Six Contracts, One Project: Monetary Limit, Scope, and the Unlicensed Crew
Copperline Roofing holds a Nevada roofing specialty license with a monetary limit of $600,000; Dana is the 100% owner and qualifying party. A property manager offers Copperline a six-building apartment re-roof totaling $2.4 million. Because the limit is $600,000, the manager proposes signing six separate $400,000 contracts on the same day - one per building - all funded by a single construction loan, all performed by the same crews in one continuous mobilization, with one schedule and one change-order process. The scope also includes replacing 12 rotted roof-deck panels per building, installing 60 flush-mounted solar arrays on the new roofs, and a "tear-off labor" line of $900 per unit that Copperline intends to hand to a crew whose only paperwork is a city business license. Copperline's draft bid sheet and contract template do not show its license number anywhere. Dana asks whether the six-contract structure solves the limit problem and whether the deck, solar, and tear-off work can stay inside Copperline's contract.
1. Does splitting the project into six $400,000 contracts keep Copperline within its monetary limit?
Read the worked answer
Almost certainly not. The monetary limit is a ceiling on what the licensee may contract for, and the Board evaluates substance over labels. Six contracts signed the same day, for one project, under one loan, one schedule, one mobilization, and one change-order process are one project wearing six hats. The Board's consistent position is that dividing a single project to stay under a limit is evasion, and evasion is a disciplinary matter - not a clever compliance workaround.
Legitimate separate contracts look different: genuinely separate owners or phases, separate scopes awarded at different times, separate financing, and independent scheduling. Even then, a licensee should be able to explain why the work is not one job.
The correct paths are: (1) submit updated financial information and request a limit increase before bidding; (2) joint-venture or prime through a properly licensed contractor whose limit covers the work, with a written agreement allocating responsibility; or (3) decline the project. Bidding $2.4 million on a $600,000 limit is the violation regardless of how the paperwork is stacked.
2. Analyze each scope item - deck replacement, solar arrays, and the tear-off crew - against Copperline's roofing classification.
Read the worked answer
Deck replacement. Structural decking and framing repairs generally fall outside a roofing specialty classification. Copperline can hold the prime contract but should subcontract that portion to a contractor licensed in the appropriate classification, with a written subcontract and certificates of insurance on file. Hiding carpentry in a roofing line item does not change the classification analysis.
Solar arrays. Photovoltaic work is electrical work. It requires a licensed contractor in the electrical/solar classification. Copperline can be the prime and coordinate, but its own crews should not be making the electrical terminations. A roofing license does not absorb PV because the panels sit on a roof.
The tear-off crew. A city business license is not a contractor's license. Handing labor to an unlicensed crew makes Copperline the prime that subcontracted to an unlicensed entity - a violation that also leaves Copperline holding the liability for that crew's workmanship and injuries. The $900 line item is a red flag the Board will read as an attempt to disguise the arrangement. Use a licensed subcontractor with workers' compensation coverage.
3. What must change in Copperline's bid sheet and contract documents before anything is submitted?
Read the worked answer
The license number must appear on bids, contracts, and advertising - it is how the public and the Board verify that the entity soliciting the work is actually licensed. Omitting it on a $2.4 million proposal is not a clerical oversight; it is a document the customer will rely on.
Beyond the number, the contract should be a complete written agreement: scope by building, exclusions (deck and solar, if subcontracted), schedule, payment terms, change-order procedure, and who is responsible for what. Where subcontractors perform scope, the prime should disclose that arrangement rather than presenting the work as self-performed.
Finally, the bid should not go out until the limit question is resolved. A compliant-looking document attached to a non-compliant bid is still a violation, and it creates a paper trail the Board will use to show the company knew its limit was $600,000.