2007-01-04 14:14:42 · 5 answers · asked by wcoulter 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Corporations
it depends on which state they are in, it would be a good idea if they were
2007-01-04 14:17:17 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Indeed. It's a necessity. By all means, its not wise to deal contractors/sub contractors who are not bonded.
2007-01-04 22:18:18 · answer #2 · answered by Legsology07 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they do not need to be bonded, however bonding increases the chances of obtaining major contracts. Most often it only cost less than a couple hundred dollars per year. Bonding also protects you incase of default.
2007-01-04 22:19:50 · answer #3 · answered by geoffgilsey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes for the contractors protection,just encase the sub contractor screwed up
2007-01-04 22:17:51 · answer #4 · answered by Lionel M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not have a bond but 99% of the time I don't take any money until the job is finished
2007-01-04 22:27:14 · answer #5 · answered by Fred S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋