(i) `project` has the same meaning as `public project` within the meaning of Article 22002(c)(j), `qualifications` means financial situation, relevant experience, proven management skills, conformity of the works, the tenderer`s safety record and, where applicable, previous qualifications, in so far as they concern all subcontractors to be used by the tenderer for certain parts of the works. The Boston Harbor Recovery Project, begun in the 1980s, has become the focus of the debate over the legality of LPAs. [9] [10] When the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority decided to use an APL for the project that required only union labor,[11] the Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc. questioned its legality, arguing that the use of an APL was prohibited by national labor relations law. [12] In 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the APL in Boston Harbor violated federal labor law because of its union labor requirements. [13] Several studies conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute (BWI) at Suffolk University in Boston, Massachusetts, have concluded that APLs increase construction costs. Studies from 2003, 2004 and 2006 that examined the impact of APLs on school construction in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, respectively, found that where APLs were used, construction costs increased even when project size and school type were controlled. The Institute`s September 2003 study found that the use of APL resulted in a cost increase of almost 14% compared to a non-PLA project. [81] The following year, their study of APLs in Connecticut found that APLs increased costs by nearly 18%. [82] A May 2006 BWI study found that the use of APL in school construction projects in New York City increased construction costs by 20% between 1996 and 2004. This study made it possible to control the size of the project and the type of school.

[83] A 2009 BWI plagu report examined whether the Obama Executive Order`s claims that LPAs have positive economic effects are correct. The report took into account the results of the Institute`s studies, other case studies of PLA and non-PLA projects, and responded to criticisms of their previous studies, concluding that the justifications for the use of PLA in the decree had not been proven. In particular, the report concluded that the use of LPAs does not bring economic benefits to taxpayers. [107] Studies have shown that LPAs provide benefits to project owners and local communities and do not discriminate against contractors and non-unionized workers. A 2009 study by Fred B. Kotler, J.D., associate director of the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, found that there is no evidence that APLs discriminate against employers and employees, limit the pool of bidders, and increase construction costs. [110] In a 2009 report by Dale Belman of Michigan State University; Matthew M. Bodah of the University of Rhode Island and Peter Philips of the University of Utah explained that the agreements bring benefits to the community rather than increase costs. According to their report, project costs are directly related to the complexity of a project, not the existence of an agreement. They found that APLs are not suitable for all projects, but some projects are good candidates for their use, such as.B. very complex construction projects. [111] Studies have also examined how LPAs can benefit communities by hiring locals.

In an article that focused on whether APLs for projects developed by the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the City of Los Angeles met local hiring targets, the author noted that the 30% local hiring target set by the PLA had been met. [112] (c) (1) A Bidder shall not be prequalified or pre-qualified unless the Bidder makes a commitment to the Community College District that the Bidder and its subcontractors will employ skilled and trained workers at all levels to perform all work on the project or contract that falls within an educational occupation in the construction industry. Pursuant to Chapter 2.9 (beginning with section 2600) of Part 1. On February 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13202, “Preserving Open Competition and Government Neutrality with Respect to The Working Relationships of Government Contractors on Federally and Federally Funded Construction Projects,” which prohibits the use of LPAs for construction projects with federal funds. [21] This order states that construction projects that receive federal funding may not enforce the employment contracts of the projects. [22] In particular, the order stipulated that neither the federal government nor any authority acting with the assistance of the Federation may require or prohibit contractors from signing union agreements as a condition of carrying out work on publicly funded construction projects. [21] The order allowed for the continuation of LPAs that had already been agreed upon and did not affect projects that had not received federal funding.

[23] Bush`s order revoked the previous pla executive order, Clinton Order 12836, which repealed the executive order issued by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. [16] President George W. Bush issued an amendment in April 2001 that allowed certain projects to be exempted from this order if a contract had already been awarded under an existing PLA at the time of the order. [24] Reports and studies on the impact of LPAs on LPA costs on construction projects have found that they may not result in higher costs, such as a 2002 article from Harvard University`s Joint Center for Housing Studies that states that the increased costs cited by LPA opponents are based on offers rather than final costs. According to the document, the final cost of a project would generally be higher than the cost of bidding due to expenses incurred during construction. [8] In addition, a 2004 report by the Director of General Services for Contra Costa County, California, indicated that bids for five of the eight projects subject to the PLA were below the cost estimate for architects/engineers. [113] A 2004 report on the use of LPAs in Iowa indicates that the use of PLA increases the efficiency and profitability of construction projects. “Public sector PLA for complex projects or projects where timely project delivery is important have been shown to deliver the desired return by contractors and project managers they use repeatedly.” [114] A 2009 paper concluded that because of the differences between schools built with APLs and those built without APLs, it was difficult to identify the impact of LPAs on the cost of building schools.

The report states that there is no statistically significant evidence of an increase in the cost of building schools. [115] A number of women and minority entrepreneur groups oppose project employment contracts[62], on the grounds that LPAs disproportionately affect small businesses, especially those owned by women and minorities. These groups argue that LPAs are anti-market and discriminatory. [100] [101] In particular, groups, including the National Association of Women Business Owners, expressed opposition to the PLA, and in 1998 a hearing was held in the House of Representatives on the issue of minority groups` resistance to the government-mandated LPAs. [102] The National Black Chamber of Commerce rejects the use of APLs because of the small number of black union members in the construction industry. According to the NBCC, the implementation of LPAs discriminates against black workers, who are generally not unionized, and also prevents entrepreneurs from employing casual workers. [103] [104] According to the Panamanian-American U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the majority of its members are small businesses unfairly affected by LPAs, particularly due to rising costs and declining benefits.

[105] Zu den Gruppen gehören die Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)[60], Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)[61], Construction Industry Roundtable (CIRT), die National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), die National Black Chamber of Commerce und die USA. . . .