Legal Bulletins
State Board Deals Setback to Maryland Transportation Authority, Invalidates Project Labor Agreement Requirement
A version of this article was published in The Daily Record on October 27, 2026.
In a decision with significant implications for state public works contracts, the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (MSBCA) sustained an appeal brought by heavy highway contractor Allan Myers MD, Inc., striking down a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirement imposed by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). While the MSBCA has previously held that Project Labor Agreements, which are agreements between contracts and unions to establish terms and conditions of employment for craft workers on a specific project, may be used as factors in evaluating proposals, the Board decided that it is unlawful for the state to require the use of PLAs on a project as part of the procurement.
The dispute centers on a major MDTA construction project involving the I-95/I-695 Interchange Express Toll Lanes ramps in Baltimore County.
MDTA attempted to include the use of a PLA requirement under a 2024 Executive Order by Governor Wes Moore. Under that Order, the Governor authorized the use of PLA’s after written findings demonstrating specific public benefits—including cost-effectiveness, efficiency, quality, safety, and timeliness—justify the requirement.
Allan Myers filed a pre-bid protest challenging the inclusion of a mandatory PLA in the Invitation for Bids (IFB). Following MDTA’s denial of the protest, Allan Myers appealed to the Board.
In an opinion authored by Chairwoman Cho following a two-day merits hearing, the Board determined that MDTA’s decision to mandate a PLA was "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable." Testimony presented during the hearing highlighted concerns regarding open-shop contractors. Under the solicitation's core workers provision, non-union contractors like Allan Myers would have been restricted to utilizing their own regular workforce for no more than 30% of the project's labor pool per month, forcing them to source the remaining 70% through union halls.
The Board found MDTA failed to generate the required written findings pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order to justify the requirement. It further ruled that the PLA requirement as structured in the solicitation violated state procurement regulations, in that the PLA requirement unfairly favored unions and restricted competition. Applying state regulations, the Board stated, the PLA requirement “was ‘the basis for procuring an item in a cost effective manner,’ because all evidence points to the fact that a PLA would increase bid prices and, consequently, the cost of services to the State.” The Board further found that the PLA “was written ‘in such a manner as to favor’ one group of vendors (union contractors) over other vendors (non-union contractors), and therefore it restricts competition.”
The decision marks a major precedent in how state agencies must evaluate and document labor requirements on large public infrastructure projects moving forward under current executive guidelines.