CSLB found the records (because it was from 2005) my technician went on vacation for 3 weeks so my Lic just sat there in his desk waiting for him to return!

I sent in my app on Sept 10th and they approved it over the phone and set up my test date on December 30th.

So basically without your advice I would have still been in application phase.

This has seriously made a huge impact on my family’s life & this is why I’ve been thankful for everything that you’ve done.

Next time you hear from me is when I hit my million$ mark lol. I do the best work on this side of the Mississippi so I’m sure you’ll hear about me again.

THANKS FROM THE SCOTT FAMILY 2016″

I shared this email with Shilo and this was her response….

“Phil,

Thank you for sharing that! It made my day.

I really appreciate working with you too. I have many guys call & tell me that you were amazing & if you recommended me that I had to be pretty awesome too. So the Kudos really go to you!”

Talk about making someone’s day! They both did!!

If you would like to discuss your specific license application circumstances, please feel free to contact me anytime.


(c) Can Stock Photo

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , ,

Owner Builder Experience

January 12, 2016 by Leave a Comment

owner builder experienceIn October of 2010 I wrote an article discussing owner builder experience.

In that article I stated that owner builder experience was a red flag, so to speak.

Well that was then, this is now. With the current processing systems in place at the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), ALL experience, including owner builder experience is good experience.

If you have building experience on property that you own, and you need that experience to build your portfolio that will be submitted with your application, by all means, submit that owner builder experience.

The CSLB will ask you for documentation to back it up, so be prepared to show cancelled checks, copies of receipts for materials purchased, copies of all permits, etc.

You will also need to complete the project sheet that is contained within the CSLB application. Things to be aware of on that project sheet? Do not list that most or all of the work was done by contractors or sub-contractors. The CSLB will only give you credit for the experience that you did yourself. If the project sheet makes it appear that you did some, or little-to-none of the work, they will credit you with very much experience time.

Do they accept supervisory experience? Yes they do, most owner builders are non-journeyman level people and therefore don’t have the skills to have the title of supervisor. So stating that you supervised the owner builder project will most likely not be credited in your favor.

The amount of experience time the CSLB will grant for owner builder experience hasn’t changed. If you submit a project that took you one year, they will most likely grant you 4-6 months credit. That’s because they calculate what it would take a licensed contractor to complete the same project.

If you have experience to submit that was obtained as an employee, and you want to also submit your owner builder experience, you will need to submit a work experience form for each time period and for each separate owner building project.

So owner builder experience isn’t the red flag that it used to be. Now it’s an additional way of proving your experience to the CSLB. Good luck.

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , ,

Happy Thanksgiving

November 23, 2015 by 2 Comments

Happy Thanksgiving to all of my readers. I appreciate your support, kind words, feedback and questions.

Happy Thanksgiving

I hope you have a wonderful holiday with family, friends, food, and football!

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues

C-01 Contractors License Proposed Language

November 20, 2015 by Leave a Comment

C-01 Contractors License Proposed LanguageThere was a stakeholder meeting at the Contractors State License Board headquarters office today that discussed the C-01 Contractors License Proposed Language.

At this meeting they outlined the proposed language for the new classification. It states:

“Adopt Section 832.01

Non-Structural Remodel and Repair Contractor

(a) A non-structural remodel and repair contractor remodels and repairs existing structures built for the support, shelter, and enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind, requiring the use of at least two unrelated building trades or crafts, except as excluded in this section.

(b) This section does not apply to any work or operation on one undertaking or project by one or more contracts, the aggregate contract price which for labor, materials, and all other items is more than $15,000.

(c) This classification shall not include the following:

  (1) altering, adding, or moving any load-bearing portions of the existing structure, including footings, foundations, and weight-bearing member;

  (2) Work requiring specialized engineering knowledge and skill as set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 7056; and

  (3) Work performed pursuant to a C-11 Elevator (Section 832.11), C-16 Fire Protection (Section 832.16), C-21 Building Moving/Demolition (Section 832.21), C-22 Asbestos Abatement (Section 832.22), C-31 Construction Zone Traffic Control (Section 832.31), C-32 Parking and Highway Improvement, C-34 Pipeline (Section 832.34), C-42 Sanitation System (Section 832.42), C-51 Structural Steel (Section 832.51), and C-57 Well Drilling (Section 832.57) classifications.

(d) An examination waiver for this classification as a closely related classification pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 7065.3 shall be considered only for licensees who hold the B-General Building classification pursuant to Section 7057 of the code.

(e) The C-1 Non-Structural Remodel and Repair classification shall be available upon development of a trade examination.”

There was talk at the meeting that the maximum contract limit of $15,000 should be raised. Potentially to match the Utah license classification that the C-1 emulates. I believe the current limit was set to match the upcoming license bond increase which will be $15,000 at the first of the year. And it seems they’ve dropped the 3-story limit that was in place in previous wording of the legislation.

Bottom line, this should have a huge beneficial impact on the construction industry. Stay tuned for more information.

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , ,

Do I have to submit an experience outline?

November 19, 2015 by Leave a Comment

CSLB ExperienceI received an email today from a reader who was looking for an answer to this question:

Do I have to submit an experience outline with my application if I held the same classification over five years ago? The email stated:

Dear Mr. Cocciante:

Your Blog is a wonderful resource and I am happy I discovered it. I have a question I hope you can answer. Here is the scenario: Contractor fails to renew license, license expires, five years pass. Contractor must now apply for new a.k.a. Original License. Does Contractor need to complete and have Certification of Experience form signed? Per Bus. & Prof. Code 825(b) applicant “may compute experience without regard to the ten-year limitation.” So, essentially, Contractor may use the exact work experience used to obtain original license, and given that Contractor held license, clearly he has met the four-year minimum requirement … which leads me to the question of does Contractor need to include a Certification of Work Experience form?

I have read conflicting answers in another blog. One time they said the form was not required, another time they said it was. When I called the CSLB, a tech told me all Contractor needs to do is write “See License No. XXXX” on the Experience form; another tech had a different answer.

I’m hoping you have some insight for me. I very sincerely appreciate your time. Perhaps this topic may be a good one to blog about. I imagine I’m not the only one trying to figure this out. Plus, with the fires in Northern California, seems like a lot of guys are getting back into construction after having let their licenses expire.

Kind regards,
Jessica T.

My reply:

Hello Jessica,

Thank you for the kind words.

I can tell you as a former cslb application technician, and a service provider that deals with current application techs, that he would not need to submit his experience with a new application.

On the first page of the app it will ask him to provide any license he is/was associated with. The app tech will look up that license number to verify that he held the same classification previously that is being applied for now and will post the application to the exams.

Having said that, there is always a slim chance that they may ask for an experience outline and verifying documents (depending on the classification being applied for) for this type of application.

~End

Thank you Jessica for your email and allowing me to post it here. Questions from my readers are always welcomed.

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

California CSLB Contractors Bond Increase

November 19, 2015 by Leave a Comment

A post by Jon Gottschalk regarding the California CSLB Contractors Bond Increase coming in 2016California CSLB Contractors Bond Increase

POSTED BY: JON GOTTSCHALK NOVEMBER 17, 2015

As published in our blog last month, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is requiring all California contractors to purchase a $15,000 bond by January 1, 2016— a $2,500 increase from the $12,500 amount that was previously required. The additional $2,500 was previously accounted for by an additional requirement to obtain a contractor’s license. Those applying for the license had to post the $12,500 surety bond and proof of financial solvency in the amount of $2,500. Essentially, contractors were required to show that their current assets were greater than their liabilities by no less than $2,500. By increasing the bond amount to include that additional $2,500, the CSLB has removed the burden of proving financial solvency from those who wish to obtain their license.

What does the increased bond amount do to the cost?

Due to the increase, applicants should expect to pay a slightly higher premium for their bond than they would have for the $12,500 amount. California contractor bonds for general contractors with great credit, as well as new applicants start at around $140 for a one-year term. However, rates are slightly discounted when the bond is written for multiple years. Something else to consider is that the premium will also vary depending upon the type of work in which the contractor is engaged. For example, roofing or swimming contractors will most likely pay slightly more than general contractors due to greater risk of a claim being filed against the bond. As has been the case for California bonds, the premium owed is based upon the applicant’s personal credit, so the quote will be subject to underwriting.

What if a $12,500 bond is already in place?

The CSLB is aware that there are thousands of contractors in California and that the majority of their bonds likely do not expire on December 31, 2015. In order to make the increase as simple as possible, they will provide an endorsement authorizing the increase that must be signed by an attorney-in-fact for the surety company.  Although the bond requirement is not increasing by much, contractors that are increasing their bond amount to $15,000 should be prepared to pay a small additional premium to account for the increase before it is approved by the surety company.  Once the increase has been approved by the surety, the endorsement will then need to be filed with the CSLB. Also of note, the endorsement has no bearing upon the bond’s effective dates, so contractors will want to remain aware of the day that their bond expires, at which point the bond will need to be renewed and  electronically filed with the CSLB by the surety company.

What if a $15,000 bond or increase endorsement is not filed?

Failure to have a bond filed with the CSLB in the correct amount may lead to a suspension or even revocation of current licenses, as well as denials for new applicants. Those contractors that have not yet submitted the $15,000 bond to the CSLB should keep the following in mind:

  1. License and bond renewals often do not fall on the same date, so it is important to be aware of both renewal dates and act accordingly.
  2. Many surety companies will notify the bondholder in advance that the bond is coming up for renewal, but it is ultimately the bondholder’s responsibility to ensure that the bond is renewed on time.
  3. The amount of time that it takes for the CSLB to process bonds varies, so contractors will need to allow plenty of time in order to guarantee their bond is filed and that there is no lapse in coverage.

In the event that a lapse in coverage occurs, the contractor’s license may be suspended, and any work that occurs during the suspension may result in further disciplinary action. Further information on suspended and revoked licenses may be found here.

There is also plenty of additional information regarding these bonds available by visiting our California Contractor Bond page or the CSLB website.

Filed Under: California Contractors Licensing Issues Tagged With:
« Previous Page
Next Page »