Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Construction Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mass. bill would require quicker payments for extra work on public construction projects
Summary
Rep. William C. Galvin filed House Bill No. 3334 on Jan. 14, 2025, proposing an amendment to state procurement law that would require written decisions on contract price-increase requests within 30 days and create automatic approval if not acted on, with limited tiered extensions and restrictions on delay provisions.
Representative William C. Galvin filed a bill Jan. 14, 2025, that would require faster written decisions and payments for work not included in original public-construction contracts across Massachusetts.
The bill, filed as House No. 3334 in the 194th General Court and referred to the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, would amend Section 39G of Chapter 30 of the Massachusetts General Laws to set time limits and procedural rules for requests for increased contract prices arising from extra work.
Under the proposed language, every contract subject to section 44A of chapter 149, section 39M of chapter 30, or chapter 149A — and every applicable subcontract or trade contract — must provide a “reasonable time period” for approving or rejecting a written request for an increase in contract price. That time period may not exceed 30 days after the later of the start of the work in question or submission of the written request. The bill allows an additional 7-day extension at each tier of contracting below the project owner, meaning a subcontractor may have up to 7 days more than the contractor above it to respond.
If a request is neither approved nor rejected within the applicable time frame, the draft law says the request would be deemed approved and may be included in the next periodic progress-payment application unless the request is rejected before that payment is due. The bill requires that any rejection be in writing, include an explanation of the factual and contractual basis for the rejection, and be certified as made in good faith. Rejections would be subject to the contract’s existing dispute-resolution procedures.
The text also states that any contractual provision that requires a party to delay initiation of dispute procedures until later than 60 days after a rejection would be void and unenforceable.
The proposal is procedural and focuses on timelines and documentation for payment requests; the bill text does not set specific penalties beyond the deemed-approval mechanism. The filing indicates it is before the State Administration and Regulatory Oversight committee for consideration; no committee hearing dates or votes are included in the filing.
If enacted, the change would directly affect public owners, prime contractors, subcontractors and trade contractors on projects covered by the cited chapters and sections of the General Laws.
