that licensing regulation does not reflect any congressional intent to completely regulate Miller Act sureties. If anything, the cited regulation indicates an administrative desire to utilize, rather than preempt, state regulation of sureties. The operation of the Miller Act and various authorities support the conclusion that the Miller Act does not totally occupy the field. For example, a Miller Act suit on the surety bond is not a subcontractor’s exclusive remedy. See, United States For and on Behalf of Sunworks, etc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 695 F.2d 455 (10th Cir.1982) (allowing subcontractor to sue bonded general contractor for quantum meruit recovery); United States ex rel. Mobile Premix Concrete, Inc. v. Santa Fe Engineers, Inc., 515 F.Supp. 512 (D.Colo.1981) (<HOLDING>). Federal courts have also found it necessary
holding that a subcontractor could not recover on theory of quantum meruit for an implied contract against general contractor where condition precedent to payment under express contract was not satisfied holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence holding that subcontractor can recover in quasicontract from contractor for work not encompassed in the agreement between the two 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 subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law