Categories: Colorado construction attorneysColorado construction litigationColorado Mechanic's Liensconstruction legislationDenver construction attorneys

Colorado Senate Bill 12-181: 2012’s Version of a Prompt Pay Bill.

A potentially important legislative bill has been introduced in waning days of the 2012 legislative session, which would change many of the commercial practices that prevail in the construction industry. Senate Bill 12-181 applies to all building and construction contracts and would prohibit any contract provision that requires a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier to waive their lien in advance of payment. It also would ban any “choice of law” provisions that make a Colorado-based construction contract subject to enforcement only in another state, or under the laws of another state. 


The bill also seeks to change many existing commercial practices between contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. It is presently unclear whether the bill allows parties to contract around these payment procedure provisions, or whether these requirements are simply “gap filling” provisions that pertain if there are no written contract terms specified on these issues. The proposed statute would mandate payment to subcontractors and material suppliers due within seven days in the absence of a dispute about the work or materials being billed. After this seven day period, the bill would require the payment of interest at the rate of 1.5% monthly (18% annually). In any later suit for payment, the creditor would also be able to collect reasonable attorneys’ fees. Additionally, non-payment to a subcontractor or supplier who is later found to be entitled to prompt payment would excuse the subcontractor or supplier, and its surety bond provider, from any further performance under the contract.

It is presently unclear whether the bill allows parties to contract around these payment procedure provisions. However, it is clear that the bill provides some leeway for change orders, as long as there is (1) negotiation in good faith between the parties concerning the changed scope of work, and (2) a 50% payment of a subcontractor’s costs by the changing party within 30 days of the change order work being done. Additionally, the bill provides for retainage, but in an amount of no more than 5%.


 

For additional information regarding Colorado construction litigation, please contact David M. McLain at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.

Published by
David McLain
13 years ago

Recent Posts

BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

In the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United…

1 week ago

Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

Construction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks,…

1 week ago

Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized…

2 months ago

Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how…

2 months ago

Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025

We are thrilled to announce that David M. McLain, a founding partner of Higgins, Hopkins,…

4 months ago

Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

In the case of Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners (2024…

4 months ago