Subcontractor

[h2o]

When a performance & payment bond are required of the general contractor, do the subcontractors also need to get bonded?

[jwcutsha]

Not necessarily. It will be up to the GC to decide if they are going to require the sub to bond back. The GC could have a standard practice of requiring subs over a certain $ amount to bond, or certain trade, or just their general feeling about that sub.

Also, the GC's surety could make it a requirement that certain subs be bonded on a given project.

[Admin]

Welcome to the forums jwcutsha!

Please feel free to stick around. We have surety professionals throughout the country that meet up here.

[h2o]

Originally Posted by jwcutsha

Not necessarily. It will be up to the GC to decide if they are going to require the sub to bond back. The GC could have a standard practice of requiring subs over a certain $ amount to bond, or certain trade, or just their general feeling about that sub.

Also, the GC's surety could make it a requirement that certain subs be bonded on a given project.

If the subs weren't bonded and there was an issue with one of the sub's suppliers being paid... then wouldn't that fall back onto the GC?

[jwcutsha]

That depends......If the supplier is supplying materials to a first tier sub, then yes it would fall back on the GC. It has to be a supplier that has a contract with a sub who has a direct contract with the GC. That is a little confusing, so I have pasted a link to the SIO page on the Miller Act.

This is why it is usually best for the GC to bond all direct subs, that way the GC has recourse against the subs bonds if they do not pay their suppliers.

The Miller Act