Board members spent substantial time discussing whether pay-application criteria should require information that ensures downstream subcontractors and sub-subcontractors receive pay.

A Council member pressed staff for clarity after Trey said about 77 contracts are under review, with nine flagged for compliance. The council member asked which departments were included and emphasized that the board’s oversight should reach projects across Metro, not just General Services.

On subcontractor pay protection the council member asked whether the pay-application process could require documentation from subs and even sub-subcontractors. “If a sub or sub of and and so it has language in there about it. The contractor being responsible for the safety of the subcontractor and the supplier and all of that,” the council member said, questioning whether similar downstream responsibility exists for pay.

A general contractor on the call described the commercial practice: when Metro pays the GC, the general contractor is typically obligated to pay its subcontractors. The contractor said enforcing downstream pay by withholding full GC payment can widen impacts and harm other subs on a job, and recommended careful drafting of contract language and possible payroll verification.

An outside expert described options other cities use: limits on how much a prime can subcontract, payroll verification during projects, withholding payment at the GC level while a grievance is resolved, and referral to state labor authorities (example cited: Washington’s LNI process).

The chair asked whether the pay-related questions should be handled by a committee. Members agreed to collect examples from Eric and Daniel about peer-city practices and to discuss detailed options in a committee meeting ahead of the next full board session.

No formal policy or vote was taken; the board agreed to continue the conversation and asked staff to return with comparative examples and draft contract language for pay-application criteria.