My opinion is (unless local laws over rule), is that any trade's work that you could not afford to have completely re-done from scratch should be bonded. ME&P would be the big hitters. Maybe masons and roofers too.cpdatlanta said:
Subcontractor Bonding
For a General Contractor which subs would need to be bonded? MEP? etc. Or would you have to bond all of them. Kind of confused how this works. Thanks
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
So should you bond every sub?mdshunk said:My opinion is (unless local laws over rule), is that any trade's work that you could not afford to have completely re-done from scratch should be bonded. ME&P would be the big hitters. Maybe masons and roofers too.
You should take a real hard look at what you hope to accomplish by requiring subs to provide bonds. Bonds may not be the best instrument to achieve the outcome you desire.
A bond will not provide you a quick fix in circumstances where non-performance is an issue. They may not help at all if your subcontract agreement has holes in it. Your best protection against non-performance issues is selecting reliable subs and using tight subcontact agreements.
Remember, if you are competing against others who do not require bonds you are automatically at a competitive disadantage in terms of your cost. This cost may include not only the bond's cost plus mark-up but the cost of whatever additional risk the sub perceives in performing bonded work vs. non-bonded.
A bond will not provide you a quick fix in circumstances where non-performance is an issue. They may not help at all if your subcontract agreement has holes in it. Your best protection against non-performance issues is selecting reliable subs and using tight subcontact agreements.
Remember, if you are competing against others who do not require bonds you are automatically at a competitive disadantage in terms of your cost. This cost may include not only the bond's cost plus mark-up but the cost of whatever additional risk the sub perceives in performing bonded work vs. non-bonded.
Thanks that helps alotPipeGuy said:You should take a real hard look at what you hope to accomplish by requiring subs to provide bonds. Bonds may not be the best instrument to achieve the outcome you desire.
A bond will not provide you a quick fix in circumstances where non-performance is an issue. They may not help at all if your subcontract agreement has holes in it. Your best protection against non-performance issues is selecting reliable subs and using tight subcontact agreements.
Remember, if you are competing against others who do not require bonds you are automatically at a competitive disadantage in terms of your cost. This cost may include not only the bond's cost plus mark-up but the cost of whatever additional risk the sub perceives in performing bonded work vs. non-bonded.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum
A forum community dedicated to professional construction and remodeling contractors. Come join the discussion about the industry, trades, safety, projects, finishing, tools, machinery, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
