Material Supplier Deemed to Have Contracted with “Subcontractor” to Permit Claim Against “Miller Act” Bond
United States ex rel. E&H Steel Corp. v. C. Pyramid Enters., Inc., 509 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007)
This litigation arose after a steel supplier on a U.S. government construction project asserted a claim against a payment bond issued by the general contractor (to which it had no contractual privity) pursuant to the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. § 3131). Because the Miller Act limits the availability of such bond claims to either entities in contractual privity with the bond issuer (the GC) or those entities having contractual privity with a "subcontractor,” the key issue was whether the entity with which the supplier contracted was a “subcontractor.” The District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying a number of a factors, determined that it was not a subcontractor and dismissed the bond claim.