Every other state guide on this site describes a bond requirement. Oklahoma’s section describes a menu, and the choice between its options is a real commercial decision rather than a formality.
Option one: the bond
The familiar route. 61 O.S. § 1 requires
“A bond in a sum equal to the contract price, with adequate surety … to ensure the proper and prompt completion of the work in accordance with the provisions of the contract and bidding documents”
The penal sum is the contract price — the full figure, like Maine and North Dakota, rather than a fraction like Idaho’s eighty-five percent or Louisiana’s fifty.
Option two: an irrevocable letter of credit, at equal standing
Oklahoma does not treat the letter of credit as a fallback. It sits in the same sentence as the bond, at the same amount:
“or an irrevocable letter of credit containing terms prescribed by the Construction and Properties Division of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services issued by a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation for the benefit of the state, on behalf of the awarding public agency, in a sum equal to the contract price”
Three conditions travel with it, and they are worth separating.
The terms are prescribed by the state, by the Construction and Properties Division of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services. This is not a letter of credit you and your bank draft between you.
The issuer must be federally insured — FDIC or FSLIC. The statute names the insurers rather than describing a class of institution.
The amount is the same as the bond. Choosing the letter of credit does not reduce the exposure; it moves it from a surety to a bank.
Compare this with the federal position, where an irrevocable letter of credit appears only below the bond threshold, as one of the five payment protections a contracting officer selects from under FAR 28.102-1(b)(1). Oklahoma puts it on equal footing at any size.
Option three: an affidavit, below fifty thousand dollars
This is the provision in 61 O.S. § 1 that has no analogue anywhere else in our reading.
“For a contract not exceeding Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), in lieu of a bond or irrevocable letter of credit, the contractor shall submit an affidavit of the payment of all indebtedness incurred by the contractor, the contractor’s subcontractors, and all suppliers of labor, material, rented machinery or equipment, and repair of and parts for equipment used or consumed in the performance of the contract.”
Read what it substitutes. Not a promise to pay in future — a sworn statement that everything has been paid. It is backward-looking, and its reach is wide: the contractor’s own indebtedness, its subcontractors’, and suppliers of labor, material, rented machinery or equipment, down to repair parts for equipment consumed on the job.
For a small contract that converts the requirement from a financial-underwriting task into a records task. It also converts it into personal exposure of a different kind, because an affidavit is sworn and its accuracy rests on the contractor rather than on an underwriter’s review.
Bid security: five percent, and it may be a check
61 O.S. § 1 sets it:
“A certified check, cashier’s check or bid bond equal to five percent (5%) of the bid, which shall be deposited with the awarding public agency as a guaranty”
Two details. The figure is five percent of the bid — well below the federal “at least 20 percent of the bid price” capped at $3 million under FAR 28.101-2(b). And all three forms are equally acceptable, including two that are money.
The word deposited is the one that catches contractors out. A certified or cashier’s check is money held by the agency and returned. A bid bond is a surety’s promise and there is nothing to return. Two bidders posting “the same” security on the same job are in materially different positions.
The clock that can double
Oklahoma’s limitation provision is the most claimant-friendly we have read, and it rewards filing early even when you are not ready to litigate:
“no action shall be brought on the bond after one (1) year from the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material or parts furnished for which the claim is made unless a prior claim has been filed within one (1) year from the day on which the labor was performed or material or parts furnished, in which case, no action shall be brought on the bond after two (2) years from the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material or parts furnished”
The default is one year, as under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(4) and in Maine. Filing a claim inside that year moves the suit deadline to two years from the same starting point. It is a genuine second window, and the act that opens it — filing the claim — is cheap.
“Regardless of tier”
Oklahoma’s notice provision reaches further down the chain than the federal one, and says so explicitly:
“Any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor, regardless of tier, performing work on the contract, but no contractual relationship express or implied with the contractor furnishing the payment bond, shall have a right of action upon the payment bond only upon giving written notice to the contractor and surety on the payment bond within ninety (90) days”
Two departures from the federal rule. “Regardless of tier” — the federal § 3133(b)(2) is written around a claimant who contracted with a subcontractor, and Oklahoma removes the argument about how far down that reaches. And the notice goes to the contractor and surety, not to the contractor alone.
The 90-day period and the “substantial accuracy” content requirement are otherwise the familiar federal shape.
What Title 61 leaves elsewhere
The two amounts provisions we have read describe the same bond-or-letter-of-credit choice in slightly different words, which suggests the section addresses more than one class of contracting body; we have quoted both rather than choosing between them.
This page does not state Oklahoma’s general procurement rules, the licensing requirements behind them, or the mechanics of filing the claim that opens the second year — only that filing it does. Those live elsewhere in Oklahoma law and we have not read them here.
