On February 4, 2022, then President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 (“EO 14063”), which requires all contractors and subcontractors who engage in large Federal construction projects—i.e., projects that are estimated to cost $35 million or more—to enter into a project labor agreement (“PLA”) with a labor union. EO 14063 provides exceptions to the PLA requirement in three limited circumstances where the contracting agency determines that (1) requiring PLAs would not advance the government’s interest in economy and efficiency, (2) market research indicates that requiring PLAs would reduce the field of prospective contractors to a point where there will not be adequate competition at a fair and reasonable price, or (3) requiring PLAs would otherwise be unlawful. In response, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council promulgated a regulation implementing EO 14063. This regulation and the underlying EO remain in place; in a recent memorandum, the Trump Administration explained that it supports the PLA requirement.

On November 5, 2025, Slayden Plumbing & Heating, Inc., a mechanical contractor incorporated and operating in the State of Alaska, filed suit in the Federal District Court of Alaska (the “District Court”) challenging the PLA regulation. The complaint alleges that, historically, most of Slayden’s revenue has been generated working as a subcontractor on large-scale federal construction projects. Slayden also asserts that its employees do not want to be represented by a labor union because they are content with the compensation provided by Slayden and wish to avoid incurring the cost of union dues. Slayden objects to the PLA requirement, claiming that, as a subcontractor, Slayden must largely accept the terms of a PLA negotiated by the prime contractor, to participate in the project.

Slayden’s legal claim is that the PLA regulation violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the PLA requirement falls outside the President’s authority under the Procurement Act, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Slayden seeks to have the PLA regulation set aside and for an injunction preventing the enforcement of the PLA requirement. Slayden also argues in the alternative that the Procurement Act itself is unlawful because it improperly delegates lawmaking authority.

Slayden’s lawsuit is not the first challenging the EO 14063 and subsequent regulations. In MVL USA, Inc. v. United States, a separate case challenging the PLA requirement, the Court of Federal Claims expressed serious doubt that the Procurement Act provides the necessary authority for EO 14063 and by extension, the PLA regulation. MVL USA, Inc. v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 437, 460. Ultimately, the Court of Federal Claims found that the relevant agencies had violated the Competition in Contracting Act in their application of the PLA requirement, an argument not currently being raised by Slayden. However, the analysis from the Court of Federal Claims regarding the authority the Procurement Act provides may prove insightful as the Slayden case progresses.

If the District Court agrees with Slayden and invalidates the PLA regulation, Slayden and other similarly situated entities who wish to participate as contractors or subcontractors to large federal construction projects may do so without entering a PLA. If the District Court agrees with Slayden’s alternative argument that the Procurement Act improperly delegates authority to the executive, there may be interruptions in government contracting and the need for legislation to direct how government contracting will function moving forward.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and opinions that are solely those of the authors. This article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice that applies to ‎your situation, you should contact an attorney.