Public agencies have a duty to protect taxpayer dollars by ensuring public works projects are awarded through fair, open, and competitive bidding. In the roofing industry, however, CIFAC has seen an emerging concern: manufacturer-controlled certification requirements that may appear neutral on paper but can function as a barrier to competition in practice.

Manufacturer certifications are not inherently improper. Public agencies have a legitimate interest in ensuring that roofing systems are installed correctly, warranties are preserved, and contractors have the skill and experience necessary to perform the work. A properly structured certification process can help accomplish those goals.

The problem arises when the certification process is controlled entirely by the manufacturer, lacks clear objective standards, or cannot realistically be completed by qualified contractors before bids are due. In those situations, certification can become less about quality assurance and more about deciding who is allowed to compete.

The Practical Problem

A contractor may hold the required California roofing license, have the experience to perform the work, and even be approved through an agency’s prequalification process. Yet, if the bid documents require the contractor to be certified by a specific manufacturer, that contractor’s ability to bid may depend on the approval of a private third party.

This creates a serious concern in public contracting. Competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent favoritism, preserve transparency, and ensure that public agencies receive the best value through open competition. When a manufacturer can determine which contractors may install its product—especially shortly before bid opening—the public agency risks allowing a private entity to control access to a public project.

In some cases, the certification timeline itself becomes the barrier. Contractors have reported being told that becoming certified may require months of review, inspections, completed prior projects, or other steps that cannot be satisfied during the bidding period. If the certification requirement is included without providing a reasonable opportunity for qualified contractors to obtain approval, the result is a restricted bidder pool before the bidding even begins.

“Or Equal” May Not Be Enough

Some agencies attempt to address competition concerns by including “or equal” language in the bid documents. While that language is important, it does not always solve the issue.

If the plans, specifications, warranty terms, installation requirements, or approval process are written so narrowly that only one manufacturer’s product can realistically qualify, then the project may still be functionally closed to competition. In other words, a bid package can appear compliant on paper while still discouraging or preventing meaningful competition in practice.

This is especially concerning when a roofing system is selected first, and the contractor pool is narrowed afterward through manufacturer certification requirements. Public agencies should be cautious of procurement structures that create the appearance of open bidding while effectively steering work toward a limited group of manufacturer-approved contractors.

Why This Matters

California’s Public Contract Code already reflects the Legislature’s concern that public works specifications promote fair competition. Public Contract Code §3004 specifically provides that roofing specifications “shall be designed to promote competition,” while Public Contract Code §3400 generally limits the use of proprietary specifications absent specific findings or justification. More broadly, California’s competitive bidding laws are rooted in the public policy principles identified in Public Contract Code §100, including protecting the public from favoritism, fraud, and misuse of public funds through open and competitive procurement practices.

Restrictive roofing specifications can have real financial consequences. When fewer contractors can bid, prices may increase. When products are selected through proprietary or overly narrow specifications, agencies may lose the benefit of comparing equivalent systems, alternative products, and competitive pricing. Most importantly, taxpayers may pay more than necessary for public construction work.

Public agencies should also be mindful that roofing projects often involve significant public dollars, long-term warranties, and facilities that serve students, staff, and communities. These are precisely the types of projects where transparency and competition matter most.

What Agencies Should Watch For

Before approving roofing bid documents, public agencies should carefully review whether the specifications:

• Require certification from a specific manufacturer without a reasonable, objective, and timely path for other qualified contractors to obtain certification;
• Give a manufacturer discretion to approve or reject contractors without clear written standards;
• Include warranty or installation requirements that only one product or contractor group can satisfy;
• Use “or equal” language but include technical specifications that functionally eliminate equal products;
• Allow a contractor to be deemed nonresponsive or nonresponsible based on information controlled by a manufacturer after bids are submitted;
• Restrict competition despite the contractor holding the required license and otherwise meeting the agency’s prequalification requirements.

Best Practices for Public Agencies

To protect the integrity of the bidding process, agencies should require that any certification or product approval process be transparent, objective, and available to all qualified contractors well before bid opening. If manufacturer certification is necessary, the agency should clearly identify the process, timeline, and standards in the bid documents.

Agencies should also consider whether certification decisions should be reviewed by a neutral third party rather than left solely to the manufacturer whose product is being specified. At a minimum, public agencies should avoid giving a private manufacturer unchecked control over which contractors may compete for public work.

CIFAC’s Position

CIFAC supports quality workmanship, responsible contracting, and legitimate product standards. However, those goals must be balanced with the public’s right to fair competition, transparency, and compliance with public bidding laws.

Manufacturer certification should not be used as a backdoor method to limit the bidder pool, steer work to preferred contractors, or prevent qualified roofing contractors from competing. Public agencies should carefully scrutinize roofing specifications to ensure that quality-control measures do not become competition-control measures.

When public dollars are at stake, the process must be fair, open, and objective. Anything less undermines the purpose of competitive bidding and the public trust those laws are intended to protect.