construction-150x150-1847218In an apparent concession to construction trade unions, one of Governor Cuomo’s 30-day budget bill amendments would effectively require use of project-labor agreements (PLAs) on “design-build” infrastructure contracts of more than $10 million. This raises the likelihood that savings made possible by the use of the design-build method will be undermined by the imposition of PLAs, which favor less efficient union labor.

The amendment also backtracks, in two notable ways, from Cuomo’s original 2014-15 budget proposal to extend the 2011 state Infrastructure Investment Act, which allows more use of “design build” method on public projects:

  • The initial budget bill would have made permanent the design-build provisions of the 2011 law, but the 30-day amendment merely extends it for three more years, through 2017.
  • While the original bill would have authorized the use of the design-build technique by all counties and larger municipalities, the amended bill erases this expansion to local governments.

Design-build is a project-delivery technique in which construction is handled by a single entity instead of an architect interacting with a contractor or contractors. It can lead to major efficiency savings on big projects; for example, design-build has been credited with paring $1.7 billion off the cost of the governor’s signature infrastructure initiative, the new Tappan Zee Bridge.

While union advocates say PLAs improve quality and reduce expenses, a study by the Beacon Hill Institute found that such agreements added 20 percent to school construction costs in New York. Not coincidentally, unions don’t like design-build.

Meanwhile a motion now pending before the state’s highest court will go a long way toward deciding whether the Cuomo administration will have added discretion to push the use of PLAs.  Former Assembly Minority Leader John Faso explains the case in a recent Albany Times Union op-ed:

The Appellate Division [has] essentially slammed the courthouse door in the face of a local contractor who challenged the state Department of Transportation on contract terms that required a project labor agreement.

PLAs typically require 85 percent of workers be hired from union halls, which often means open-shop contractors won’t bid, since they can’t use their own employees.

The court said the contractor, Lancaster Development of Richmondville, wasn’t allowed to challenge the contract rules — relying on legal “standing” principles — because it didn’t submit a bid. Only the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, can remedy this issue in order to protect taxpayers.

Traditional legal requirements pertaining to standing are important to ensure that only parties who are actually affected by the matter or controversy are able to litigate. However, if the lower court ruling stands, there is little that will stand in the way of government agencies essentially tilting contract rules to ensure that only favored bidders compete for contracts.

Why is the Lancaster case important? The answer is simple: Taxpayers benefit from open, fair competition for state contracts. Vendors have to make sure they make their most reasonable bid to keep taxpayer costs low. Procurement rules ensure both a level playing field and that public agencies don’t use arbitrary contract rules to favor some bidders over others.

The case involved a contract for the Exit 122 highway project in Orange County and was originally advertised for bid in February 2011. The DOT commissioned an outside consultant to evaluate whether a PLA was desirable for this contract. The consultant issued its analysis in January 2011 and found no basis for using a PLA on this job. Then, a month later, with barely any change the report, the consultant recommended a PLA. It was obvious that someone in state government instructed the consultant to alter its recommendation.

Then, in March 2011, the DOT issued a contract amendment instructing prospective bidders to agree to sign a PLA when they submitted bids. Lancaster, a non-union, open-shop firm, submitted its bid with explicit provisions that it wouldn’t sign a PLA. When bids were opened, Lancaster was low bidder at $68 million, $4.5 million below the next lowest bidder.

DOT rejected Lancaster’s bid as non-responsive, even though it had extensive heavy highway construction experience around the state and a good record of performance on state contracts.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

NY’s leaky gas taxes

When motorists in New York top off their gas tanks this Labor Day weekend, they’ll be paying an average of about 45 cents per gallon in state and local fuel taxes—the 5th highest total in the nation, and second highest in the Northeast. Read More

Thruway toll credit crashes

In their budget bills, state Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans both had the good sense to reject one of the most egregious fiscal-political gimmicks ever to emerge from Governor Andrew Cuomo: a temporary income tax credit that would have reimbursed a portion of Thruway tolls paid by New York State residents and businesses. Read More

Cuomo’s magical mystery cash

So, how is Governor Andrew Cuomo paying for that $100 billion infrastructure "development initiative" that, as he put in his State of the State message yesterday, "would make Governor Rockefeller jealous"? The answer: for the most part, he actually isn't. Read More

Power for tolls?

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) could be taking the money-losing state Barge Canal off the back of the Thruway Authority under the fiscal 2017 state budget that will be proposed today by Governor Andrew Cuomo. Assuming this Buffalo News report is true, it would explain how Cuomo intends to finance his proposal to freeze Thruway tolls for five years even while building the $4.8 billion Tappan Zee Bridge replacement. Read More

Gone with the windfall

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s plan for allocating $5.4 billion in windfall funds has survived, almost intact, in the agreed-upon New York State budget for the 2016 fiscal year, which starts April 1. Consistent with Cuomo’s original vision, the final plan shortchanges basic transportation and municipal infrastructure. Read More

A tangled broadband proposal

As part of his plan for allocating $5.4 billion in one-shot windfall funds, Governor Cuomo wants to spend $500 million to expand the availability and capacity of broadband Internet access across New York. But given pressing traditional infrastructure needs, should broadband rate a high priority? Do we really need it? The governor's case, on closer inspection, is less than compelling. Read More

Cuomo’s fungible windfall

Governor Cuomo repeatedly has said that the state’s unprecedented $5.4 billion cash windfall is a “one shot” that should not be spent on recurring expenses such as school aid or agency operations. Yet his proposed budget language might allow him to do just that. Read More

There goes the windfall?

One of the biggest questions heading into New York’s fiscal 2016 Executive Budget presentation was how Governor Andrew Cuomo would choose to allocate an unprecedented, one-shot $5.4 billion windfall "surplus" originating with fines and penalties collected from financial institutions. Now we have the answer: under Cuomo's proposal, less than one-third of the money—barely $1.6 billion—would be absolutely, positively committed to core transportation infrastructure purposes. The rest would go to an assortment of stuff, only some of which would fit into even an extra-broad definition of “infrastructure.” Read More

NY’s leaky gas taxes

Power for tolls?

Gone with the windfall

There goes the windfall?