CSLB Changing the Rules

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!!

Contractor RMOs for Hire

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!

Critical Classification Application Under Review

Critical Classification Application Under ReviewI’m often asked, pretty much daily, what should an applicant do when they are dealing with a critical classification application under review.

If you are applying for the C10 Electrical, B General Building, A General Engineering, C20 HVAC, etc. and your application is under review, this email Q&A and I had with a C10 applicant might also help you or somebody you know.

Q. Based on my application you looked at, what are the odds of them accepting it without requiring more documentation?

A. Slim to none. They’ve been asking all applicants with a critical classification for additional documents.

Q. If the odds are very low they accept as is then what do they increase by if I include documentation (1099s, permits, materials receipts, tax returns) with the application on the first submittal or should I wait for them to ask?

A. You should submit any/all documents you have with the app. If they find it acceptable, they’ll schedule you for the exam. If not, they’ll ask for more documentation.

Q. I have lots of different documentation but not a fully complete timeline record of EVERYTHING. Do they show any leniency to applicants who include lots of information from the start?

A. Not that I’ve experienced.

Q. I do have enough documented experience over the last ten years to get a B but would only consider that if it was a stepping stone which made it easier to get the C-10 later. Do you think this would help me to get the C-10 if I put off applying for 2 to 3 years? Could having a B potentially work against me getting a C-10 in two to three years?

A. To get either you’ll have to provide the written documentation. The B requires experience in framing and at least two unrelated trades. The C10 could be easier to get if your experience is directly and solely related to the c10. If you were to get the B and then apply for a c10 in a couple three years, it might be harder to show at least 4 yrs of c10 experience. Also, if you have the B you cannot bid on or sign contracts for a single trade like the c10.

Q. Would it help to get sign offs on shorter term experience from more B contractors who I have done electrical for?  This goes back to the more information included with the original submittal, does it decrease the odds of them requiring more documentation / increase the chances they accept the application as is.

A. Submitting more work experience forms does not generally help or hurt. They’ve made the certifier a moot point because of the documentation requirement.

Q. Does it carry any weight if I include some projects done for homeowners and include their permits, check written to me, materials receipts, and invoice?

A. That would help. But the permit would have to be in your name in order for you to get “credit” for it.

Q. Do you think submitting a 1099 for experience where the employer box is checked is a red flag and should be used as self-employment experience instead? I know that the experience with the C-10 i work for definitely is an employee relationship rather than a contract type, I show up when he tells me to show up and act on his direction under his supervision.

A. How does the CSLB look at 1099s in this regard? As a 1099 “employee” you are working as self-employed. Only if you are on payroll for the company would you be considered an employee.

Q. Based on the letter you attached in your previous email showing request for more info to that applicant,  if I were to get a similar letter and respond with not enough documentation then would that void my application or would there be another opportunity to submit more? When does the application usually drop dead?

A. If you did not submit enough documentation to satisfy the licensing department they would send you an “options letter.” This letter gives you the option to withdraw the app, use some other qualified individual to act as the qualifier on your license, or go to a formal investigation. If you choose the formal investigation, they will send you to the exams and an investigator will be assigned. That investigator will ask you for more/the same documentation that the licensing unit asked for. The investigator will also contact your certifiers to verify your experience. If the investigator does not approve of your experience you can either withdraw the app or they will deny your app. A denial means you’d have to wait a year before reapplying, and you’d have a denial flag on your name in their system.

Q. If I do submit my application and it ultimately gets tossed then can I re apply later with other documentation? Does the CSLB keep a copy of previous applications on file and refer back to those in this sort of scenario?

A. As answered in Q6, a denial has a one year waiting period. If you withdraw the app on your own, you can reapply at any time. The new app would be subjected to the same documentation and you’d have to re-submit everything plus any new documentation.

Q. The above question sorta relates to if it helps to apply for a B first and what experience is submitted with that. I would hate to shoot myself in the foot.

A. The issue is… when you apply for an additional classification, they will not accept experience that you submitted previously for the original classification. If your contracts are only for C10 work, you’ll want to apply for the C10 with the initial license.

Q. If I do include lots of documentation with the application before they ask then could this tick off the reviewer by being overwhelmed with paperwork or does it make me look more serious and more well prepared? (sort of already asked this question above)

A. Better to send everything with the initial submittal. Saves them from having to send you a letter requesting the docs and having to sit on the application until you reply to their letter.

Q. How would you approach this if you were in my shoes?

A. Create a chronological binder with all the documentation I had, submit it with the application, cross my fingers.

Q. Do you think I should just suck it up and do another year working for the C-10 guy (1099) or would you suggest a different route to document experience if you think I should wait to have a better documented history?

A. This all depends on the documentation you have now. If you feel it shows a solid four years (minimum) of experience, I’d say apply now. If you went thru the app process and the cslb said you needed one more year, withdraw your app work another year, then resubmit everything.

Q. Guessing you have seen others in my same predicament so what has made the biggest differences for them being able to get their applications accepted?

A. How well prepared your documentation is.

Q. The C-10 guy I work for has mentioned partnering with me a few times. Would there be some mid-term benefits to going this route and getting on his license then applying for my own later? I am not sure how this works but have heard of others getting brought in that way. The guy is a bit hard to work for / with so this would be a last resort but good to know the answers if it comes to that.

A. This scenario is included in the cslb “options” letter. You could use someone else to be your qualifier. After X amount of years, you could apply to replace that qualifier on the license.

So if you find yourself with a critical classification application under review, let me know and we can discuss your specific circumstances. I offer a very affordable consultation service. Click here if you’d like to discuss what you can do.

CSLB Gestapo Tactics

The CSLB may be taking notes (knowingly? or unknowingly?) out of Germany’s Gestapo playbook.

CSLB Gestapo TacticsWikipedia says, in part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

“The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial review—in effect, putting it above the law.[13] The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws.”

Here we are in 2015, and the CSLB has been acting in the same manner for years.

They create their own rules, laws, and regulations, none of which are subjected to judicial review. In effect, putting it above the law.

In a previous post I pointed out that the CSLB Spring Newsletter stated requirements that are not written in the law. Specifically, business name advertising.

In another post I discussed where the CSLB has been requiring out-of-state applicants to have their certifier’s signature notarized. Not written in the law.

Then of course there is the infamous “critical classifications” list. A list of specific classifications that are targeted and/or profiled and are subjected to additional review. The CSLB managers have told their staff that they can no longer use the term “critical classification.” Hmmm, I wonder why?

They continue to pursue this profiling by using the law that requires them to pull a minimum of 3% of ALL applications received for secondary review.

Pulling ALL “critical classification” applications is not a random sampling of ALL applications received. This is a prime example of the CSLB twisting the law as written in order to fit their needs.

The difference between the Gestapo and the CSLB is that there is no law that specifically gives the CSLB carte blanche. It’s worse than that…. they chose to enact these unlawful requirements on their own. No authorization by the legislature, nothing put to a public vote, No, they just make these rules as they go. Clearly, a State office that is out of control and in desperate need of being reigned in.

How long will the CSLB continue operating like the Gestapo of the 30’s and 40’s? Sadly, there is no crystal ball to provide that answer. All we can do is hope that someday the CSLB will stop using Gestapo tactics and will operate with transparency and within the law.

CSLB Spring 2015 Newsletter

The CSLB Spring 2015 Newsletter was sent out today.

Here are my highlights… or lowlights.

CSLBs Illegal Critical ClassificationsIn the Chair’s opening statement he said: “You can expect CSLB to continue its vigorous regulation of California’s construction industry, and to aggressively pursue unlicensed contractors and unscrupulous businesses through sting operations, construction site sweeps, and other strategies. We want to build more partnerships with licensees, industry groups, and government agencies to present a united front against individuals and businesses who try to hide from state laws or take advantage of consumers.”

Once again, they’re missing the bigger picture. Cause and effect, if you will. “…vigorous regulation of California’s construction industry, and to aggressively pursue unlicensed contractors…” The Contractors State License Board is playing a HUGE part in creating the large amount of unlicensed contractors with their “vigorous regulations.”

For over two years now they have been putting applicants through the wringer with their “profiling” of specific applications. They continue to quote the regulation that requires them to perform a secondary review of at least three percent of all apps received. What I’m hoping/praying will happen is that the State Legislature or an attorney will finally call the CSLB to the mat on this.

They are not randomly selecting applications as the law states, they specifically profiling and targeting these classifications. Last week I was told by a CSLB employee that they should no longer use the term “critical classifications.” I guess they realized that using this term was illegal. DUH!!! They can’t just decide on the whim of a single power hungry CSLB employee to profile specific individuals.

That’s all for now. More later.

Contractors State License Board Profiling

Is the Contractors State License Board profiling out of State applicants?

CSLB Profiling

UPDATE: Turns out the application was for a “critical classification” so the CSLB was true to form in asking for additional documentation. The applicant was able to prove his experience and his exam date has been scheduled!

It seems they are. Case in point: An applicant for a non “critical classification” was required to submit pay stubs, w-2’s, contracts, permits, etc. He also submitted copies of his licenses from Washington State and Colorado. I’m sure the CSLB would say that this app was part of the minimum 3% to receive a secondary review, that would be incorrect. That secondary review is to take place after the app has been posted. This particular app hadn’t been posted. So, it stands to reason, if it hasn’t been posted and isn’t a “critical classification” why are they requiring the additional documentation and a wage determination? There is only one reason… he was profiled because of out-of-state experience. What right, rule, law, or regulation does the CSLB have to treat applicants with out-of-state differently? None, nada, zip, zero!

Furthermore, he was also told that his two out-of-state licenses could be faked and would not be used to determine his eligibility. When he asked the tech what a wage determination was, he was told “I don’t know” by the application technician.

How can the CSLB make an hourly wage determination? What is that formula? What rule or regulation gives the CSLB the authority to do this? Will they be determining what he would have made if he was working in California? Or will they determine what he should have make in the two other States?

It wouldn’t surprise me if the CSLB attempted to determine what someone should have been paid in another State. Their level of arrogance is mind boggling.

So remember my rules of engagement:

1) Do not take no for an answer

2) Do not let the CSLB push you around. Push back!

3) Insist the licensing unit processes and makes a determination regarding your app

4) Get EVERYTHING in writing

5) Submit a complaint with your State Representative if you think you’re being treated unfairly. You can find your State Rep here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

CSLB Application Denials and the Appeals Process

Let’s take a minute to discuss CSLB Application Denials and the Appeals Process.

application denialIt’s a boring subject I know, but it’s good information to have if you find yourself stuck in the AIU vortex.

If your application is denied by the Application Investigation Unit, Section 485 kicks in.

§ 485. Procedure upon denial

Upon denial of an application for a license under this chapter or Section 496, the board shall do either of the following:

  • (a) File and serve a statement of issues in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
  • (b) Notify the applicant that the application is denied, stating (1) the reason for the denial, and (2) that the applicant has the right to a hearing under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code if written request for hearing is made within 60 days after service of the notice of denial. Unless written request for hearing is made within the 60-day period, the applicant’s right to a hearing is deemed waived. Service of the notice of denial may be made in the manner authorized for service of summons in civil actions, or by registered mail addressed to the applicant at the latest address filed by the applicant in writing with the board in his or her application or otherwise. Service by mail is complete on the date of mailing.

Added Stats 1972 ch 903 § 1. Amended Stats 1997 ch 758 §

The key here is that 60 day deadline to file your appeal request. I would suggest filing your appeal as soon as possible to get the appeal process started.

From here Section 487 applies and it outlines the Hearing process.

§ 487. Hearing; Time

If a hearing is requested by the applicant, the board shall conduct such hearing within 90 days from the date the hearing is requested unless the applicant shall request or agree in writing to a postponement or continuance of the hearing. Notwithstanding the above, the Office of Administrative Hearings may order, or on a showing of good cause, grant a request for, up to 45 additional days within which to conduct a hearing, except in cases involving alleged examination or licensing fraud, in which cases the period may be up to 180 days. In no case shall more than two such orders be made or requests be granted.

Added Stats 1972 ch 903 § 1. Amended Stats 1974 ch 1321 § 10; Stats 1986 ch 220 § 1, effective June 30, 1986.

The important part in this section is that the hearing shall be conducted within 90 days of the hearing being requested. Unless you, the applicant, request or agree to a continuance. I wouldn’t agree to a continuance because I wouldn’t want to give the board the ability to delay the process any further. If the OAH grants a request for extension, you’re stuck with it. The CSLB likes to say that the process can take 4-6 months, but I think this is a scare tactic. Section 487 suggests that a hearing could take place in as little as 3 months.

After a hearing request is submitted, Section 488 comes in to play.

§ 488. Hearing request

Except as otherwise provided by law, following a hearing requested by an applicant pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 485, the board may take any of the following actions:

  • (a) Grant the license effective upon completion of all licensing requirements by the applicant.
  • (b) Grant the license effective upon completion of all licensing requirements by the applicant, immediately revoke the license, stay the revocation, and impose probationary conditions on the license, which may include suspension.
  • (c) Deny the license.
  • (d) Take other action in relation to denying or granting the license as the board in its discretion may deem proper.

Added Stats 2000 ch 568 § 2 (AB 2888).

This one is interesting because of item (c). This suggests that the CSLB could deny the license… again. What’s curious is that it was a denial that led you down the appeal/hearing path in the first place.

So there you have it, some interesting facts about CSLB application denials and the appeals process.

CSLB AIU Vortex

The CSLB AIU Vortex continues to spin. And it’s not a pretty sight!

I received an email from one of my readers today and wanted to share it with you. Our conversation went as follows.

cslb aiu vortexMy fiancé has been undergoing the investigation process with the AIU and it’s looking as though they are going to deny his application. His prior employer has cooperated fully with the investigator but they seem to only want w-2s, paycheck stubs, and so forth. I was wondering if you had any knowledge or experience with the appeal process. How long does it take and so forth? Also, can you recommend any lawyers that have experience with this process? If we plan to go that route.

I replied:

Yes, the joys of dealing with the CSLB and the AIU. Did they allow you to submit any other forms of experience verification?

In the last year, I haven’t heard of anyone going thru the appeal process. The CSLB says it can take 4-6 months. I don’t have a referral at the ready, but I can ask my contacts if they have an atty referral for the appeal process.

She replied:

Yes, they gave their basic cookie cutter letter stating that we could send in invoices and estimates and materials receipts and so forth. Once we sent that paperwork in, they contacted my fiancé’s prior employer and sent him a paper to fill out verifying work experience and pay. After all that, the investigator said that the information was not enough and that he needed verifiable documents such as w-2’s, pay check stubs, and time cards. I have reviewed the CSLB’s website and found proof that if the employer verifies then that should be enough but I’m not sure if they are just forcing these investigators only to ask for w-2’s. If it turns out that the application does get denied, we are definitely thinking of appealing. It has been a long process and it seems pointless to give up now. [Read more…]

How to Get a California Contractors License Part 5

IN THIS SERIES OF POSTS, I’LL TELL YOU HOW TO GET A CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS LICENSE. HERE IS PART 5.

Now lets discuss different titles or positions and business entities:

RME or RMO Contractors21) What is the difference between an RMO and RME?

RMO or Responsible Managing Officer is the qualifier for the license and may or may not hold any ownership in the company. An RME or Responsible Managing Employee is the qualifier for the license and may not hold any ownership in the company.

22) Can an RMO be a qualifier on more than one License?

Yes. An RMO can be the qualifier on up to 3 corporate licenses as long as he or she holds at least 20% ownership in each company. The CSLB has passed a new law giving them more enforcement power over qualifiers who qualify more than one license. Those qualifiers need to have an active role in all projects done under the licenses for which they qualify. If enforcement action is taken against a qualifier on any one license, it will have a negative effect on every other license that he or she qualifies.

23) Can an RME be a qualifier on more than one License?

No. An RME can only qualify one license at a time. He or she may have a Sole Owner license but it must be inactive while the person is acting as an RME. By law, an RME must work a minimum of 32 hours a week.

24) Can an individual have more than one license?

Yes. An individual can have as many as 10 Sole Ownership licenses.

25) Can a Sole Owner also be an RMO or Qualifier on another License?

Yes. An individual can be an RMO on another license as long as he or she holds at least 20% ownership or more of the company. As I stated in #22, if you are going to qualify three licenses at the same time, be careful not to spread yourself too thin as you will be required to have an active participation in all projects done under all licenses you qualify.

The finale, Part 6, coming soon!

How to Get a California Contractors License Part 4

IN THIS SERIES OF POSTS, I’LL TELL YOU HOW TO GET A CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS LICENSE. ON TO PART 4.

Contractors State License Board Wall License

16) DOES THE CSLB RECOGNIZE LICENSES FROM OTHER STATES?

Yes. The CSLB has reciprocity agreements with Utah, Nevada and Arizona. It is possible to get a CA license if you hold a license in one of these states by only having to take the CA Law & Business exam. The key is, you must have been licensed in the other State for a minimum of 5 out of the last 7 years. Note, if you are applying for one of the 8 critical classifications, be prepared to submit additional experience verification documents with your application.

17) WHAT HAPPENS IF I GET CAUGHT OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE?

It is a misdemeanor in CA, and the fines can range from $200 to $15,000. A citation would be issued that would remain at the Board for up to 10 years. So if or when you apply for your license, your application will be delayed for an extended period of time while they review the circumstances of the citation.

18) AM I REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED?

Yes. Fingerprints are required for all new applications, adding officers to an existing license, replacing the qualifier, etc.

19) WHAT IF I HAVE A MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION FROM YEARS AGO? CAN I STILL GET MY LICENSE?

Yes. You can still get your license but the application processing time will be greatly increased. All fingerprints go through the CA Department of Justice and the FBI before being sent to the CSLB. At the CSLB the records will be reviewed by the Criminal Background Unit or CBU. At the time of this video, the current backlog in the CBU is around 2 months. Which means that receiving a test date and obtaining your license could take as long as 4-6 months.

20) ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY FOR A LICENSE?

Yes. The CSLB requires that you maintain at least $2500 in working capital. There is a check box in the application that ask’s you this question. But the CSLB does not require you to provide banking information to prove this.

Stay tuned… Part 5 coming soon!