CLOSING THE LOOPHOLE: ARIZONA ADDS PROMPT PAY PROTECTIONS TO REVITALIZATION DISTRICTS
Arizona contractors operating in public and quasi-public sectors sometimes rely on Prompt Pay statutes to help maintain cash flow. However, a statutory loophole created risk for civil and infrastructure contractors when working for Revitalization Districts—special taxing entities utilized by municipalities to help finance roads, utilities, drainage systems, and other public infrastructure needs.
When Revitalization Districts faced internal funding delays or bureaucratic standstills, contractors could find themselves stuck between slow or no payment and having to self-finance and continue performance, under the threat of default or claims from higher tiers. That risk was significantly reduced on June 22, 2026, when the Governor signed Senate Bill 1189 into law. Protections of Arizona Prompt Pay Statutes are now available for Revitalization District projects.
Prime contractors now have statutory rights to suspend or entirely terminate work if a Revitalization District fails to issue timely payments, provided the contractor delivers a formal seven-day written notice. Subcontractors receive parallel protections, also with required written notice. This added protection does not necessarily trump your contract requirements, which may still be enforceable depending on your situation.
Also under these statutory changes, contractors cannot be deemed in breach of contract for executing a lawful work stoppage. There is also a provision allowing a prevailing party to recover attorneys fees for successful enforcement.
Moving forward, contractors bidding on Arizona infrastructure projects funded by local taxing districts can proceed knowing that their right to timely payment is now better protected.
Claim Certified with Digital Signature Deemed OK
The law is not a trend-setter. It doesn’t readily change or adapt to tech. So, a commonplace practice in business became a dispute when a claimant digitally certified a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
