Greg Robertson wrote: I think this is really bad public policy and would represent a sea change in how public contracts are administered. The contractual relationship is between the general contractor and the sub-contractor. Our relationship is with the general contractor and not the sub. We require the general as part of our contract to post a payment bond to ensure suppliers and subs are paid in the event the general doesn't.
I am not sure really how we would integrate such a requirement into our contract documents or track them for that matter since we are not privy to the actual contract between the general and the sub.
This bill would create some amount of additional paperwork--more claims to pay, including, presumably, the 1% contractor withholding to the state. An additional source of paperwork would arise if we need to have a contract with each subcontractor.
In effect, this bill would turn public agencies into de facto general contractors by forcing them to pay subcontractors directly.
ReplyDeleteGreg Robertson wrote:
ReplyDeleteI think this is really bad public policy and would represent a sea change in how public contracts are administered. The contractual relationship is between the general contractor and the sub-contractor. Our relationship is with the general contractor and not the sub. We require the general as part of our contract to post a payment bond to ensure suppliers and subs are paid in the event the general doesn't.
I am not sure really how we would integrate such a requirement into our contract documents or track them for that matter since we are not privy to the actual contract between the general and the sub.
Greg
This bill would create some amount of additional paperwork--more claims to pay, including, presumably, the 1% contractor withholding to the state. An additional source of paperwork would arise if we need to have a contract with each subcontractor.
ReplyDelete