Photo courtesy of the Gateway Development Commission
A federal court ruling denying plaintiff George Harms Construction Co. the temporary restraining order it sought allows procurement of the New Jersey surface alignment package to proceed during ongoing litigation.
A federal judge on Dec. 11 denied George Harms Construction Co.’s request to stop bidding on the Hudson Tunnel project’s New Jersey surface alignment package, finding no irreparable harm from the Gateway Development Commission’s project labor agreement while the lawsuit continues.
In the 11-page letter opinion reviewed by ENR, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey wrote that Harms “has not demonstrated that the PLA prevents it from bidding,” citing the agreement’s terms and the commission’s repeated assurances.
The decision keeps GDC’s procurement schedule intact for one of the megaproject’s largest design-build contracts.
The ruling is a setback for Harms, which filed suit Nov. 26, alleging that the PLA unlawfully excludes its United Steelworkers-represented workforce and violates state labor directives, procurement rules and federal antitrust and constitutional provisions.
The court noted that denial of a temporary restraining order does not resolve those underlying claims, which will proceed.
Court Rejects Exclusion Argument, Finds Limited Merit in One Claim
Harms contended that the PLA—signed by the Hudson County Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliated unions—effectively blocks the firm from bidding unless the Steelworkers are added as signatories.
The judge disagreed, writing that the agreement “permits any otherwise qualified bidder to compete” and emphasizing that Harms had been told it could submit a proposal.
The opinion cites the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Harms, which upheld a PLA challenged by the same contractor. That precedent, the judge wrote, “substantially undermines Harms’s claims” regarding GDC’s authority to adopt the agreement.
The ruling found Harms “likely to succeed” only on a narrow First Amendment claim alleging compelled speech through mandatory fringe-benefit contributions.