Payment Provisions for Construction Contracts in Massachusetts

I know what you are wondering . . . payment provisions have Normally been crucial components of design projects.  Owners want to fully grasp what they are paying for and that they are not about-spending.  Contractors want prompt payment provisions and limitations on an Owner’s means to withhold payment.  Lower tier subcontractors and suppliers want clarity, details and solutions, other than what can be a cumbersome mechanic’s lien approach, to guarantee that they will get paid out in the event of a dispute.  So, I definitely agree, payment provisions are crucial.  If payment is not designed or the payment apps are not delivered for each the terms of the deal, it can result in delays and supplemental prices for all challenge contributors.

A range of decades in the past, Massachusetts passed the Massachusetts Prompt Fork out Act, G.L. c. 149, §29E (the “Act”).  The objective of the Act is to generate some floor guidelines that are study into each personal construction contract that is $3,000,000 or a lot more.  It produces time durations by which payment applications will have to be authorized and, importantly for this submit, provisions for the review, approval, and rejection of a payment application.  The Act needs certain formalities that may possibly be a lure for the unwary such as:

Certification that the rejection is built in very good religion

Failure to well timed approve a payment application also has consequences these as getting the payment software be deemed accredited.

When there has been a great deal dialogue about the prompt payment and retainage regulation in Massachusetts considering the fact that their enactment, there have been number of circumstances implementing the statutes.  In a modern Massachusetts Excellent Court circumstance, a court docket observed that when a contract and the Act are at odds, the Act controls and nutritional supplements or trumps any contrary provisions inside the agreement. Tocci Constructing Corp. v. IRIV Associates, LLC, C.A. No. 19-00405 (Mass. Tremendous. Ct. Nov. 19, 2020).   So, for that motive, we strongly suggest all house owners, contractors, and subcontractors to revisit their typical form contracts, carry out schooling with their project management groups, and acquire other actions appropriate for your companies to make certain compliance with the Act.  In this publish, we summarize the Act and the Tocci case.

STATUTORY Qualifications

Matter to constrained exceptions, the Act is relevant to all private building initiatives “for which the individual whose deal with the job proprietor has an original deal selling price of $3,000,000 or more.”  Area 29E(a).  Further, the act sets out prerequisites that “provide fair time intervals inside of which: (i) a human being seeking payment below the agreement shall post created apps for periodic progress payments (ii) the man or woman acquiring the application shall approve or reject the application . . . and (iii) the person approving the application shall pay the amount of money permitted.” Part 29E(c).  The Act also presents time durations that shall not be exceeded for each software for a periodic progress payment. Id.  Some of these are

  • 30 days for submission
  • 15 days for approval or rejection—which may well be extended by 7 days for each tier of agreement earlier mentioned this sort of human being, and
  • 45 days from approval payment really should be produced.

The Act then delivers that “[a]n software for a periodic progress payment which is neither permitted nor rejected within the time period shall be considered to be permitted unless it is turned down in advance of the date the payment is because of.” Id.  On the other hand, the Act sets forth supplemental specifications for rejections of an software for a periodic development payment. See id.  For a rejection, “no matter if total or in component, shall be made in creating and shall contain an rationalization of the factual and contractual basis for the rejection and shall be accredited as designed in good religion.” Id.  Finally, the Act presents that “[a] provision in a deal for design which purports to waive or restrict any provisions of this segment shall be void and unenforceable.” Segment 29E(g).


In Tocci Creating Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, Tocci Making Corp. (“Tocci”), entered into a prepared contract with IRIV Companions, LLC (“IRIV”) in Oct of 2016 to deliver design products and services and supplies important to construct a creating in downtown Boston. Tocci Determination at 2.  The agreement cost was properly over the necessary $3,000,000, which place the agreement in the parameters of the Act. Id.

The Top-quality Courtroom famous, even so, that the subject deal bundled provisions clearly opposite to the Act. Id. at 5.  Precisely, the deal provided for “14 times for rejections rather than 15 days, and 30 times immediately after submission for payment somewhat than 45 times right after approval.” Id.  Nonetheless, Tocci submitted month-to-month applications for payment to IRIV pursuant to the agreement. Id.  Ultimately, seven applications have been in dispute (Requisitions 20-26) and the court docket found that, even applying “the much more defendant-welcoming deadlines contained in the Act, IRIV unsuccessful to approve or reject the Requisitions inside of 15 times soon after submission, or inside the following 45 times, when payment was thanks.” Id.  On top of that, IRIV in no way offered a prepared rejection that “included an clarification of the factual and contractual basis for the rejection that was certified as manufactured in superior faith.” Id. at 5-6.

The initially query for the courtroom was “whether the Act’s provisions governing progress payments manage[led], or whether the Contract d[id].” Id. at 10.  The court docket established that the Act evidently managed, supported by subsection (g), which waives or boundaries any provisions that are contrary to the Act. Id. at 10 (citing G.L. c. 149, 29E(g)).

Upcoming, the courtroom noted that Tocci’s grievance, exclusively Depend I for breach of agreement, did not cite to the Act however, the court docket found that it “makes no variation.” Id. at 11.  In accordance to the courtroom, “Tocci’s failure to have cited the Act [did not] improve the lawful summary that the Act, by operation of law, supplemented the Deal, trumped any contrary provisions inside of it, and applie[d] in this circumstance through widespread legislation contract concepts.” Id.  The court docket reasoned that, simply because the Act’s provisions managed, “IRIV experienced a restricted period of time approved less than the Act to lodge particular objections, requirements that were both of those more generous and much more exacting than those contained in the deal.” Id.  The court concluded that “in light-weight of the undisputed info, IRIV did not reject the Requisitions in the time or fashion approved by the Act” and, thus, the repercussions pursuant to subsection (c) utilized and the Requisitions were being “deemed to be accredited.” Id.

Although IRIV experienced sent e-mails and a letter to Tocci regard a handful of of the disputed Requisitions, the court docket determined that this sort of discover “did not suffice less than the Act as a rejection of any of the Requisitions.” Id. at 12.  In accordance to the court, this was so due to the fact IRIV:

  1. Did not especially reject a Requisition in dispute,

  2. Did not involve an clarification of the factual and contractual foundation for the rejection, and

  3. Did not consist of a certification that the rejection was built in good faith. Id.

More, the courtroom uncovered IRIV’s argument that Tocci, by not requesting certification in fantastic faith, waived the provisions of the Act, “simply erroneous.” Id.  The court docket emphatically famous that the “Act’s provisions are mandatory and relevant . . . and reflect a community policy to assure that contractors receive prompt payment, or prompt and full see of objections to payment requests, in large development projects,” and that very little supported the argument that the Legislature’s intent could be subverted by means of wavier. Id.

The takeaway from the Tocci Court is that Massachusetts Courts will most likely enforce the Act for each its conditions.  Though other undefined problems continue to be, these kinds of as what takes place if there is an egregious mistake in a payment software — will the statutory “deemed approval” still be offered influence, it is sensible for hazard managers of house owners, contractors, subcontractors to carry out efforts to educate their venture management teams about the Tocci selection and the Act.  We will keep on to update the Reliable Foundation weblog with updates to the Massachusetts Prompt Spend and Retainage Statutes.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All legal rights reserved.
National Regulation Evaluate, Quantity XI, Number 90