Colorado 2026 Regular Session

Colorado House Bill HB1311

Introduced
3/2/26  
Refer
3/2/26  
Report Pass
3/18/26  
Refer
3/18/26  
Engrossed
3/25/26  
Refer
3/25/26  
Report Pass
3/31/26  
Refer
3/31/26  
Engrossed
4/28/26  
Engrossed
4/28/26  
Enrolled
4/28/26  

Caption

Retainage Surety Bond Construction Contracts

Impact

The primary impact of HB1311 is the modification of the Colorado Revised Statutes to change how retainage is handled in construction contracts. By requiring the acceptance of retainage bonds, the bill proposes to alleviate cash flow issues commonly faced by subcontractors and contractors. This could lead to a more streamlined payment process and financial predictability in construction projects, benefiting contractors and potentially enhancing the bidding environment for projects, as fewer withheld payments could make contracts more appealing.

Voting

The bill passed with a strong majority, reflecting support across party lines, with a recorded vote of 32 yeas and only 2 nays during its third reading in the Senate on April 7, 2026. This broad support indicates a consensus on the need for reform in retainage practices, albeit with ongoing discussions about its practical implications and enforcement mechanisms.

Summary

House Bill 1311, titled 'Retainage Surety Bond Construction Contracts', aims to allow subcontractors and contractors in Colorado to provide a surety bond in lieu of retainage on construction contracts. The bill stipulates that instead of withholding a portion of payments as retainage, property owners and contractors must accept a retainage bond that provides assurance that the work will be completed satisfactorily or that materials provided meet necessary specifications. This ensures that all parties involved in construction contracts have financial protections without the burden of retaining payments.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB1311 include concerns about the reliability of surety bonds and whether they are a sufficient replacement for the traditional retainage practice. Critics argue that while a bond provides a certain level of financial assurance, it may not adequately protect subcontractors or guarantee timely payment relative to direct retainage. Furthermore, there could be disparities in the financial strength of sureties, leading to varying levels of security for contractors, particularly smaller firms that might struggle to secure bonds.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CO HB1130

Labor Requirements for Government Construction Projects

CO HB1272

Construction Defects & Middle Market Housing

CO HB1261

Consumers Construction Defect Action

CO SB314

Recovery Audit Contractor Program

CO HB1152

Tech Accessibility Liability Contractor

CO HB1124

Universal Contracting Provision Requirements

CO SB262

Changes to Money in the Capital Construction Fund

CO SB145

Online Cancellation of Automatic Renewal Contracts

CO HB1245

Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning Improvement Projects in Schools

CO SB112

Capital Construction Information Technology Supplemental

Similar Bills

VA SB165

Contracts; retainage bonds permitted in construction contracts, effective clause.

AK HB389

Retainage On Construction Contracts

CO HB261311

Concerning the use of a bond in lieu of retainage in construction contracts.

MN HF1234

Payment transparency required in public contracts.

MN SF1714

Public contracts payment transparency requirement provision

HI SB1587

Relating To Retainage.

HI SB1587

Relating To Retainage.

MO HB1915

Establishes rules to govern contracts between contractors, subcontractors, and other parties to construction contracts