Missouri committee hears bill to force faster private construction payments; industry split over 40/7 timeline

State Rep. David Castillo on Tuesday urged the House Committee on Economic Development to approve House Bill 1915, saying the measure would protect contractors, subcontractors and suppliers on private construction projects by spelling out payment deadlines, banning abusive contract clauses and requiring written notice and an opportunity to cure before funds are withheld.

"When work is done honestly and correctly, people should be paid fairly and on time," Castillo said in his opening presentation, arguing the bill targets commercial and large-scale private projects and exempts typical owner‑occupied residential remodels.

The bill’s main provisions would 1) set defined payment timelines so an owner must pay a general contractor within a fixed period after a proper invoice and the general contractor must pass payment to subcontractors in a short, specific time; 2) ban contract language that shifts all risk to smaller parties or forces subcontractors to keep working without timely pay; and 3) require written notice explaining any withholding and a chance to cure alleged defects.

Supporters at the hearing said slow payment is widespread. Xavier Gassier of the St. Louis chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association told the committee 90‑day waits are common, and in some cases exceed 200 days. "The intention was...40 days for the payment to flow from the owner to the prime contractor, and 7 days for that payment to flow from that contractor down to the subs," he said, characterizing the 40/7 structure as a staggered, pragmatic approach.

Opponents — including the Associated General Contractors of Missouri and home‑builders groups — said the draft’s downstream deadlines and dispute rules risk unintended consequences. Ed Twiehaus of the AGC said the proposed 7‑day requirement from general contractors to subcontractors is "unrealistic," could create administrative burdens and might invite stop‑work disputes that disrupt projects. John Barje of the St. Louis Home Builders Association warned the measure, as drafted, could unduly burden small residential builders and urged a clear exemption for typical home‑building firms.

Several witnesses and committee members recommended aligning private prompt‑pay with Missouri’s existing public prompt‑pay framework (30 days owner→GC; 15 days downstream) or otherwise loosening the downstream requirement. Kevin McMullen of the Site Improvement Association and other proponent witnesses said stakeholders are working on a House Committee substitute that would more closely mirror the public statute while preserving protections for downstream firms.

Committee members pressed on operational details: how the 7‑ and 40‑day timelines would interact, whether public projects would be affected, and whether strict timelines could place subcontractors "between a rock and a hard place" if draws or permits are delayed. The sponsor said he is negotiating language and anticipated a committee substitute would be available for review.

No committee vote was taken on HB 1915 during the hearing. The chair closed testimony after multiple proponent and opponent witnesses and acknowledged ongoing negotiations; proponents said they expect a committee substitute to be circulated for further discussion.

What happens next: Committee members and stakeholders said they expect further drafting and a committee substitute; the bill remains under consideration by the House Economic Development Committee.