Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) emerged in 2025 as the critical issue for construction public policy. For those of us dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and genuine competition, government-mandated PLAs represent a direct and dastardly challenge to the foundational values that drive our industry. These mandates threaten both the businesses and workers who cherish the freedom to choose how they associate and operate within the construction marketplace.

Our Position on Project Labor Agreements

ABC’s opposition to PLAs is rooted in our commitment to free enterprise and open competition. We argue that PLAs:

• Discriminate against nonunion contractors, who make up over 89% of the U.S. construction workforce.
• Increase construction costs by 12-20%. For example, a 2011 study by the Beacon Hill Institute of school construction in Massachusetts found costs 14-18% higher under PLAs, while similar reviews in California and New Jersey produced comparable results.
• Limit competition by discouraging small businesses and minority-owned firms from bidding on public projects.
• Impose union-only rules, such as hiring through union halls and contributing to union benefit plans, even for nonunion contractors.
• Exclude qualified apprenticeship programs, such as the ones hosted by our very own Construction Industry Training Council (CITC). This narrows the pipeline of future workers and exacerbates skilled labor shortages.

ABC supports voluntary labor agreements but opposes any government mandate that requires contractors to enter into PLAs as a condition of winning public work. That’s unfair.

Executive Order 14063 and the Federal PLA Mandate

A major development for the PLA threat came with Executive Order 14063, signed by President Biden in February 2022. This order mandates the use of PLAs on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more. The administration framed the order as a way to promote efficiency, reduce delays and ensure labor harmony on large-scale projects.

ABC immediately criticized the order, arguing that it would exclude the vast majority of qualified contractors from bidding on federal projects, drive up taxpayer costs by reducing the pool of competitive bids and violate the principles of fair and open competition in federal procurement. After all, we are all taxpayers.

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council finalized the rule implementing EO 14063 in December 2023, effective in January 2024. This rule applies to all direct federal construction contracts that meet the $35 million threshold, unless an agency head grants a specific exemption. The exemption process, sometimes called a “waiver,” is important: Agency heads retain the discretion to exempt projects when PLAs are impracticable or would reduce competition. ABC continues to encourage its members to request such waivers, as they may create opportunities for merit shop participation even under the current mandate.  At least one member of the Rocky Mountain Chapter here has been successful in this process.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

In response to the final rule, ABC National and ABC Florida First Coast filed a lawsuit in March 2024 challenging the legality of the PLA mandate. The lawsuit argued that the rule unlawfully restricts competition in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act, imposes undue burdens on contractors who do not typically operate under union agreements, and delegates excessive discretion to federal agencies without adequate oversight.

In January 2025, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of ABC contractors in 12 separate bid protests, ordering federal agencies to remove PLA mandates from those specific solicitations. While this was a significant victory, the court did not strike down the overall rule, meaning the PLA mandate remains in effect unless challenged more broadly or repealed. These case victories also illustrate a legal vulnerability in the PLA mandate — when agencies cannot demonstrate that a PLA promotes efficiency or economy, protests are more likely to succeed. ABC believes that consistent protest pressure can weaken the practical impact of EO 14063 even if the mandate remains on the books.

Congressional Advocacy and Legislative Efforts

We have also taken our fight to Capitol Hill. In June 2025, ABC representatives testified before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, describing the PLA mandate as a “special interest scheme” that benefits union contractors at the expense of the broader industry.

ABC continues to advocate for the Fair and Open Competition Act, a bill that would:

• Prohibit federal agencies from requiring or encouraging PLAs on federally funded construction projects.
• Ensure equal access to federal contracts for all qualified contractors, regardless of labor affiliation.
• Preserve the right of contractors and workers to voluntarily enter into labor agreements without government coercion.

While the bill has gained support among Republican lawmakers and some moderate Democrats, it has not yet passed either chamber of Congress. To strengthen its advocacy, ABC has also built coalitions with taxpayer advocates, minority contractor associations and veterans’ groups. These allies argue that excluding 89% of the workforce undermines not only economic efficiency but also fairness to historically disadvantaged contractors and workers.

In June, during our annual Legislative Conference, hundreds of ABC members from across the country visited their elected representatives at the capitol to advocate for signing a letter to President Trump requesting the rescission of the PLA Mandate Executive Order.

Consequently, on July 1, 2025, a coalition of 116 members of Congress — including 95 House Representatives and 21 Senators — sent correspondence to President Trump, urging him to rescind the Biden-era regulation that requires PLAs on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more.

The lawmakers described the PLA mandate as exclusionary, anti-competitive and costly for taxpayers. In addition, ABC issued an Action Alert urging its members to contact President Trump, sign a letter opposing the PLA mandate and advocate for a new executive order that promotes fair and open competition.

Impact on Contractors and the Construction Industry

The PLA mandate has significant implications for contractors not affiliated with a union. Under a typical PLA, contractors must hire workers through union hiring halls, even if they have their own trained workforce; contribute to union pension and benefit plans, which nonunion employees may never benefit from; and follow union work rules, which limit flexibility and efficiency on the job site — in conflict with a company’s own established and well-honed work procedures.

These requirements can be especially burdensome for small businesses, minority-owned firms and contractors in rural areas where union labor is less prevalent. Nonunion contractors are also the leading employers of women, people of color and veterans in construction. Mandating PLAs sidelines inclusive employers and weakens the diversity of the federal construction workforce. For example, a 2020 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed that nonunion firms employ more than 70% of all women in construction. By channeling work exclusively through union pipelines, PLAs make it almost impossible for these workers to participate in publicly funded projects.

Additionally, PLAs may exacerbate labor shortages by restricting the available workforce to union members, rather than allowing contractors to draw from the full pool of skilled tradespeople. This problem is particularly acute in regions where union density is in the single digits — such as much of the South and Mountain West — making compliance impractical or impossible for local firms.

Colorado: A New Front in the PLA Assault

In 2025, Colorado enacted House Bill 25-1130, legislation that explicitly authorizes state and local government agencies to require PLAs on public construction projects valued at $1 million or more. While the law does not mandate PLAs across the board, its passage marks a significant shift in state policy and presents new challenges for all the nonunion contractors who represent the overwhelming majority of Colorado’s construction workforce.

At first glance, HB25-1130 may appear neutral. It simply permits agencies to include a PLA requirement if they determine it will “promote successful project delivery” by ensuring access to a skilled labor force, promoting cost efficiency, enhancing safety and quality or guaranteeing timely completion. Yet this seemingly discretionary authority carries profound implications for competition, cost and workforce development in Colorado.

Erosion of a Level Playing Field

By explicitly granting permission to impose PLAs, HB25-1130 creates a legal and political pathway for agencies to tilt procurement in favor of unionized contractors driven by the political connections of the union halls and their political operatives. Historically, many Colorado agencies have refrained from imposing PLAs due to concerns about fairness, cost or legal authority. With HB25-1130 on the books, agencies now have statutory cover to insert union-only requirements into bid solicitations.

This threatens fair and open competition because 89% of Colorado’s construction workforce does not belong to a union. As mentioned previously, Colorado’s nonunion firms, many of them small businesses and minority-owned companies, will be excluded when a PLA is attached to a project.

Cost and Taxpayer Impacts

PLAs increase project costs by 12% to 20% largely because they limit the pool of bidders and impose union wage and benefit structures on all contractors. In a state facing significant infrastructure, housing, and transportation needs, and recovering from a $1 billion budget shortfall that required a special session, every inflated dollar spent on a PLA project is a dollar diverted from other critical investments. In early 2025, the City and County of Denver laid off several hundred employees to address a $100 million budget deficit. I am sure we could all find more examples.

HB25-1130 therefore risks institutionalizing a mechanism that undermines project owners’ own goals of cost efficiency and project delivery. Agencies may claim PLAs prevent labor disputes or delays, but empirical evidence from states without PLA mandates shows no greater frequency of work stoppages or project failures. In fact, broader competition — not narrower — delivers the best value to taxpayers.

Workforce and Inclusion Concerns

Colorado is already grappling with a construction labor shortage, with demand for skilled trades far outpacing supply. Excluding nonunion apprenticeship programs like CITC, which graduate the majority of craft professionals, is not the solution.

In addition, HB25-1130 opens the door to procurement practices that disproportionately sideline inclusive employers and reduce opportunities for underrepresented workers.

Why “Permission” Is Still a Threat

Supporters may argue that HB25-1130 is modest because it merely allows, rather than requires, PLAs. But the reality is that permission is power. Once agencies have explicit statutory authority, political pressure from special interests can normalize PLA requirements across a growing share of projects. Even a handful of high-profile PLA projects could set a precedent that other agencies feel compelled to follow.

In short, HB25-1130 is not a neutral option. It is a legislative green light for union favoritism in public contracting — an opening wedge that undermines fair competition, raises costs and excludes the majority of Colorado’s skilled workforce. For merit shop contractors and taxpayers alike, that threat is immediate and real.

Outlook and Next Steps

The future of PLAs in federal and state contracting remains uncertain. While the Biden administration has solidified its support for PLAs through executive action, the legal and political landscape could shift depending on court rulings in ongoing or future lawsuits, congressional action on the Fair and Open Competition Act, and changes in administration following the 2026 midterm elections or the 2028 presidential race.

In the meantime, ABC is urging its members to stay informed about PLA requirements in federal solicitations, file bid protests when appropriate, engage with lawmakers to advocate for fair and open competition, and seek project-specific waivers where possible.

In Colorado, we are concerned that government project owners will be persuaded to implement PLAs in their solicitations.  In addition, we see coming public policy that moves Colorado over to a union shop state like California.

PLA proponents argue that PLAs prevent strikes and delays, standardize safety practices and create labor harmony. However, decades of project data show no correlation between PLAs and reduced work stoppages on construction projects. Safety and quality depend on contractor management, not union mandates. By highlighting these counterpoints, ABC and its members can underscore that PLAs are less about efficiency and more about political favoritism.

Conclusion

Project Labor Agreements remain one of the most serious issues in both federal and Colorado construction policy.  ABC continues to fight for a level playing field where all qualified contractors — union and nonunion alike — can compete for public work based on merit, not mandates. Ultimately, ABC’s case against PLAs rests on three pillars: fairness, efficiency and inclusion. By defending open competition, ABC is protecting its members and ensuring that taxpayers, workers and communities receive the maximum benefit from every construction dollar spent.