Executive Order 13502: PLAs, EO 14063, and Current Status

Executive Order 13502 was a directive signed by President Barack Obama on February 6, 2009, that encouraged federal agencies to consider requiring project labor agreements on large-scale federal construction projects costing $25 million or more. It reversed Bush-era prohibitions on government-mandated PLAs, but it is no longer in force: President Biden revoked and replaced it with Executive Order 14063 on February 4, 2022, which converted the discretionary policy into a mandate and raised the threshold to $35 million. That successor rule, not EO 13502, governs federal construction procurement today.

What Executive Order 13502 Required

The order directed executive agencies to consider using project labor agreements — pre-hire collective bargaining agreements between contractors and labor organizations — on large-scale federal construction contracts. A “large-scale construction project” meant any project where the total cost to the federal government reached $25 million or more. “Construction” was defined broadly to cover new building along with rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, repair, or improvement of buildings, highways, or other real property.¹

The order did not force any agency to use a PLA on any particular project. It granted discretion. An agency could require a PLA on a project-by-project basis when doing so would advance the government’s interest in economy and efficiency, labor-management stability, and compliance with health, safety, and employment laws.²

When an agency did require a PLA, the agreement had to meet five conditions:

It had to bind all contractors and subcontractors on the project.
Contractors had to be allowed to compete regardless of whether they already had collective bargaining agreements.
The PLA had to include guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and other job disruptions.
It had to provide effective, binding procedures for resolving labor disputes.
It had to include mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on safety, health, productivity, and quality.

One scope point matters for readers trying to figure out whether a given project fell under the order. EO 13502 applied only to direct federal procurement, meaning contracts the government awarded for its own construction. It did not reach projects funded through federal financial assistance programs such as grants to states or localities.³

The order also expressly revoked two Bush-era directives — Executive Order 13202 and Executive Order 13208 — that had prohibited federal agencies from requiring PLAs, and it directed agency heads to revoke any implementing rules or regulations tied to those prohibitions.¹

Why the Order Was Issued

The Obama administration’s stated rationale was that large federal construction projects present procurement challenges different from those of a typical employer. A major site draws workers from many trades and multiple employers for a limited period. Predicting labor costs, keeping a reliable supply of skilled workers, and coordinating multiple contractors at one location, the order argued, are all harder without a unified labor framework. PLAs, in the administration’s view, provided structure and stability by establishing common terms across a project and preventing work stoppages when local bargaining agreements expired mid-construction.²

How Agencies Actually Used the Order

The order directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to amend the FAR within 120 days. The final implementing rule was published on April 13, 2010, and took effect on May 13, 2010. It amended five parts of the FAR — 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 17, 22, and 52 — and created a new Subpart 22.5 governing PLAs on federal construction projects.⁴

The rule gave agencies wide latitude. They could impose a PLA as a condition of bidding, after bidding but before award, or after work was awarded. Where an agency chose to use a PLA, it had to include the appropriate specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents.⁴

Agencies almost never used it. Between 2009 and 2021, roughly 2,000 federal contracts met the $25 million threshold. Agencies invoked the PLA requirement on only 12.⁵ That gap between authority and use is the practical footprint EO 13502 left before it was replaced.

The Order That Replaced It: EO 14063

On February 4, 2022, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which formally revoked EO 13502. The core change was one word: “encouraged” became “required.” Under EO 14063, agencies must require contractors and subcontractors to negotiate or become a party to a PLA on federal construction projects with a total estimated cost of $35 million or more.⁶

The dollar threshold rose by $10 million, but the strength of the obligation changed far more. Under EO 14063, exceptions are available only if a senior procurement executive provides a written explanation that a PLA would not advance economy and efficiency, would substantially reduce competition to the point that fair pricing becomes impossible, or would conflict with other federal statutes. The FAR Council published a final rule implementing the mandate on December 18, 2023, and it took effect on January 22, 2024. Under the mandate, an estimated 60 to 107 federal construction contracts per year were expected to require PLAs, compared with the 12 total that were required across the entire life of EO 13502.⁵

Where the Rule Stands Now

EO 14063 remains in effect. The FAR rule requiring PLAs on federal construction projects of $35 million or more still governs federal procurement, implemented through FAR Subpart 22.5.⁷ Three developments since it took effect shape how it operates in practice.

Litigation Results Have Been Mixed

The Associated General Contractors and its Louisiana chapter sued in the Western District of Louisiana on January 10, 2024, and the Associated Builders and Contractors and its Florida First Coast Chapter filed a separate suit in the Middle District of Florida on March 28, 2024. Their claims invoked the Procurement Act, the Competition in Contracting Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.⁸⁹

On January 19, 2025, Judge Ryan T. Holte of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in MVL USA, Inc. v. United States, a consolidated case involving twelve construction companies, that the PLA mandate as applied in those specific procurements was unlawful. The court found the requirement violated the Competition in Contracting Act by excluding responsible contractors that declined to enter into PLAs, and that agencies had proceeded with the mandate despite their own market research suggesting it would increase costs and reduce competition — a decision the court called arbitrary and capricious. The court did not issue a broad injunction. It ordered agencies to reassess their PLA decisions on the challenged solicitations. Agencies then removed the PLA requirements from those specific contracts, and the court dismissed the case as moot in May 2025.⁹¹⁰

ABC’s broader facial challenge went the other way. On April 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against EO 14063. Chief Judge William Pryor wrote that the President has broad discretion under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to prescribe policies he deems necessary for an efficient procurement system, and that the executive order has a close nexus to the ordinary hiring, firing, and management of labor. The panel concluded ABC was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its facial challenge.¹¹

North America’s Building Trades Unions sued. On May 16, 2025, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a preliminary injunction vacating those agency memoranda, finding the union was likely to succeed in showing the memoranda violated the Administrative Procedure Act because agencies cannot override a duly issued executive order without following lawful procedures.¹⁴ The unions voluntarily dismissed the case in July 2025 after the administration changed course.¹⁵

That course correction came on June 12, 2025, when OMB Director Russell Vought issued Memorandum M-25-29. It stated that the Trump administration supports the use of PLAs when those agreements are practicable and cost effective. It instructed agencies to rescind blanket deviations from PLA requirements and prohibited independent agency interpretation of the rules. At the same time, it broadened the exceptions: agencies may decline to require a PLA if market research indicates fewer than two bids are expected, or if bidders indicate the PLA requirement would raise prices by more than 10%.¹⁶

Legislation Has Not Advanced

The Fair and Open Competition Act, which would prohibit government-mandated PLAs by statute, was reintroduced in March 2025 but has not moved beyond introduction.¹⁷ For now, the rule sits with EO 14063, the FAR Subpart 22.5 implementing regulation, and the OMB guidance layered on top. EO 13502 itself is history — the framework it launched has grown teeth its author did not give it.

1
Obama White House Archives. Executive Order — Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects
2
GovInfo. Executive Order 13502, Code of Federal Regulations
3
Federal Highway Administration. Project Labor Agreements
4
Federal Register. Federal Acquisition Regulation Case 2009-005
5
Federal Register. Federal Acquisition Regulation — Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects
6
The American Presidency Project. Executive Order 14063
7
Acquisition.gov. FAR Subpart 22.5 — Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects
8
Associated General Contractors of Florida. Association Sues to Block Biden Administration’s Unlawful Effort to Mandate PLAs
9
Associated Builders and Contractors. Project Labor Agreements
10
Baker Donelson. Contractors Continue to Challenge Project Labor Agreements on Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects
11
Bloomberg Law. Trump Administration Narrows Effort to Nix Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Contracts
13
Engineering News-Record. Trump Administration Directs Agencies to Use PLAs for Large Projects, With Exceptions
14
Engineering News-Record. NABTU Secures Injunction in Federal Court to Uphold Biden-Era PLA Mandate for Federal Projects
15
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. North America’s Building Trades Unions v. Department of Defense
16
Office of Management and Budget. M-25-29 — Use of Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects
17
Office of Congressman Clay Higgins. Higgins Introduces Legislation Strengthening Right to Work Protections