CONSTRUCTION DEFECT JOURNAL

"News and Information for Construction Defect and Claims Professionals"

CONSTRUCTION DEFECT JOURNAL - ISSUE 242749 - MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2025

The Potential (Second) Death of Project Labor Agreements

Construction site at sunset

Contractors on federal projects must understand the current state of PLAs before submitting bids for these projects.

March 25, 2025
W. Tyler Lloyd - The Dispute Resolver

The back-and-forth over project labor agreements (“PLAs”) continues during the second Trump Administration. These pre-hire collective bargaining agreements generally set the terms and conditions of employment for a specific project and have been the subject of several executive orders dating back to the early 1990s. The executive orders have varied between a complete prohibition of the PLA requirement by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 to a mandate that agencies include PLAs with labor organizations in all government construction contracts exceeding $35 million by President Biden in 2022. Although President Trump has issued several executive orders since taking office in January, he has not specifically addressed the continued tug-of-war over PLAs. However, federal agencies and courts have redrawn the lines for PLAs, leaving the construction industry waiting for further guidance.

The first domino fell when the United States Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling in MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 437 (U.S. Ct. Cl. 2025). Here, 12 large construction contractors filed pre-bid award protests, challenging federal agencies’ authority to mandate that prospective bidders enter PLAs to be considered eligible for award of federal construction projects exceeding $35 million, allegedly in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”), as based on President Biden’s Executive Order and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) implementing the Executive Order. In its decision, the court struck down President Biden’s executive order. The Federal Claims Court held that the PLA mandate violated the CICA’s full and open competition requirement. It further held that the mandate violated the CICA because it allows agencies to reduce competition to PLA-contracts, a limitation that has no relation to the substance of the solicitation or performance at issue. The court also that that the agencies’ decisions to proceed with PLAs as a mandate based solely on a President’s policy were “arbitrary and capricious.” Since this decision was rendered in late January, some federal agencies have begun adopting policies consistent with the court’s rationale.

Mr. Lloyd may be contacted at tlloyd@stites.com


Use the form below to search the CDJ Archives: Search by topic, name, keywords, etc...

CDJ ARCHIVES-NEWS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED