wages. Our Supreme Court has observed that the bond related statutes were enacted for the protection of employees and material suppliers who cannot avail themselves of otherwise available remedies, such as liens. Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., supra, 239 Conn. 714; Herbert S. Newman & Partners, P.C. v. CFC Construction Ltd. Partnership, 236 Conn. 750, 757, 674 A.2d 1313 (1996); KMK Insulation, Inc. v. A. Prete & Son Construction Co., 49 Conn. App. 522, 527, 715 A.2d 799 (1998). It is undisputed that the subcontractor’s employees themselves would have been entitled to enforce payment on the bond against both the general contractor, as principal, and ICSP, as surety on the bond. See, e.g., American Masons’ Supply Co. v. F.W. Brown Co., supra, 174 Conn. 226-27 (<HOLDING>). The question before us is whether the
holding that surety was liable to subcontractor on payment bond because payment bond applied to any claimant who among other things supplied materials that were reasonably required for use in the performance of the subcontract  holding that a paywhenpaid clause does not preclude a subcontractors recovery under the miller act payment bond because the federal legislation conditions payment of the subcontractor not on payment by the government to the contractor but rather on the passage of time from completion of the work or provision of materials holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor holding that persons supplying labor or materials to a subcontractor on a public works project may seek reimbursement under a statutory payment bond provided by the general contractor holding that a clause making payment by the owner an express condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor was enforceable