Connecticut Senate Bill SB00070

Connecticut 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/15/12
• Refer: 2/15/12
• Report Pass: 3/13/12
• Refer: 3/19/12
• Report Pass: 3/26/12
• Refer: 4/10/12
• Report Pass: 4/17/12
• Report Pass: 4/18/12

Caption

An Act Concerning Fairness In Certain Commercial Construction Contracts.

Impact

If enacted, SB00070 would significantly amend existing laws governing construction contract terms, particularly concerning payment obligations. The stipulated framework is designed to reduce disputes over payments and ensure timely compensation, which could lead to better cash flow for contractors and subcontractors. This change would impact the overall dynamics of commercial construction in the state, providing a stronger legal basis for parties seeking enforcement of payment agreements.

Summary

SB00070 is focused on enhancing fairness in commercial construction contracts within the state. The bill mandates specific payment timelines for contractors and subcontractors, ensuring that they receive payments no later than thirty days after a request is made. It further stipulates that any pending or approved change orders must include a minimum allowable overhead and profit margin of fifteen percent. This structure aims to protect subcontractors and suppliers from payment delays, thereby promoting a healthier financial environment for those engaged in construction projects.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB00070 appears to be generally positive among those advocating for fair treatment of construction workers and businesses. Proponents argue that the bill addresses critical gaps in payment protections, fostering a more equitable landscape within the commercial construction sector. However, there may be concerns among some contractors regarding the operational implications of the changes it proposes, indicating a mix of support and apprehension depending on stakeholders' perspectives.

Contention

Despite the bill's intentions, there are notable points of contention. Critics may voice concerns that the mandatory payment provisions could impose undue burdens on contractors dealing with cash flow constraints or those navigating complex projects with delayed payment cycles. Additionally, opposition might arise from stakeholders worried that the minimum profit margins established for change orders could lead to inflation in project costs, affecting the overall competitiveness of construction bids in the state.