In light of this mishap, state Governor Gavin Newsom is expecting a refund of $247 million for the protective masks, which would cover half its investment after the Chinese electric car company, Build Your Dreams, failed to meet the issued date. Instead, the deadline was reset to May 31.

For the past month, Newsom has continuously denied requests from various media outlets for transparency of the contract, particularly for the Los Angeles Times. 


Something "Bold and Big" Turns "Murky"

Democratic state assemblyman and budget committee member Richard Bloom criticized his decision and referred to the deal with BYD as "murky."

Newsom announced last month that as a nation-state, and with a financial capacity that can be shelled out worth up to billions of dollars, he said, "[California is] in a position to do something bold and big." 

Last Wednesday, he shared with the public that California paid $3.30 for each N95 mask and 55 cents for each surgical mask under the contract with BYD. Other states were reported to have paid twice the amount for the same supplies.

The delivery was scheduled to arrive last month. However, Newsom's office provided no details as to what caused the delay after the deadline on April 30.

The masks would be tested and validated in Utah and then would move on to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health core certification. 

Republican state assemblyman and Vice Chairman of the budget committee Jay Obernol stated his concern about not having seen the contract himself. Nonetheless, he had faith in how Newsom handled the delay of the certification of the N95 masks.

"I think that the administration is doing the best that they can," Obernol said.


Check these out!


Lack of Transparency Over BYD Deal

Over the past month, criticisms have been fired at Newsom over the lack of transparency with regards to the contract. In a report by the Los Angeles Times, the governor's office claimed that public disclosure of the deal would ruin the delivery of the masks.

An attorney working with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services wrote that any form of publication concerning the contract before its completion would risk the state from the procurement of the medical supplies. 

A statement from the agency said that all records were "exempt from disclosure." This included exemptions for records that revealed the work output of the legal services, privileged information between the attorney and the client, or other records exempt from disclosure under federal or state law.

Meanwhile, assembly budget committee member Phil Ting told reporters on Wednesday that they lacked necessary information about the shipment, such as how many masks were being bought, who the office was buying them from, and at what cost.

"What are we obligated?" Ting said. "For how long are we obligated?"