History of CSA Legislative Efforts
2021
During the 2021 legislative session CSA worked to pass legislation to address the problem involving subcontractors on state-building projects. Proposed Bill No. 6202 asked the Legislature to enforce existing provisions in Conn. Gen. Stat. section 4b-96 that already requires the use of a fair and equitable subcontract form for "listed" subcontractors (masonry, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC) on specific state projects.
The bill also sought to extend the use of this statutory subcontract form to other major subcontractors on these projects. This legislation is essential to protect small and medium-size Connecticut subcontractors from unfair, predatory subcontracts that are forced on us them by general contractors on state-building projects.
Moving the legislation forward was a challenge during COVID-19. However, with CSA lobbyist Andrew Markowski's help, CSA introduced the bill and contacted numerous legislators to gain support.
While we received favorable feedback from several legislators, it was difficult to advance these "narrow issue" bills out of committee this session.
Click here to read bill.
The bill also sought to extend the use of this statutory subcontract form to other major subcontractors on these projects. This legislation is essential to protect small and medium-size Connecticut subcontractors from unfair, predatory subcontracts that are forced on us them by general contractors on state-building projects.
Moving the legislation forward was a challenge during COVID-19. However, with CSA lobbyist Andrew Markowski's help, CSA introduced the bill and contacted numerous legislators to gain support.
While we received favorable feedback from several legislators, it was difficult to advance these "narrow issue" bills out of committee this session.
Click here to read bill.
2019
During the 2019 session, CSA worked for passage of Senate Bill 849, legislation to require a minimum of 15 percent overhead and profit for change orders on construction projects. The bill was approved by the General Law Committee, but did not pass.
This bill was important to ensure that contractors get paid fairly when they perform extra work at the direction of the owner or construction manager.
Click here to read the bill.
Click here to read the CSA testimony.
This bill was important to ensure that contractors get paid fairly when they perform extra work at the direction of the owner or construction manager.
Click here to read the bill.
Click here to read the CSA testimony.
2018
In the 2018 legislative session, the CSA worked with the General Law Committee to introduce HB 5370, “AN ACT CONCERNING CHANGE ORDERS IN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS.”
The bill sought to set a floor for the amount that contractors or subcontractors could charge for overhead and profit on change order work to 15% (minimum). The original bill would have applied to both public and private projects (excluding small residential work). CSA’s lobbyist, Bob Shea, worked tirelessly to promote the bill, along with CSA’s legislative committee of Bill Flynn, Bill Coscarelli, Dan Filomeno, and Steve Kaplan.
With the assistance of the General Law Committee Co-chairs, Sen. Kevin Witkos, Sen. Carlo Leone, and Rep. Michael D’Agostino, as well as CSA’s good friends Rep. Jeff Berger, Rep. Tony Guerrara, Sen. Paul Doyle, and Sen. John Kissell, the bill passed the General Law committee unanimously.
Thereafter, the State indicated through a fiscal note that it was concerned about extra costs that might be incurred on public projects if the bill was enacted. Accordingly, and in order to preserve the bill for private jobs, CSA agreed to drop the bill’s application to public projects.
At that point, we thought we had an excellent chance to pass the bill in regard to private projects, and the bill was in fact raised on the House floor for debate and passage. We were surprised, however, to find at the eleventh hour that a small but dedicated group of House Republicans — purportedly at the behest of several unnamed “large contractors”— opposed the bill and threatened to bog down the House in extended debate. Although there were plenty of votes to pass it, this stalling tactic effectively killed the bill for the session.
It is important to note that AGC supported the bill, and worked with us in trying to get it passed.
The bill sought to set a floor for the amount that contractors or subcontractors could charge for overhead and profit on change order work to 15% (minimum). The original bill would have applied to both public and private projects (excluding small residential work). CSA’s lobbyist, Bob Shea, worked tirelessly to promote the bill, along with CSA’s legislative committee of Bill Flynn, Bill Coscarelli, Dan Filomeno, and Steve Kaplan.
With the assistance of the General Law Committee Co-chairs, Sen. Kevin Witkos, Sen. Carlo Leone, and Rep. Michael D’Agostino, as well as CSA’s good friends Rep. Jeff Berger, Rep. Tony Guerrara, Sen. Paul Doyle, and Sen. John Kissell, the bill passed the General Law committee unanimously.
Thereafter, the State indicated through a fiscal note that it was concerned about extra costs that might be incurred on public projects if the bill was enacted. Accordingly, and in order to preserve the bill for private jobs, CSA agreed to drop the bill’s application to public projects.
At that point, we thought we had an excellent chance to pass the bill in regard to private projects, and the bill was in fact raised on the House floor for debate and passage. We were surprised, however, to find at the eleventh hour that a small but dedicated group of House Republicans — purportedly at the behest of several unnamed “large contractors”— opposed the bill and threatened to bog down the House in extended debate. Although there were plenty of votes to pass it, this stalling tactic effectively killed the bill for the session.
It is important to note that AGC supported the bill, and worked with us in trying to get it passed.
2017
In 2017 CSA announced that HB No. 7073 was signed by Governor Malloy. The bill is now Public Act 17-182, “An Act Concerning Remedies In Lawsuits Against Property Owners By Subcontractors And The Release Of Retainage Withheld In Private Construction Contracts.”
This law assists subcontractors in getting paid more quickly on private jobs, and will help all contractors get retainage paid within 30 days of final acceptance of a project.
Key legislators who helped CSA include Rep. Dave Baram, Rep. Tony Guerrera, Rep. Jeff Berger, Sen. John Kissell, Sen. Paul Doyle, Sen. Carlo Leone, Sen. Kevin Witkos, and Sen. Tim Larson.
Click here to read the bill
In 2017 CSA announced that HB No. 7073 was signed by Governor Malloy. The bill is now Public Act 17-182, “An Act Concerning Remedies In Lawsuits Against Property Owners By Subcontractors And The Release Of Retainage Withheld In Private Construction Contracts.”
This law assists subcontractors in getting paid more quickly on private jobs, and will help all contractors get retainage paid within 30 days of final acceptance of a project.
Key legislators who helped CSA include Rep. Dave Baram, Rep. Tony Guerrera, Rep. Jeff Berger, Sen. John Kissell, Sen. Paul Doyle, Sen. Carlo Leone, Sen. Kevin Witkos, and Sen. Tim Larson.
Click here to read the bill
2016
CSA achieved legislative success in 2016 with the passage of House Bill No. 5328, An Act Concerning Public Work Contract Retainage And Enforcement Of The Right To Payment On A Bond. It is now Public Act No. 16-104 and went into effect on July 1, 2016. The new law reduces retainage in public work to 5% and provides attorney's fees for statutory bond payment issues.
This is a significant victory for subcontractors, and everyone else who provides labor or materials for public construction projects.
CSA submitted the bill to reduce retainage on all state construction projects from 10% to 5%. CT DAS later submitted an amendment that became part of the bill, which starts retainage at 7.5% and then reduces it to 5% halfway through the job.
The bill also provides for awarding attorney’s fees to a claimant on a statutory payment bond if the payment bond surety fails to follow the requirement for timely responses to claims under the statute (CGS section 49-42).
Click here to read CSA Testimony On House Bill No 5328 -- An Act Concerning Public Work Contract Retainage And Enforcement Of The Right To Payment On A Bond.
2015
In a CT Supreme Court decision, ECI v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, our state supreme court ruled that a surety on a statutory payment bond provided for a town or state project does NOT have any binding obligation to pay or deny a claim within ninety days, despite the language in the statute (CGS section 49-42) that says that the surety "shall pay or deny claims within ninety days."
Per this decision, there is no incentive whatsoever for a surety to promptly investigate and pay subcontractor claims against statutory payment bonds.
Yet another reason why we need some legislative changes to protect subcontractors working on public projects in CT.
In 2015 CSA will work on several other legislative initiatives to help Connecticut subcontractors. CSA will
2014
DCS and UCONN Retainage: Currently, the maximum retainage that can be withheld on State projects administered through DCS and UCONN is 10% (per Conn. Gen. Stat. section 49-41b). For several years, through administrative policy, DCS had been withholding 7% and then reducing retainage to 3.5%, or lower, as projects neared completion. Recently, however, DCS has withheld 10% retainage on several design build projects (ongoing CCSU dormitory project). The agency, through its legal counsel, reports that the practice of lower levels of retainage will continue on non-design build projects. CSA will probably seek legislative action soon to implement 5% retainage for all state projects, including DCS and UCONN. (By statute, CDOT is at 2 ½% and municipal and private construction projects are at 5%.)
DCS Bid Listing Changes: In the last legislative session, per Special Public Act 14-18, the Legislature directed the Commissioner of DAS to establish a working group known as the “Construction Contracting and Bidding Transparency Group.” The purpose of the group is to study state construction contracting and subcontracting processes, and issue a report to the Legislature by January 2015. This study committee was established primarily in response to legislative proposals that sought changes to the bid listing requirements for DCS projects. Currently, under Conn. Gen. Stat. section 4b-93, all general bids for State construction contracts exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars are required to list the subcontractors (and their prices) who will be performing the Masonry, Electrical, Mechanical, and HVAC work, and also to use a standard, simple and “clean” subcontract form (per Conn. Gen. Stat. section 4b-96). Proposals submitted in the last legislative session sought to expand the requisite bid listing categories to as many as twenty or more subcontractor categories. A number of individuals representing contractor and subcontractor interests sit on this committee, and are seeking a modest and reasonable expansion of the bid listing categories, as well as broadening the requirements to use a clean subcontract form on all state projects. The study committee’s final report is sure to provide the basis for legislative proposals on this subject next year.
Statute of Limitations on State Projects: By now, everyone is aware that in the case of State of Connecticut v. Lombardo Brothers Mason Contractors, Inc., et al, 307 Conn. 412 ( 012), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that there was no statute of limitations that precluded the State from bringing an action against contractors, subcontractors, or design professionals, or their sureties and insurance carriers, at any time after the completion of a state project. (In the Lombardo case, the State sued all contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, and their sureties and insurance carriers regarding problems with the UCONN Law School project some twelve years after its final completion.) The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity (one cannot sue the State without its permission), as well as the legal theory of nullum tempus – that there is no time limit by which the king can bring a legal action against its subjects.Predictably, the construction and design professional community have been seeking to change this result through legislation that imposes reasonable statute of limitations on the State for bringing such actions (i.e., ten-twelve years). Such a proposal failed in the last session, but is expected to be aggressively pursued again in the upcoming legislative session.
Steven B. Kaplan, Esq.
Michelson, Kane, Royster & Barger, P.C.
10 Columbus BoulevardHartford, CT 06106
Tel: 860-522-1243
Fax: 860-548-0194
E-mail: [email protected]
CSA achieved legislative success in 2016 with the passage of House Bill No. 5328, An Act Concerning Public Work Contract Retainage And Enforcement Of The Right To Payment On A Bond. It is now Public Act No. 16-104 and went into effect on July 1, 2016. The new law reduces retainage in public work to 5% and provides attorney's fees for statutory bond payment issues.
This is a significant victory for subcontractors, and everyone else who provides labor or materials for public construction projects.
CSA submitted the bill to reduce retainage on all state construction projects from 10% to 5%. CT DAS later submitted an amendment that became part of the bill, which starts retainage at 7.5% and then reduces it to 5% halfway through the job.
The bill also provides for awarding attorney’s fees to a claimant on a statutory payment bond if the payment bond surety fails to follow the requirement for timely responses to claims under the statute (CGS section 49-42).
Click here to read CSA Testimony On House Bill No 5328 -- An Act Concerning Public Work Contract Retainage And Enforcement Of The Right To Payment On A Bond.
2015
In a CT Supreme Court decision, ECI v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, our state supreme court ruled that a surety on a statutory payment bond provided for a town or state project does NOT have any binding obligation to pay or deny a claim within ninety days, despite the language in the statute (CGS section 49-42) that says that the surety "shall pay or deny claims within ninety days."
Per this decision, there is no incentive whatsoever for a surety to promptly investigate and pay subcontractor claims against statutory payment bonds.
Yet another reason why we need some legislative changes to protect subcontractors working on public projects in CT.
In 2015 CSA will work on several other legislative initiatives to help Connecticut subcontractors. CSA will
- Promote legislation to allow subcontractors to pass through claims to the public owner, thereby allowing subcontractors a means of bringing legitimate claims before the owner without having to obligate their general contractor for this liability.
- Lower retainage for DCS and UCONN projects. Recently UCONN lowered retainage from 10 percent to 7.15 percent. Recently DCS has withheld 10% retainage on several design build projects The agency, through its legal counsel, reports that the practice of withholding lower levels of retainage will continue on non-design build projects. CSA will seek legislative action to implement 5% retainage for all state projects, including DCS and UCONN.
2014
DCS and UCONN Retainage: Currently, the maximum retainage that can be withheld on State projects administered through DCS and UCONN is 10% (per Conn. Gen. Stat. section 49-41b). For several years, through administrative policy, DCS had been withholding 7% and then reducing retainage to 3.5%, or lower, as projects neared completion. Recently, however, DCS has withheld 10% retainage on several design build projects (ongoing CCSU dormitory project). The agency, through its legal counsel, reports that the practice of lower levels of retainage will continue on non-design build projects. CSA will probably seek legislative action soon to implement 5% retainage for all state projects, including DCS and UCONN. (By statute, CDOT is at 2 ½% and municipal and private construction projects are at 5%.)
DCS Bid Listing Changes: In the last legislative session, per Special Public Act 14-18, the Legislature directed the Commissioner of DAS to establish a working group known as the “Construction Contracting and Bidding Transparency Group.” The purpose of the group is to study state construction contracting and subcontracting processes, and issue a report to the Legislature by January 2015. This study committee was established primarily in response to legislative proposals that sought changes to the bid listing requirements for DCS projects. Currently, under Conn. Gen. Stat. section 4b-93, all general bids for State construction contracts exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars are required to list the subcontractors (and their prices) who will be performing the Masonry, Electrical, Mechanical, and HVAC work, and also to use a standard, simple and “clean” subcontract form (per Conn. Gen. Stat. section 4b-96). Proposals submitted in the last legislative session sought to expand the requisite bid listing categories to as many as twenty or more subcontractor categories. A number of individuals representing contractor and subcontractor interests sit on this committee, and are seeking a modest and reasonable expansion of the bid listing categories, as well as broadening the requirements to use a clean subcontract form on all state projects. The study committee’s final report is sure to provide the basis for legislative proposals on this subject next year.
Statute of Limitations on State Projects: By now, everyone is aware that in the case of State of Connecticut v. Lombardo Brothers Mason Contractors, Inc., et al, 307 Conn. 412 ( 012), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that there was no statute of limitations that precluded the State from bringing an action against contractors, subcontractors, or design professionals, or their sureties and insurance carriers, at any time after the completion of a state project. (In the Lombardo case, the State sued all contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, and their sureties and insurance carriers regarding problems with the UCONN Law School project some twelve years after its final completion.) The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity (one cannot sue the State without its permission), as well as the legal theory of nullum tempus – that there is no time limit by which the king can bring a legal action against its subjects.Predictably, the construction and design professional community have been seeking to change this result through legislation that imposes reasonable statute of limitations on the State for bringing such actions (i.e., ten-twelve years). Such a proposal failed in the last session, but is expected to be aggressively pursued again in the upcoming legislative session.
Steven B. Kaplan, Esq.
Michelson, Kane, Royster & Barger, P.C.
10 Columbus BoulevardHartford, CT 06106
Tel: 860-522-1243
Fax: 860-548-0194
E-mail: [email protected]