This will put an unnecessary burden on local governments with regard to managing subcontractors. It was considered last session and died. -Greg Robertson
I oppose for several reasons. First, including this language as an option will result in direct pressure by contractors to engineers/owners to include it; and second, it will get included in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) which is used by all local governments and become the new normal. As an engineer, I don't want to be in a position of having to defend a bid specification should I choose not to include it as a provision. -Greg
Missoula County opposes Senate Bill 171 - Revise law on payment of subcontractors on public contracts, before Senate Business, Labor, and Economic Affairs tomorrow morning. SB 171 will put an unnecessary burden on local governments with regard to managing subcontractors. Including the bill language as an option in contracting will result in direct pressure by contractors to engineers and owners to include the option. The language will also be included in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications which is used by all local governments and will become the new normal. The county does not want to be put in a position of having to defend a bid specification should it choose not to include the specification as a provision. Please oppose SB 171.
Respectfully, Dale Bickell on behalf of the Missoula County Commissioners
Missoula County opposes Senate Bill 171 - Revise law on payment of subcontractors on public contracts, before the Senate on its second reading this afternoon at 1 p.m. SB 171 will put an unnecessary burden on local governments with regard to managing subcontractors. Including the bill language as an option in contracting will result in direct pressure by contractors to engineers and owners to include the option. The language will also be included in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications which is used by all local governments and will become the new normal. The county does not want to be put in a position of having to defend a bid specification should it choose not to include the specification as a provision. Please oppose SB 171.
Respectfully, Dale Bickell on behalf of the Missoula County Commissioners
Dale asked that I respond to explain my position. SB171 bucks the traditional owner/contractor relationship and sets a bad precident for future public contracts. When a contractor bids a project, there are all sorts of negotations that go on between himself/herself and his/her subcontractors. As an owner, we don't know what those agreements and negotiations are. At the same time, we don't know the pricing structure relationship between the prime contractor and his/her subs. And as an owner, we never will.
Prime contractors have a responsibility to manage their subcontractors as well as the overall responsibility for the quality and workmanship of the delivered project including any warranty work. Managing subs can be an interesting experience. Let's just say some are less professional than others and they create headaches for the prime contractor. As part of the management, they often withhold payment for poor or unfinished work in order to compell the subcontractor to do what he/she said they would do.
As an owner, our contractual relationship is with the prime contractor. NOT the subcontractors. We do now wish to end-run this relationship by dealing individually with his/her subcontractors. It disrupts the entire chain of communication and management and in my opinion results in an inferior project.
Even though the language is permissive, meaning optional for owners to do such a thing, it will eventually make its way into standard specifications we as engineers use. I can guarantee there will be pressure applied to state and local government owner representatives and their bosses to include this provision if adopted into law.
And frankly, athough I don't know why anyone would, but there is nothing in statute precluding an Owner from putting this type of language in a contract. Nobody does it, not because there is some prohibition in law, but because it is stupid.
I hope that answers your questions. Feel free to give me a call should you have questions.
This will put an unnecessary burden on local governments with regard to managing subcontractors. It was considered last session and died.
ReplyDelete-Greg Robertson
I oppose for several reasons. First, including this language as an option will result in direct pressure by contractors to engineers/owners to include it; and second, it will get included in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) which is used by all local governments and become the new normal. As an engineer, I don't want to be in a position of having to defend a bid specification should I choose not to include it as a provision.
ReplyDelete-Greg
Senator Facey,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes Senate Bill 171 - Revise law on payment of subcontractors on public contracts, before Senate Business, Labor, and Economic Affairs tomorrow morning. SB 171 will put an unnecessary burden on local governments with regard to managing subcontractors. Including the bill language as an option in contracting will result in direct pressure by contractors to engineers and owners to include the option. The language will also be included in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications which is used by all local governments and will become the new normal. The county does not want to be put in a position of having to defend a bid specification should it choose not to include the specification as a provision. Please oppose SB 171.
Respectfully,
Dale Bickell on behalf of the Missoula County Commissioners
Sent to Missoula County Senators
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes Senate Bill 171 - Revise law on payment of subcontractors on public contracts, before the Senate on its second reading this afternoon at 1 p.m. SB 171 will put an unnecessary burden on local governments with regard to managing subcontractors. Including the bill language as an option in contracting will result in direct pressure by contractors to engineers and owners to include the option. The language will also be included in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications which is used by all local governments and will become the new normal. The county does not want to be put in a position of having to defend a bid specification should it choose not to include the specification as a provision. Please oppose SB 171.
Respectfully,
Dale Bickell on behalf of the Missoula County Commissioners
Good evening, Sue:
ReplyDeleteDale asked that I respond to explain my position. SB171 bucks the traditional owner/contractor relationship and sets a bad precident for future public contracts.
When a contractor bids a project, there are all sorts of negotations that go on between himself/herself and his/her subcontractors. As an owner, we don't know what those agreements and negotiations are. At the same time, we don't know the pricing structure relationship between the prime contractor and his/her subs. And as an owner, we never will.
Prime contractors have a responsibility to manage their subcontractors as well as the overall responsibility for the quality and workmanship of the delivered project including any warranty work. Managing subs can be an interesting experience. Let's just say some are less professional than others and they create headaches for the prime contractor. As part of the management, they often withhold payment for poor or unfinished work in order to compell the subcontractor to do what he/she said they would do.
As an owner, our contractual relationship is with the prime contractor. NOT the subcontractors. We do now wish to end-run this relationship by dealing individually with his/her subcontractors. It disrupts the entire chain of communication and management and in my opinion results in an inferior project.
Even though the language is permissive, meaning optional for owners to do such a thing, it will eventually make its way into standard specifications we as engineers use. I can guarantee there will be pressure applied to state and local government owner representatives and their bosses to include this provision if adopted into law.
And frankly, athough I don't know why anyone would, but there is nothing in statute precluding an Owner from putting this type of language in a contract. Nobody does it, not because there is some prohibition in law, but because it is stupid.
I hope that answers your questions. Feel free to give me a call should you have questions.
Greg