New Hampshire Considers Bonding in P3s and Wants Further Study of P3s
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
New Hampshire SB 399 was heard today in the Executive
Department and Administration Committee.
The bill would add a new Chapter 21-V to the state procurement code to
permit state agencies to use the following methods for delivery of a public
infrastructure facility, including any structure, building, or other
improvements: design-build, operations and
maintenance, design-bid-build, construction management at-risk,
design-build-operate-maintain and design-build-finance-operate-maintain. The bill
provides that bid security would be required for design-bid-build procurements
that exceed $100,000 at 5% of the bid amount. The bill provides that for design-build,
design-build-operate-maintain, or design-build-finance-operate-maintain contracts in
excess of $25,000, performance bonds and payment bonds would be required in an
amount equal to 100% of the contract price, not including
the cost of operation, maintenance, and finance. The bill, however, would permit performance and payment bonds
to be reduced to 50% of the required amount according to rules promulgated
under the state administrative procedure act.
The state Little Miller Act currently requires a 100% payment bond.
AIA state counsel testified for the sureties and recommended
that the authority to reduce the amount of the payment and performance bonds to
50% of the price of the construction contract be stricken from the bill. Reducing the amount of the payment bond means
that subcontractors and suppliers can be left with no means to collect for
their services and supplies if the contractor is unable or unwilling to pay
them. Every time the surety pays a
claim, the penal sum of the bond is reduced by that amount, leaving less and
less protection. If the amount of a
performance bond is less than 100% of the contract price, the taxpayers take on
the risk that the contractor will default. There will be more contracts on which state
agencies will bear the burden of re-letting work and paying any excess
completion costs. This also lessens the protection for the public owner
without saving any costs as the surety’s analysis and underwriting of the
contractor is based on contract and not on the amount of the bond.
No action was taken
on the bill today at the committee hearing.
We were able to confirm that the committee chair intends to establish a
study commission to further study provisions in this bill and that the
committee generally understood the problems with reducing the bond amount.
At the hearing, various governmental entities spoke to whether they would
want authority to engage in the new methods of delivering a public works
project that would be authorized under SB 399, and several indicated that the
bill would be a lot of work and would require additional staff to
implement. The Department of Administrative Services said that many of
the provisions in the bill should be deferred for further study. The
local AGC chapter representative also testified that the bill needed further
study. The deadline for the Senate to pass legislation is March 27 so
that the committee will need to finalize its recommendations before then.
View PDF version (or visit Government Relations / Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) - Public)