Good-faith safe harbor and delay/disruption language for Colorado public construction verified statements under SB26-074 (Ch. 39).
Education only / verify at source / not legal or placement advice. Statutes, session laws, board rules, and bond forms change. Global Guarantors publishes industry education — not premiums, quotes, brokerage, or legal advice. Confirm primary sources and licensed counsel before you rely on anything here.
Start here: Contract surety primer · Surety claims basics · Related: HB26-1311 retainage bonds · Surety 101 · FAQ
On Colorado public construction, real property often cannot be liened the way private work can. Payment protection for subcontractors, suppliers, and laborers typically runs through a payment bond (and related verified-statement procedures) under Colorado’s Little Miller-style framework in Title 38, Article 26 — not through a mechanic’s lien on the public parcel.
Senate Bill 26-074 does not invent that architecture. It clarifies two pain points that show up in claim files:
For surety producers and underwriters, this is a claims-process and subcontract-documentation story. It can affect claim severity narratives on public work without rewriting the statutory penal-sum formula for the payment bond itself. Global Guarantors does not invent premium impact from the bill.
Per the Colorado General Assembly bill page and Chapter 39 of the 2026 session laws:
| Fact | Official finding |
|---|---|
| Subject (act title) | Clarification of the penalty for claiming an excessive amount in a public construction performance bond dispute |
| Status | Became law |
| Governor signed | April 6, 2026 |
| Chapter | 39 |
| Effective date (as published) | August 12, 2026 |
The official enacted bill summary explains, in plain English:
Chapter 39 carries Colorado’s standard referendum-petition effective-date language in Section 5. What to verify at the source: live CRS status and any applicability notes before treating a specific claim filing as covered.
Same calendar effective week as HB26-1311 retainage bonds — different legal domain (public claims vs private retainage).
Education reminder (pre-existing architecture; confirm live CRS):
SB26-074 amends, among other sections:
It also amends private Article 22 lien sections in parallel (see below). This Learn page stays public bond / verified-statement centered.
Do not invent claim-notice calendars, final-settlement clocks, or penal-sum percentages beyond what the live statute and bond form support. Chapter 39’s § 38-26-107 text continues to address publication of final-settlement notice when the amount of the contract awarded exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars — confirm live CRS for the full procedure; this page does not republish a claim-deadline checklist.
Chapter 39 adds parallel “nothing prohibits” language:
Public (Article 26). Nothing in Article 26 prohibits the inclusion of costs otherwise allowed under a contract in a verified statement of claim, including costs incurred as a result of delay, lost productivity, or other disruption to the work.
Private (Article 22). Nothing in Article 22 prohibits the inclusion of costs otherwise allowed under a contract in a lien, including the same delay / lost-productivity / disruption categories.
The limiter is the phrase “costs otherwise allowed under a contract.” The statute does not create a free-standing right to delay damages independent of the construction contract (and related change-order / notice / no-damages-for-delay clauses). Education takeaway for GCs and sureties: subcontract delay language and documentation discipline matter more to Article 26 exposure narratives after this clarification — not because the bond penal sum formula changed overnight, but because more categories of contract-allowed dollars can appear inside the statutory claim path.
| Topic | Clarified emphasis under SB26-074 (Ch. 39) |
|---|---|
| Claimable dollars on a public verified statement | May include contract-allowed delay / lost productivity / disruption costs (among other amounts due) |
| Excessive-claim downside | Forfeiture framed around rights to the verified statement of claim (public path), plus cost/attorney-fee exposure as the section provides |
| Court awards less than claimed | Alone does not make the claim excessive if the claimant had a good-faith basis to believe the amount was due at filing |
Chapter 39 amends the excessive-claim section so that a person who files a verified statement or asserts a claim against a principal or surety that furnished an Article 26 bond for an amount greater than the amount due — without a reasonable possibility that the amount claimed is due, and with knowledge that the amount claimed is greater — and that fact is demonstrated in proceedings under Article 26, shall forfeit all rights to the verified statement of claim and shall be liable for costs and attorney fees reasonably incurred in bonding over, contesting, or otherwise responding to the excessive verified statement or excessive bond claim (as the section details).
Two new subsections do the “safe harbor” work:
Court awards less than claimed. An award by a court of an amount less than the amount in a person’s verified statement of claim does not render that amount excessive for purposes of the penalty subsection if the person had a good faith basis to believe the amount in the verified statement was due at the time of filing.
“Amount due” defined. For purposes of the section, “amount due” means the amount of money a person reasonably believes, in good faith, represents the value of the labor, materials, sustenance, other supplies, laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment furnished or supplied to a contractor or their subcontractor — whether or not the amount is unliquidated or disputed — as set forth in § 38-26-107(1).
Education tone: knowing overstatement still has consequences. Good-faith belief at filing is protected from the automatic “court later awarded less, therefore excessive” inference. Unliquidated or disputed sums are not automatically disqualified from the “amount due” concept when the good-faith test is met.
The amended introductory language reaches claims against a principal or surety that furnished an Article 26 bond. That is why this is a surety-education topic, not only a public-owner withhold topic. For how surety claim files generally move, see surety claims basics — still form- and fact-specific.
Chapter 39 also amends C.R.S. §§ 38-22-101 and 38-22-128:
Keep this page’s depth on the public verified statement / Article 26 bond path. Private lien practice is a different workflow; cite counsel and Article 22 directly for those files.
| Stakeholder | Practical education point |
|---|---|
| Subs / suppliers / laborers | Clearer statutory permission to put contract-allowed delay and disruption dollars into a verified statement when those costs are already allowed under the contract. |
| General contractors | Subcontract notice, change-order, and no-damages-for-delay clauses become more visible to claim exposure — documentation quality matters. |
| Sureties | Claim files may include more consequential-cost components; still underwrite and investigate under the bond and indemnity package — no invented loss ratios here. |
| Public owners / contracting bodies | Verified-statement and final-settlement procedures remain statute-driven; excessive-claim penalties and good-faith tests affect contested filings. |
| Brokers | Frame SB26-074 as claims / contract education when placing Colorado public payment bonds — not as a premium tariff story. |
Checklist — not legal advice:
Retrieved or confirmed 2026-10-06 (PT).
