Thank you for being part of the NASBP SuretyConnect community, NASBP's eGroups Message Boards. To ensure the best possible experience for all participants, we have established some basic guidelines. By joining and using this community, you agree that you have read and will follow these rules...
Maryland Public Projects Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc...See Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc...Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc., § 17-110(c)(2).
This study recommends the following: Recommendation 12: Performance Bonds Cuyahoga County should respond to the perceived burden of performance bonds on SBE and MWBE firms by breaking performance bonds into “phases”
By Brian Marron of Marcum LLP Originally published November 15, 2023 As construction companies enter Q4, this is a great time to look at performance and take advantage of potential tax savings opportunities
Senate Bill 838, codified at Virginia Code § 11-4.6 and § 40.1-29 has four major effects: 1It makes the general contractor—and all tiers of subcontractors working on the project—contractually liable to pay their subcontractor’s (at any tier) employees’ wages; It requires that such payments equal or exceed those required by applicable statutes, such as Virginia’s Minimum Wage Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); It deems contractors to be the employers of their subcontractors’ employees for purposes of Virginia Code § 40.1-29, which imposes criminal liability and civil penalties for failing to pay employees’ wages when due; and It gives all employees several procedural advantages, allowing them to sue jointly or as a class action, imposing liquidated damages equal to the wage amounts owed, awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, and—in cases of willful violations—imposing treble damages
This changed with the passage of amendments to Virginia Code § 11-4.6 that became effective in 2023
Per Internal Revenue Code Section 41, for research expenditures to qualify for the credit, they must meet four requirements.
Sipes [1] On April 22, 2020, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal (“the Second Circuit”) held a contractor liable to the owner for his defective performance as well as project completion costs after his termination
Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties ( see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work. Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v
Impossibility/improbability/frustration of purpose are recognized in unforeseen events that make performance impossible or impractical, but price escalations do not generally justify rescission of the contract. However, the commentary to the Uniform Construction Code (UCC) opens the door to a potential defense. UCC §2-615, Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions, Comment #4 states: “Increased cost alone does not excuse performance unless the rise in cost is due to some unforeseen contingency which alters the essential nature of the performance