Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Construction Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moore files bill to speed payment approvals for added public-construction work
Summary
Sen. Michael O. Moore filed legislation Jan. 8 that would require public owners and contractors in Massachusetts to approve or reject written requests for price increases on work not in original public-construction contracts within set timeframes, or else the requests would be deemed approved.
Sen. Michael O. Moore, D-Second Worcester, filed a bill Jan. 8 in the Massachusetts General Court that would require quicker written responses to requests for increases in public-construction contract prices when the work was not included in the original contract. The filing is Senate No. 2186 in the 194th General Court (2025–2026).
The bill would add a paragraph to section 39G of chapter 30 of the General Laws requiring every contract subject to section 44A of chapter 149, section 39M of chapter 30, or chapter 149A — and every applicable subcontract or trade contract — to provide a “reasonable time period” for approving or rejecting a written request for an increase in the contract price. The draft language sets the maximum time at 30 days after the later of the start of the work that prompts the request or the submission of the written request.
Under the proposal, the 30-day limit may be extended by seven days at each lower tier of contracting compared with the tier above it. If a request is neither approved nor rejected within the applicable time period, the bill states the request “shall be deemed to be approved” and may be submitted for payment in the next periodic progress-payment application unless rejected before the payment date.
The draft also requires that any rejection, in whole or in part, be made in writing, include an explanation of the factual and contractual basis for the rejection, and be certified as made in good faith. A rejection would remain subject to any applicable dispute-resolution procedure. The bill further states that any contractual provision requiring a party to delay commencement of dispute procedures beyond 60 days after a rejection would be void and unenforceable.
The filing notes similar matter filed in the previous session (House No. 3032 of 2023–2024) and lists the committee reference as State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. The text of the bill specifies how the timing rules would apply across tiers of owner, contractor, subcontractor and trade-contract relationships.
If enacted, the provision would affect public owners, general contractors, subcontractors and trade contractors involved in projects governed by the cited sections of chapter 30 and chapter 149 series. The draft does not set penalties in the text beyond allowing requests to be submitted for payment when not acted on within the prescribed time.
The bill was filed for consideration by the General Court; no vote or action by the Senate or committee is recorded in the filing.
