Following the release of a new Sources Sought Notice for the construction of a new Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H., AGC of America (AGC) has contacted the Department of Labor (DOL) about its inclusion of a project labor agreement (PLA) mandate. In a letter dated Oct. 7, the association reiterated questions and concerns set forth in a September 2009 letter about the department’s intent to require a PLA on the project during the initial bidding process.
Following protests by AGC and others in 2009, DOL cancelled the bid solicitation citing the need to conduct further research on the use of a PLA. AGC is now questioning what further research was conducted in the past two years that led them to the decision to include a PLA in this second solicitation. AGC states in the letter, “AGC is unaware of any PLA feasibility study conducted in the project area since the 2009 solicitation cancellation. If such a study were conducted in a reliable manner, surely the research would have included an effort to obtain input from such significant industry players as AGC of New Hampshire and its member contractors; to our knowledge, no such effort was made.”
In addition to lack of research, AGC also questioned the department’s plans for PLA negotiation. The Sources Sought Notice states that DOL will negotiate the terms of the PLA. In its letters, AGC explains its belief that, if a PLA must be in place, the employers who employ the workers on the job should be the ones negotiating the terms of the PLA. These parties have a vested interest in creating and maintaining a stable employment relationship. AGC questioned whether DOL has staff with sufficient experience and expertise in negotiating construction labor agreements to ensure that the government’s interests are advanced. AGC also requested information regarding the DOL negotiators’ relationships and experience with the labor unions against whom they will be negotiating the PLA for this project.
AGC raised the following additional questions in the letter:
- What is the department’s position on paying wages above the prevailing wage rates set forth in the applicable Davis-Bacon wage determination(s)?
- What is the department’s position on payment for overtime work beyond what is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Contract Work Hours Safety Standards Act?
- What is the department’s position on requiring contributions to specified Taft-Hartley fringe benefit plans by contractors whose employees are covered by different benefit plans (such as single employer health insurance and retirement plans, or Taft-Hartley plans other than those specified in the PLA) and whose employees will not receive the benefits of such contributions due to the time-based vesting and qualification requirements?
- What is the department’s position on exclusive, or near-exclusive, hiring hall arrangements that, through the operation of referral procedures and priority standards, effectively cause the regular employees of open-shop contractors to lose the job opportunity to union members who have never worked for those contractors before?
- What is the department’s position on requiring contractors to abide by union-set jurisdictional boundaries, even if the selected contractors (whether union contractors or open shop) normally assign work in a different manner?
- What does the department plan to do if one or more building trade unions refuse to agree to the PLA terms agreed upon by the other unions?
- What does the department plan to do if one or more building trade unions refuse to sign onto a PLA at all?