The Truth About PLAs » Rep. Glenn Thompson

Congressman Frank Guinta Submits Continuing Resolution Amendment Promoting Fair and Open Competition for the Procurement of Federal Construction Contracts

Ben Brubeck — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:06:16 +0000

According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, yesterday U.S. Representative Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) filed an amendment pertaining to government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on the Continuing Resolution legislation currently being debated on the House floor that would fund the federal government from March 4 through Sept. 30, the end of the current federal fiscal year (“Guinta: Ban pro-union labor agreements from federal construction projects,” 2/15/11).

Rep. Guinta’s amendment No. 166 says:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to enter into, after the date of the enactment of this Act, a Government contract that requires a project labor agreement.”

Rep. Guinta commented on the amendment in a press release yesterday:

“PLAs are nothing but political payback to unions that come at the taxpayer’s expense,” Guinta said. “They drive up the cost of already expensive government construction projects. They divert scarce revenue; instead of using limited taxpayer dollars to restore our crumbling infrastructure, PLAs put money in the pockets of unions. The amendment I submitted would level the playing field and restore competition among contractors. When all contractors get a fair shake, the taxpayer gets a good deal. And that’s good for everyone.”

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers may recall that Rep. Guinta was the mayor of Manchester in Nov. 2009, when the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) cancelled its solicitation for bids to construct a new Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H., after a controversy erupted over the DOL’s PLA requirement that would have discouraged competition from qualified local contractors and their merit shop employees.

In October 2009, ABC member North Branch Construction of Concord, N.H., with ABC support and representation, filed a protest against the illegal, costly and anti-competitive PLA with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In the face of the bid protest, the U.S. DOL cancelled its solicitation to construct the project, rather than build the project without the anti-competitive and costly PLA, which would have resulted in out-of-state contractors and primarily union employees building the Job Corps Center.

The DOL was widely criticized for delaying the project and the creation of badly needed construction jobs while denying local residents services offered by the Job Corps Center. U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was questioned during a Feb. 3, 2010, House Education and Labor Committee hearing by Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) about the DOL’s PLA mandate. She was asked to explain why the Manchester Job Corps Center has not been built, but to date, has failed to provide an answer.

The project is supposed to be under construction soon, although the timeline is uncertain. The DOL has hired Hill International Inc., a New Jersey-based construction management claims firm notorious for supporting anti-competitive and costly government-mandated PLAs, to review the Job Corps Center project and recommend whether it should continue to be subject to a PLA.

It is unclear if this amendment would impact the construction of the Job Corps Center if the DOL proceeds with construction and mandates a PLA.

However, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported:

Guinta said the Job Corps Center did not, in itself, prompt his amendment, but he said it is “the current local example of a project that was put on hold as a result of a PLA requirement.”

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com supports this amendment. It ensures a level playing field free from costly and anti-competitive PLA mandates where all qualified contractors and their skilled employees have a fair opportunity to compete for construction contracts and deliver to taxpayers the best possible product at the best possible price.

Update: On Thursday, Feb. 17, a coalition letter signed by the following groups was sent to the House in support of the Guinta Amendment #166:

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)
Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT)
Independent Electrical Contractors Association (IEC)
Merit Elevator Contractors Association of America
National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC) – Philadelphia Chapter
National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC)
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA)
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA)
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

ABC National also sent a KEY VOTE letter in support of the Guinta Amendment #166.

Update: On Friday, 2/18 around 10:30 PM ET: Rep. Guinta just spoke eloquently in support of his Amendment #166 at 10:19 PM. Rep. Guinta said the amendment was supported by ABC, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and the National Black Chamber of Commerce and described the amendment as a cost saving measure that would help grow businesses and create construction jobs.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Rep. George Miller (CA-7) and Rep. Robert E. Andrews (NJ-1) spoke out against the amendment with standard anti-PLA talking points. A vote will happen around midnight.

Debate was limited to 3 minutes a side.

You can review the debate from the Congressional Record here. Note that Congresswoman Laura Richardson did not speak from the floor and added her Big Labor pro-PLA talking points comments to the Congressional Record later.

Update: On Saturday, 2/19 around 1:25 AM ET: The Guinta Amendment FAILED with a TIE: 210-210. More analysis tomorrow.

Update: Saturday, 2/19 @ 8:00 AM: Here is the Roll Call vote #126.

All Democrats and these 26 Republicans voted no:
Alexander (LA) (Alexander letter opposing PLAs from 2009)
Diaz Balart (FL)
Emerson (MO)
Hultgren (IL)
Johnson (IL)
King (NY)
Lance (NJ)
Latourette (OH)
LoBiondo (NJ)
McCotter (MI)
McKinley (WV)
Miller (MI)
Murphy (PA)
Petri (WI)
Reichert (WA)
Ros Lehtinen (FL)
Ryan (WI)
Schilling (IL)
Schmidt (OH)
Schock (IL)
Shimkus (IL)
Smith (NJ)
Turner (OH)
Walsh (IL)
Whitfield (KY)
Young (AK)

9 Democrats did not vote and the following 4 Republicans did not vote:
Herrera (WA)
Paul (TX)*
Quayle (AZ)*
Shuster (PA)*
*Missed a number of votes Friday morning.

U.S. Labor Secretary’s Support of Anti-Competitive Project Labor Agreements Questioned at Congressional Hearing

Ben Brubeck — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:45:59 +0000

At a Feb. 2 House Education and Labor Committee hearing, U.S. Representative Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (R-PA) questioned U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis on President Obama’s pro-project labor agreement (PLA) Executive Order 13502 for federal construction contracts and asked why the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) mandated a PLA on a Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H.

After a protest was filed against the PLA with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) by ABC member North Branch Construction of Concord, N.H., with ABC support and representation, the U.S. DOL cancelled its solicitation to construct the project.

Here is more on the hearing from a press release on Rep. Thompson’s website (“U.S. Labor Secretary Dodges Thompson’s Questions on Project Labor Agreements,” 2/3/10).

Thompson described the New Hampshire ordeal in further detail, “Last September, DOL issued a solicitation for construction of a Job Corps Center in New Hampshire that the Department declared was `urgently needed.’ Without explanation, the Department attempted to impose a Project Labor Agreement. After a local small business filed a protest against the PLA, the Department cancelled the solicitation, and has not re-issued it.

Thompson asked Solis, “Why did the Department cancel the entire solicitation of an `urgently needed’ project in the face of the bid protest instead of simply removing the PLA?”

Solis answered that in many instances PLAs have actually helped to reduce costs and that it is appropriate that the Department look for ways to keep costs down. She did not answer the question about New Hampshire.

Committee Chairman Rep. George Miller (D-CA) asked that Solis answer Thompson’s question in writing at a later date. TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will be sure to cover Solis’ response. You can view the entire exchange at the 85 minute mark at the hearing’s archived webcast.

To date, the DOL has not taken any additional steps to construct this project, demonstrating that special interest politics trump sound public policy and badly-needed job creation. The DOL opted to cancel the project instead of proceeding without a PLA which will not create jobs for New Hampshire residents and will not help the 24.7 percent unemployment rate in the U.S. construction industry.

Rep. Thompson summarizes the situation best.

“This is not an ‘us vs. them’ scenario, this is about American jobs. Contract decisions for the federal government should not be based on politics,” said Thompson. “True competition will provide the lowest cost, union or not. In this economic crisis, we need to maximize the job creation in this country. And while I commend the Secretary for acknowledging the need to mitigate costs, the Secretary of Labor should be making sure jobs are maximized, rather than catering to unions.”

It is concerning that Solis couldn’t answer Thompson’s question and demonstrated a limited understanding of government-mandated PLAs when she stated that PLAs reduce construction costs. In reality, anti-competitive PLAs increase costs, funnel contracts to special interests and deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from government. Solis’s position on PLAs is alarming, especially since Section 7 of President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 directs Solis to determine the expansion of the federal government’s PLA policy [Emphasis added]:

Section 7. The Director of the OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and with other officials as appropriate, shall provide the President within 180 days of this order, recommendations about whether broader use of PLAs, with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance, would help to promote the economical, efficient, and timely completion of such projects. [Note: Order was issued Feb. 6, 180 days sets the deadline at Aug. 5 but an order hasn't been issued]

States and local communities should take interest in the expansion of Executive Order 13502 via Section 7. Accepting federal assistance for construction projects with attached PLA strings that favor Big Labor could bust strained budgets. Will states and local communities swallow the 18 percent PLA premium? Can they afford to build four schools, hospitals, bridges and courthouses for the price of five?

A PLA mandate on federally-assisted projects will also cost jobs. The impact of higher labor costs on finite budgets translates into fewer construction projects. Less building means less jobs which will harm local, state and federal revenue streams.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com urges Secretary Solis and elected officials in favor of government-mandated PLAs to reconsider their support of these costly, corrupt and anti-competitive special interest agreements.