Oregon is the second state in this series to split its bond threshold between transportation and everything else, and the second to point it the opposite way from Illinois. That makes three legislatures answering the same question three ways, which is the most useful thing about it.
One hundred thousand, and fifty for transportation
ORS 279C.380 carries its scope in a subsection at the end rather than a trigger at the start:
“(5) This section applies only to public improvement contracts with a value, estimated by the contracting agency, of more than $100,000 or, in the case of contracts for highways, bridges and other transportation projects, more than $50,000.”
Two things about the drafting.
The value is estimated by the contracting agency, not the contract price or the bid. So the trigger is a figure the agency forms before bids arrive, which means a contractor cannot always compute it from its own numbers.
And the transportation limb is described by subject matter — “highways, bridges and other transportation projects” — rather than by a funding source or an authorising article. Virginia’s equivalent limb under Va. Code § 2.2-4337 requires the project to be authorized under a named article of Title 33.2 and partially or wholly funded by the Commonwealth. Oregon simply asks what the work is.
Three states, three directions
| state | general | transportation | direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon (ORS 279C.380) | $100,000 | $50,000 | transportation sooner |
| Virginia (Va. Code § 2.2-4337) | $500,000 | $350,000 | transportation sooner |
| Illinois (30 ILCS 550/1) | $150,000 | $500,000 | transportation later |
Oregon and Virginia agree on direction and differ by a factor of five on the figures. Illinois agrees with neither.
There is no recoverable principle here, and that is the point worth carrying: these statutes are not regional variations on a national scheme. They are independent enactments, and on the single question of whether road work is riskier or safer than building work they reach opposite conclusions.
Both bonds at the full contract price
“(1) Except as provided in ORS 279C.390, a successful bidder for a public improvement contract shall promptly execute and deliver to the contracting agency the following bonds: (a) A performance bond in an amount equal to the full contract price conditioned on the faithful performance of the contract in accordance with the plans, specifications and conditions of the contract.”
“(b) A payment bond in an amount equal to the full contract price, solely for the protection of claimants under ORS 279C.600.”
The full contract price, twice — no percentage language and no discretion for the agency to set a lower figure. Oregon joins Maine (“full contract amount”), Connecticut (“a bond in the amount of the contract”), Indiana (“the contractor’s total contract price”) and Florida (“shall equal the contract price”) in reaching one hundred percent without printing a percentage.
Note where the payment bond’s beneficiaries are defined: “claimants under ORS 279C.600”, a cross-reference this page has not followed. Who may claim on an Oregon payment bond is settled in that section, not this one.
“Promptly” is the timing rule
Most statutes in this series fix the moment the bonds attach to an event — award, execution, or before work is permitted. Oregon fixes it to a standard.
The successful bidder “shall promptly execute and deliver” the bonds. No number of days appears in what we have read. Compare Indiana, whose Ind. Code § 5-16-5.5-2 puts a clock on the awarding body instead — sixty days to award and give notice to proceed, ninety if general obligation bonds are being sold to finance the work.
For a bidder the practical reading is that Oregon expects the bonding to be arranged before the award rather than after it. A surety that has not seen the job cannot produce a full-contract-price performance bond promptly, and “promptly” is the word the agency will hold you to.
The bid-security section next door
Immediately after the threshold subsection, the statutes run on into a section heading our extraction captured intact: “279C.385 Return or retention of bid security.”
That Oregon legislates on the point at all is worth flagging, because most states in this series do not. The forms and amount of Oregon bid security, when it is returned and when the agency may retain it, are in that section — and we have not read its operative text, so this page does not state it. Wisconsin is the only state whose forfeiture-and-return mechanics we have recovered so far, and there the question turns out to be litigable in court.
What ORS 279C.380 leaves to other sections
Three cross-references carry real content that is not on this page.
ORS 279C.390 — the section the bond requirement is expressly “except as provided in”. An exception named before the rule is the first thing that decides whether the rule applies, and we have not read it.
ORS 279C.600 — the definition of the claimants the payment bond protects.
ORS 279C.385 — return or retention of bid security, as above.
The section also does not carry the notice a claimant must give or the deadline for suit. On an unpaid Oregon claim those are the provisions that decide it, and they are elsewhere.
