The Current State of Project Labor Agreements in Federal Procurements – Full Speed Ahead!

“It's like a ping pong ball going back and forth."

— Political analyst Matt Monson (describing rapid policy swings in regulatory enforcement)

Last week, we discussed a likely successful challenge to the Biden-era Davis-Bacon Act regulations. https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2026/6/12/doj-has-agreed-not-to-oppose-entry-of-judgment-on-three-specific-biden-era-davis-bacon-act-rules-involving-materialmen-truckers-and-the-application-of-the-christian-doctrine-nbsp. This week we analyze an unsuccessful challenge to the Biden-era project labor agreement (“PLA”) rules.

PLAs are “multi-employer, multi-union pre-hire agreement[s] designed to systemize labor relations at a construction site.” Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Allbaugh, 295 F.3d 28, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2002). These agreements require that “all contractors and subcontractors who will work on a project subscribe to the agreement,” that “all contractors and subcontractors agree in advance to abide by a master collective bargaining agreement for all work on the project.”  Id.

The history of PLAs in federal procurements is checkered -- with a back-and-forth dynamic depending on which political party controls the White House. See https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2022/12/12/tgiynmoxt3dikxtcwpyw658zsjw4f4?rq=PLA. In a recent 11th Circuit decision in Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter (“ABC”) v. General Services Administration (“GSA”), Case No. 25-11375, (11th Cir. April 21, 2026), the Court rejected the latest challenge to requirements for PLAs. Here is the Court’s recent  summary of the history of the PLA rules:

President George H.W. Bush prohibited agencies from requiring them. Exec. Order No. 12,818, 57 Fed. Reg. 48713, 48713 (Oct. 23, 1992). President William Clinton revoked that order and allowed them. Exec. Order 12,836, 58 Fed. Reg. 7045, 7045 (Feb. 1, 1993). President George W. Bush barred agencies from either requiring or prohibiting them. Exec. Order 13,202, 66 Fed. Reg. 11225, 11225 (Feb. 17, 2001). And President Barack Obama “encourage[d] executive agencies to consider requiring” them. Exec. Order No. 13,502, 74 Fed. Reg. 6985, 6985 (Feb. 6, 2009). His order remained in effect during the first administration of President Donald Trump.

President Biden addressed the subject in an executive order in February 2022…. Exec. Order No. 14,063, 87 Fed. Reg. 7363, 7363 (Feb. 4, 2022)…. President Biden established a presumptive requirement that “every contractor or subcontractor engaged in construction” on federal construction projects valued at “$35 million or more” must “negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations.” Id. at 7363–64.

Id. See also https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2024/1/18/back-up-the-truck-mandatory-project-labor-agreements-are-herenbsp?rq=PLA .

The ABC sued to enjoin enforcement of the Biden-era rules. In other litigation, it began to look like the Biden-era PLA was on life support, and hanging at best by a thread. See https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2025/2/26/project-labor-agreements-is-the-biden-executive-order-a-dead-letter?rq=PLA. But blink and the tide changes. Each court makes its own decision. Here, the US District Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The ABC appealed. Meanwhile, President Trump took office. He won the election on the back of both white and minority working class voters, and, thus, came at the issue of PLAs with that electoral coalition in mind. Indeed, while the appeal was in process, Russel Vought, now Director of the Office of Management and the Budget (“OMB”), issued a memorandum stating that the Biden-era Executive Order would remain in effect.

Now the 1th Circuit has also upheld the PLA Executive Order, albeit on different grounds than the District Court. The District Court determined  that there was no irreparable harm. The 11th Circuit overruled that decision finding there were multiple claims and multiple possible irreparable harms which had to be considered. But rather than reverse and remand, the 11th Circuit came to the same result by concluding the ABC failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court found that the claims made under  the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property Act, the First Amendment, and other statutes (i.e., including the Administrative Procedures Act, National Labor Relations Act, etc.) were all unlikely to succeed on the merits.

So, at least so far, it is a tale of two different Presidential rulemaking efforts. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. The Davis-Bacon rules apparently will be defeated. But the PLA Executive Order lives on and is enforced by the Trump Administration. Simply put, the federal government as a proprietor can specify its needs and likely has the right to contract in its government procurements as it largely wishes when it comes to PLAs, at least for the time being.