Between Biden’s “most pro-union president ever” term and Trump’s recent federal policy changes done more by chainsaw than scalpel, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) have endured a tumultuous path recently. Used primarily on construction projects, PLAs refer to pre-hire contractor collective bargaining agreements with one or more labor organizations that establish the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project, such as specifying workers’ wages and fringe benefits. For those contractors that do not use union labor or do not have an executed union labor agreement, they face potential disadvantages from their mandated use on federal construction projects.
Biden Administration Policies
Despite this union/non-union contractor imbalance, on February 4, 2022, President Biden used an executive order (EO 14063) to direct that contracting officers shall require using PLAs for contractors and subcontractors on any federal project costing $35 million or more. More specifically, the order required every contractor or subcontractor engaged in construction on a particular federal project “to agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations.” Furthermore, such an agreement had to meet specific requirements, such as terms related to managing labor disputes, which many unions had in their established agreements.
In support of EO 14063, the Biden Administration claimed that requiring PLAs would ensure a steady workforce, help prevent labor strife and disputes, facilitate workforce coordination, and promote project efficiency. The administration also argued PLAs do not restrain competition on government contracts because they allow all builders, including non-union ones, to bid on jobs requiring a PLA. Many union labor agreements, however, can have conditions that prohibit signatories from using non-union labor and onerous financial burdens associated with withdrawing from the agreement. Some non-union contractors fear that signing a union labor agreement could force them to become an exclusively-union contractor. They also maintain that PLAs essentially steer federal contracts toward unionized contractors and workers.
Legal Challenges
In response to EO 14063 and the FAR provisions that implemented it, several federal contractors filed bid protests to three federal agency construction project solicitations that mandated PLAs. On January 19, 2025, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in the contractors’ favor on the ground that the EO mandating PLAs violated the Competition in Contracting Act’s (CICA) “full and open competition” requirements. The court also noted that the PLA mandate did not pertain to performing the actual construction work in the solicitations at issue. The court’s order directed the agencies to reassess their PLA decisions with respect to each project’s particular circumstances. Although this ruling applied only to the specific contracts at issue, its reasoning provides authority other employers could use to make similar challenges to mandated PLAs in construction solicitations.
Trump Administration Reactions
The decision was followed by agency and White House reactions, as the Trump Administration pulled back somewhat from mandatory PLAs. In February, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed all contracting officers to stop using PLAs on all large-scale construction projects, and the General Services Administration (GSA) announced a decision to end union-only contracting for land port of entry construction. Despite these agency-specific initiatives to end federal project PLAs, the Trump Administration spared EO 14063 in its March 14, 2025 EO that revoked eighteen other prior administration orders, including one that prioritized federal spending for projects that promote and benefit workers, including through PLAs.
Charting an Uncertain Path Ahead
With EO 14063’s PLA requirement still somewhat in effect, on April 9, 2025, North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU) and the Baltimore-D.C. Metro Building and Construction Trades Council (BDCBT) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the DOD, GSA, and their agency heads, for refusing to use PLAs for large-scale construction projects. They argue the DOD and GSA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not using PLAs in certain construction projects because EO 14063’s PLA requirement remains in effect. NABTU is asking the Court to enjoin the DOD and GSA from foregoing PLA use.
Despite the Trump Administration signaling disfavor for PLAs, it has yet to act definitively to prevent their use on federal projects, particularly in regions with higher union participation, instead opting to leave EO 14063 in effect. By doing so, however, the administration gives pro-union groups, such as NABTU and BDCBT, grounds to pursue litigation to require government agencies to comply with EO 14063’s PLA mandate. Although such legal actions have not moved past initial stages, they may force the Trump Administration to reassess its current strategy concerning EO 14063 and PLAs in light of its diverse supporting coalition. Consequently, whether in their current status or some future form, complying with PLA requirements will require careful attention by federal contractors, likely with the support of experienced counsel.
