PL`s can also influence competition by discouraging non-union offers, as evidenced by studies conducted by Ernst and Young in September 2001 on behalf of Erie County, New York. This study analyzed the impact of AEPs on public works and concluded that the number of bidders for projects with a PLA has been reduced, as “the use of PLA severely impedes the participation of non-union contractors in public procurement.” [125] The Worcester Municipal Research Bureau prepared a report in 2001 based on a series of studies on the use of PLA. The report found that the AEPs reduced the number of bidders for construction projects and resulted in lower savings than would be possible if contractors were able to work within their usual employee rules. [126] In March 1995, an ABC study on the cost of taxpayers for the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, evaluated bids for the same project, both before and after the temporary introduction of a PLA in 1995. It turned out that there were 30% fewer bidders to do the job, and that costs increased by more than 26%. [127] Phases 1 and 2 of the multi-billion-euro Silver Line project in Northern Virginia were not subject to government-imposed project work contracts. However, parts of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Silver Line were constructed with unique PLA agreements that a handful of contractors had voluntarily entered into with unions without government constraint. Companies have been able to negotiate the terms of the agreements directly with the PLA signatories, including provisions that make AEPs optional for Silver Line Phases 1 and 2 subcontractors. 2020 other general bills of Sen. Scott Surovell (SB 995) and Del. Alphonso Lopez (HB 1635) signed in the law of Gov. Northam eliminate fair and open competitive protection for Metrorail construction projects obtained by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the future government-mandated mandate for subway construction projects similar to the controversial attempt to authorize a LP on Phase 2 of the Silver Line. PLA standards advise Maryland to show that the PLA it wants to use is not at odds with the important political considerations set out by Congress in Title 23.C, namely, the protection of the tendering process, the promotion of open access to all potential bidders and workers wishing to work on federal aid, and the guarantee of the efficient and inexpensive use of federal funds for highways.

These concerns are reinforced and reinforced by the clear emphasis on cost control in the Bridge Act. Therefore, existing legislation and PLA standards require real evidence of the response to these concerns, not unfounded arguments. The PLA standards require, among other things, that MDOT provide specific information about its experience in using PLA in MDOT construction projects or other construction projects in the State of Maryland, as well as specific information supporting the claim that the use of a PLA would not compromise the estimated costs or timing of project completion. [7] See Washington Examiner, Virginia, Maryland workers have divided Dulles rail jobs. May 21, 2012, and data shows that the Silver Line Virginias Phase 2 construction work agreement could affect. May 18, 2012. Maryland and the BCTD in their submissions to us, put forward in some detail the benefits of union recruitment that will result from the PLA. We are not convinced.