Alaskan Contractor Joins Fight Against Project Labor Agreements

Alaska contractor, Slayden Plumbing & Heating, Inc., filed a lawsuit on November 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage, Alaska, challenging the legality of a federal mandate requiring contractors on large-scale federal construction projects to enter into Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with labor unions. The complaint argues that President Biden's Executive Order 14063, which has continued under President Trump, and the subsequent regulation issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council exceed the government's authority. Slayden's lawsuit adds to several other cases brought in the last year challenging the legality and enforceability of the PLA requirement.

Under FAR 52.222-34, contractors working on federal construction projects with an estimated cost above $35 million are required to enter into PLAs with unions in order to be eligible for the contract. Slayden's lawsuit, which was filed against the General Services Administration, the FAR Council, the Department of Defense, NASA, and several individuals leading those agencies, argues the mandate exceeds the president's authority under procurement statutes, violates the Constitution, and is arbitrary and capricious. Slayden's complaint also states that the PLA mandate does not promote economy or efficiency, and forces the company into one-sided relationships with labor unions. Slayden stated it has been injured by the PLA requirement as it has been forced to withdraw from bids on federal projects. Slayden seeks an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the rule and an order declaring the rule to be invalid.

Slayden's lawsuit follows a string of several other legal challenges to the PLA rule that have been brought since the rule went into effect in January 2024. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a case brought by the Association of Builders and Contractors (ABC) that sought a preliminary injunction to ban the enforcement of the PLA rule. The case was originally filed in Florida, where the district court denied ABC's request for a nationwide injunction based on ABC's failure to show irreparable harm. ABC appealed the denial and the appeal remains pending, though the court has requested additional information on whether ABC, as an industry organization, faces any injury due to the PLA rule. On October 6, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit denied the government's request to stay the appeal during the government shutdown.

At the same time, other lawsuits have sought the continued enforcement of the PLA rule. On May 16, 2025, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued an injunction in North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) v. Department of Defense et al., No. 1:25-cv-01070 (DDC May 16, 2025) to stop the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration from waiving the PLA requirement from contracts. The court held the agencies were bound by the Executive Order until it is rescinded or overridden.

Other contractors have attempted to challenge the PLA rule via bid protests, which has resulted in targeted success but has not resulted in voiding the PLA rule. The Court of Federal Claims, which has jurisdiction over bid protest cases, explained in a decision issued on May 6, 2025, that it is limited in its scope when it comes to reviewing the legality of rules and regulations. The decision was issued in MVL USA, Inc., et al., v. United States, Case Nos., 24-1057, 24-1077, 24-1144, 24-1219, 24-1398, 24-1433, 24-1461, which consolidated seven similar bid protests brought to challenge the PLA rule. On January 19, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims upheld the protests and found the implementation of the PLA mandate in 2024 by the agencies challenged in the protests was arbitrary and capricious. The court directed the government to take corrective action, in accordance with bid protest rules, to address the PLA issue on the specific contracts related to the protests.

The MVL plaintiffs/protesters then sought to have the Court of Federal Claims issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the PLA rule across the board. In its May decision, the court explained it is merely a "home plate umpire" able to call the pitches as they cross the plate, but not a commissioner of the league able to change the rules. The court described its January order as "assigning balls and strikes" and further stated: "[t]his Court cannot change the rules of the game. Rule change authority belongs squarely to others—the game's architects—tasked with shaping the complex structure of government procurement authority and policy." Notably, the court tacitly acknowledged its disagreement with the PLA rule and its broad implementation, but said it was not its role to redefine the playbook. In light of that distinction, the court denied the injunction and granted the government's request to dismiss the protests.

Slaydon's lawsuit will likely see a motion to dismiss from the government, which has been the standard response to similar lawsuits. DWT will be monitoring the lawsuit as it continues to unfold.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.