Mandatory Job Walks for California Public Construction Projects: The Hidden Costs Agencies Don't See

Why forcing contractor attendance may be hurting your bid competition and costing taxpayers more.

California public agencies routinely mandate job walk attendance to protect their projects, but this default policy often backfires, excluding qualified bidders, reducing competition, and creating a false sense of legal protection that doesn't exist.

---

In California public construction, a job walk is an opportunity for prospective bidders to visit the site and better understand the work conditions before submitting bids. Every project requires a decision: Should the walk be mandatory or non-mandatory? While many agencies default to a mandatory walk believing it increases accountability, the reality is more nuanced, and often the opposite of what’s intended.

The Challenges with Mandatory Job Walks

1. Mandatory walks force attendance even when unnecessary.

   Contractors are professionals. They know when a project requires site familiarity and when the plans and specifications are sufficiently clear. Requiring them to attend regardless creates unnecessary time and effort for them, so they may choose not to walk and not to bid.

2. Mandatory walks don’t guarantee that the right people attend.

   Even with attendance sheets or sign-ins, agencies cannot control who a contractor sends. Sometimes, the person who walks the site is not the one preparing the bid or the one truly responsible for understanding the work. A mandatory requirement does not ensure meaningful engagement.

3. They can create a false belief for architects or construction managers.

   A persistent misconception is: “If I said it at the mandatory walk, I’ve covered it.”Not true. California public contracting requires that material information be issued in writing, usually via an addendum. A verbal statement at a mandatory walk does not override the need for written clarification. Unfortunately, mandatory walks sometimes reinforce the incorrect belief that saying it out loud is enough.

4. They imply contractors cannot be trusted to act professionally.

   Well-written contract documents already state that bidders are responsible for examining the site and understanding the conditions of work. If a contractor chooses not to walk the site, the agency is still protected by having that language in place.  If you hold a non-mandatory job walk, you can still treat bidders as if they attended when push comes to shove on unforeseen/unforeseeable conditions conversations after award.

5. Mandatory requirements can unintentionally block excellent bidders.

   In the real world, documents come out late, schedules shift, or a bidder discovers the opportunity a day too late. A mandatory walk can exclude qualified, competitive bidders who simply missed the meeting, reducing competition and potentially increasing project costs.

   
   

Are There Any Pros to Mandatory Walks?

• For some highly complex renovation projects, especially those involving hidden conditions or operational constraints, agencies may feel more confident knowing every bidder observed key site limitations in person. Even then, written addenda remain legally required to maintain fairness.While this may tilt towards a decision to hold a mandatory walk, this can also be handled another way.  State clearly next to the job walk date and time that there are conditions that are complex, and the walk will include opening vaults and going into closed areas, or similar language.  They will take action to mitigate their risk even when not stated as mandatory.

• The agency will know if they have bidders.  True, but is that bit of information worth the potential cost of someone great missing the walk and not bidding?

Making the Decision: Project by Project

The choice between a mandatory and non-mandatory job walk should not be automatic. Each project deserves a thoughtful assessment of its complexity, risks, and the clarity of the documents. Agencies should openly discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks, challenge long-held assumptions, and choose the approach that best supports competition, clarity, and fairness.  Don’t just set it and forget it!