Groups such as the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC),  Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC),  Construction Industry Roundtable (CIRT), the National Federation of Independent Affairs (NFIB), the National Black Chamber of Commerce(U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have actively opposed the use of PLA, particularly for government projects. These groups have questioned the application of such agreements through litigation, lobbying and public relations campaigns.  Opponents of the PLA supported Bush`s executive order, which prohibits government-mandated LBAs, and argued that between 2001 and 2008, when the executive order was in effect, no federal project had experienced significant work problems, delays or cost overruns due to the absence of ALP.  According to the applicants, who oppose THE ACCORDS, the agreements restrict the recruitment and work practices of contractors and may result in higher costs for project owners.  One of their objections to the PLA is that the agreements require contractors to contribute to union performance plans and comply with the labour rules of trade unions.  In addition, they oppose the use of LDCs to limit the hiring of projects to construction workers who have been chosen by unions through tenant unions, and argue that this does not improve the quality of workers, since all those who are admitted to a trade have at least the same level of education and qualification. , whether or not they belong to a union.  Reports on legal considerations relating to APAs clearly show that EDPs are an effective tool for labour relations.  In a 1999 report on the legality of AEPs, the authors stated that AEPs “serve as a productive and stabilizing force in the construction industry.”  This approach is supported by a UCLA study that questioned the results of the Beacon Hill Institute on PLA, which found that in the private sector, the use of ATPs “creates continuity and stability of the workforce in the workplace.”  “A government-imposed project employment contract (PLA) is an anti-competitive and expensive program designed by Big Labor and sympathetic public servants” EAT YOUR WORDS!!! (Best non-union study ..
fire back!! … Thank you!) Government-mandated AEPs have been the subject of much discussion, particularly for publicly funded projects.  The implementation of project work contracts is supported by construction unions and by some political figures who say that it is necessary to ensure that large, complex projects are completed on time and on time.  In the view of those who support the use of such agreements, THE PLA allows project owners to control costs and ensure that there is no disruption to the construction plan, for example. B by strikes.  In particular, TPC proponents refer to the inclusion in the agreement of clauses that agree to create committees to address labour management issues that deal with planning, quality control, health and safety and productivity issues during the project.  They also note that the AEPs ensure that the recruited workforce is trained and of high quality.  The use of PLA in large private projects such as the construction of gillette Stadium of the New England Patriots is cited as an example of how PLA project owners are helping to meet tight deadlines, according to fans.
 In addition to the reported benefits to project owners, PLA proponents also argue that the use of PLA has a positive impact on local communities by setting targets for local hiring and education provision.  A number of women and minority business groups oppose project work agreements and argue that PLAs have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities.