1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Push Toward Project Labor Agreements For Federal Construction Work

New Push Toward Project Labor Agreements For Federal Construction Work

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.10

On April 13, 2010, the FAR Councils issued a final rule implementing an executive order that encourages federal agencies to use project labor agreements--defined as pre-hire collective bargaining agreements with one or more labor unions that establish the terms and conditions of employment for a specific project--for federal construction contracts, when the total cost to the government is $25 million or more. If an agency determines that such agreements would "[a]dvance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters," it must insert a solicitation and/or contract provision requiring prime contractors and subcontractors (if engaged in construction services) to negotiate a project labor agreement with one or more labor unions for the term of the construction contract.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.14.24

Bid Protests: GAO Reminds Would-Be Protesters – Timing Is Everything

When to file a protest challenging an agency’s corrective action is an issue that has confused protesters for over a decade since GAO’s Domain Name Alliance Registry, B‑310803.2, Aug. 18, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 168 decision.  In Domain Name, GAO held where a protester essentially challenges the “ground rules” of corrective action, that protest must be filed pre-award or risk being dismissed as untimely.  This has led to the proliferation of overly cautious protesters bringing pre-award challenges to corrective actions only to have GAO dismiss such protests as merely anticipating improper agency action and therefore premature.  Indeed, the line between a timely and untimely corrective action protest is unclear.  And that confusion persists, as evidenced in two recent GAO dismissals—General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., B-422421.6, B-422421.7, July 17, 2024, and Peraton Inc., B-422409.2, B‑422409.3, July 22, 2024....