Cal. PCC § 10490
This is the official text of Cal. PCC § 10490, part of California’s Public Contract Code — governs how California government agencies award and manage contracts.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Official statutory text
(a) A scrutinized company is ineligible to, and shall not, bid on or submit a proposal for a contract with a state agency for goods or services related to products or services that are the reason the company must comply with Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
(b) For purposes of this section, a “scrutinized company” is a person that has been found to be in violation of Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by final judgment or settlement entered in a civil or administrative action brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the person has not remedied or cured the violation in a manner accepted by the commission on or before final judgment or settlement.
(c) A person shall cease to be regarded as a scrutinized company when the person is no longer deemed to be in violation of Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or upon filing by such person of an amended or corrective filing under Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which filing corrects the violations described in subdivision (b), or after three years from the date of final judgment or settlement, whichever is earlier.
(d) The Department of General Services shall establish in the State Administrative Manual or the State Contracting Manual policies and procedures for all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to implement the contract prohibition of this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, “goods or services” includes goods and services subject to this chapter (commencing with Section 10290), information technology goods and services subject to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 12100), and telecommunication goods and services subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 12120).
(b) For purposes of this section, a “scrutinized company” is a person that has been found to be in violation of Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by final judgment or settlement entered in a civil or administrative action brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the person has not remedied or cured the violation in a manner accepted by the commission on or before final judgment or settlement.
(c) A person shall cease to be regarded as a scrutinized company when the person is no longer deemed to be in violation of Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or upon filing by such person of an amended or corrective filing under Section 13(p) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which filing corrects the violations described in subdivision (b), or after three years from the date of final judgment or settlement, whichever is earlier.
(d) The Department of General Services shall establish in the State Administrative Manual or the State Contracting Manual policies and procedures for all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to implement the contract prohibition of this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, “goods or services” includes goods and services subject to this chapter (commencing with Section 10290), information technology goods and services subject to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 12100), and telecommunication goods and services subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 12120).
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in California?
Find a California lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.