Chapter 5 - § 5.7 CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAWS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 5.7 CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAWS

Because the purpose of the Miller Act is to provide subcontractors and material suppliers on federal projects with a comparable set of remedies to Colorado mechanics' lien laws or state public works remedies, which are not available on federal projects (for example, federally owned property cannot be encumbered by a mechanics' lien), it is important to note that the Miller Act is not intended to act as a substitute to breach of contract claims available under state law.⁶⁴ The relationship among parties to a federal construction contract is a matter of fact that will be decided under federal law.⁶⁵ However, because damages are determined based on a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory, state law will determine the amount in damages that a subcontractor may receive.⁶⁶ There are circumstances where a subcontractor may have multiple causes of action, where some are based in state law and others under the Miller Act. When a subcontractor may have multiple causes of action and one or more claims based in state law conflict with the Miller Act, courts have held that a subcontractor must opt to bring its claims either under state law or the Miller Act.⁶⁷ Because the Miller Act is federal law, any state law that conflicts will be preempted. Courts have also held that violation of the Prompt Payment Act does not provide a separate basis of recovery for subcontractors against the general contractor.⁶⁸

--------

Notes:

^[64] United States ex rel. Superior Insulation Co. v. Robert E. McKee, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1298, 1302 (N.D. Tex. 1988).

^[65] United States ex rel. CTILtd., Inc. v. Mellon Stuart Co., 860 F. Supp. 556, 561 (N.D. Ill. 1994).

^[66] United States ex rel. Morgan & Son Earth Moving, Inc. v. Timberland Paving & Constr. Co., 745...