In 1997, Clinton proposed an executive order stipulating that federal authorities should consider the use of LTOs for Federally funded projects.  Republicans strongly opposed it and believed it would limit federal projects to union entrepreneurs alone. Clinton abandoned the executive proposal, but issued a memorandum on June 5, 1997 inviting federal departments to consider the use of LTOs for „large and important“ projects.  The memorandum required government authorities to re-extend each project to decide whether a PLA would allow the authority to increase efficiency and reduce costs.  The Tribunal found that substantial evidence supported the acceptance of the specification of THE PLA offers as a promotion of legitimate state interests, in accordance with tender laws, including the prevention of costly delays and ensuring that contractors had access to a skilled workforce.28 Given that the PLA has, on its own terms, under its own terms, , excluded from the tender for the airport project. 29 , the essential evidence that supported the assertion that THE PLAs violate government or local bidding requirements tend to follow similar patterns20. First of all, they examine the nature and scope of the project to determine whether the project is such that a LLP could facilitate the completion of the project at the lowest costs and with the best work.21 Courts are trying to understand the nature and extent of the project Project.21 21 Courts are trying to understand whether this is simply a routine project that allows a LLP to complete the project at the lowest cost and with the best work.21 Courts are trying to understand whether this is simply a routine project that allows a LLP to complete the project at the lowest cost and with the best work.21 Courts are trying to understand whether this is simply a routine project. 21 Courts are trying to understand whether this is simply a routine project in which a LLP can complete the project at the lowest cost and with the best work.21 Courts are trying to understand whether this is simply a routine project. a PLA allows the project to be completed at the lowest cost and with the best work.21 Courts try to understand whether it might be desirable, although not necessary, or whether it is a project of sufficient size, size, complexity or duration that a PLA is actually required.22 At the state level, from June 2019, by law or by the executive branch of the state governor.
, the following states have prohibited the requirement to use PLAs for state-funded construction projects: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Texas, West Virginia, Virginia and Wiscons.        States with executive orders or which have passed laws that authorize or encourage the use of PPA for public projects are California Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington.  On February 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13202, „Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects,“ which prohibits the use of PLAs for construction projects with federal funds.  In that decision, it was said that federally funded construction projects could not impose project work contracts.  In practical terms, the decision specifies that neither the federal government nor a federal aid agency can compel or prohibit construction contractors from signing union contracts as a precondition for carrying out work on federally funded construction projects.  The contract allowed all previously agreed-upon LASs to proceed and did not result in projects that did not receive federal funding.  Bush`s ordinance quashed the former executive term of the PLA, the Clinton Ordinance 12836, which overturned the