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 HB1152

Tech Accessibility Liability Contractor

CO SB314

Recovery Audit Contractor Program

CO HB1124

Universal Contracting Provision Requirements

CO SB036

State Patrol Bonding Exception

CO SB111

Capital Construction Supplemental

CO SB112

Capital Construction Information Technology Supplemental

CO HB1245

Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning Improvement Projects in Schools

Similar Bills

AK HB389

Retainage On Construction Contracts

FL S1080

Transportation

FL S1274

Transportation

CT HB05003

An Act Concerning Workforce Development And Working Conditions In The State.

DC B26-0621

Procurement Reform Amendment Act of 2026

CO HB1245

Theft by Contractor

AK HB133

Payment Of Contracts

AK SB129

Payment Of Contracts