Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Procurement Pla topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony for and against expanding ban on project‑labor requirements in public contracts
Summary
Senate Bill 925 would expand the prohibition on government entities using project‑labor agreements (PLAs) for public work contracts funded with local, state, federal or ratepayer money. Labor groups and building trades opposed the expansion, saying PLAs increase productivity, training and local hiring; proponents said the expansion levels the
Senate Bill 925, filed by Senator Hancock, would extend a statutory prohibition on discriminating against a bidder based on project‑labor agreements (PLAs) to include contracts funded with local government money, governmentally administered financial assistance and ratepayer/user fees.
Hancock described the substitute as clarifying coverage of federal matching dollars and aligning federal funding mechanisms. Supporters said the measure would preserve open competition on public work contracts: the sponsor asserted the bill would "level the playing field" by preventing local governments from imposing PLA requirements that limit competition.
Labor and building‑trades witnesses strongly opposed the bill. Rick Lord, executive director of the Texas Building Trades, told the committee PLAs improve productivity and reduce shortages of skilled manpower; "productivity is about 14% higher on a PLA," he said, and argued PLAs help local training and hiring. Amanda Pawson of Every Texan cited peer‑reviewed research showing PLAs can improve timeliness and accountability and said they do not block nonunion contractors from bidding. Leonard Aguilar of the Texas AFL‑CIO emphasized PLAs' use to create local hiring and training pipelines and said they do not exclude nonunion firms.
Proponents of the sponsor’s approach argued expanding the prohibition helps local governments make procurement decisions based on cost and competitiveness rather than union arrangements.
The committee closed public testimony and left the bill pending for further consideration.
