Oregon-Columbia Chapter Associated General Contractors of America v. Department of Transportation

Annotate this Case

The case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council (OBTC) against a preliminary injunction issued by the Marion County Circuit Court. The injunction was part of a public contracting dispute between the Oregon-Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). AGC challenged the process used by ODOT to set the terms of "community benefit contracts" for certain highway improvement projects under ORS 279C.308.

The Marion County Circuit Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing ODOT from using the terms of a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) in any projects while AGC's challenge to the validity of the CWA under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was pending before the Oregon Court of Appeals. AGC had filed three cases: one in the circuit court and two petitions for judicial review in the Court of Appeals. The circuit court case sought declaratory relief and an injunction against ODOT's use of the CWA. The Court of Appeals certified the case challenging the CWA's validity to the Oregon Supreme Court, which accepted the certification.

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and decided the challenge to the validity of the CWA in a related case, Oregon-Columbia Chapter of AGC v. ODOT. As a result, the preliminary injunction issued by the circuit court expired, rendering OBTC's request for mandamus relief moot. Consequently, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Download PDF

440 April 10, 2025 No. 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON OREGON-COLUMBIA CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, an Oregon non-profit; Hamilton Construction Co., an Oregon corporation; HP Civil, Inc., an Oregon corporation; and K&E Excavating, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiffs-Adverse Parties, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Intervenor, and OREGON STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, Intervenor-Relator. (CC 24CV02310) (SC S071037) En Banc Original proceeding in mandamus.* Argued and submitted December 9, 2024. Joshua Dennis, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for plaintiffs-adverse parties. Also on the briefs were Darien S. Loiselle and Sokol Larkin, Portland, and Paige Blair Spratt, Vancouver, Washington. Jona Jolyne Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for defendant-intervenor. Also on the briefs were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. ______________ * On petition for peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus from an order of Marion County Circuit Court, Jennifer K. Gardiner, Judge. Cite as 373 Or 440 (2025) 441 Donald McCullough, McKanna, Bishop, Joffe, LLP, Portland, argued the cause for intervenor-relator. Daniel Hutzenbiler filed the briefs. Also on the briefs was Donald McCullough. BUSHONG, J. The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. 442 Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071037) PER CURIAM This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council (OBTC) challenging a preliminary injunction entered by the Marion County Circuit Court in a pending public contracting dispute between the Oregon-Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The underlying circuit court action is one of three cases that AGC filed to challenge the process used by ODOT to set the terms of “community benefit contracts” for certain highway improvement projects pursuant to ORS 279C.308. The other two cases are petitions for judicial review filed in the Court of Appeals under ORS 183.400. In one case (Case No A180612), AGC challenged OAR 731-005-0900, which established ODOT’s community benefit program. In the other case (Case No A181985), AGC alleged that a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) that ODOT had entered into with OBTC and others to set the terms for soliciting bids for ODOT’s community benefits projects was invalid because ODOT had failed to comply with the rulemaking procedures required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Finally, AGC filed the action underlying this mandamus case in the circuit court, alleging that ODOT was engaging in unlawful public contracting by using the terms of the CWA to set the terms for soliciting bids for one of the eight public improvement projects that ODOT had designated as a community benefit project. AGC sought declaratory relief and “an order enjoining ODOT from soliciting, awarding, or entering into any contract which includes” the CWA. The circuit court issued a preliminary injunction precluding ODOT from using the CWA in any projects while AGC’s challenge to the validity of the CWA under the APA was pending before the Oregon Court of Appeals (in Case No A181985). The Court of Appeals certified that case— challenging the validity of the CWA—to this court, and we accepted that certification. By its terms, the circuit court’s preliminary injunction at issue in this mandamus proceeding expires when this court decides the challenge to the validity of the CWA. We Cite as 373 Or 440 (2025) 443 decided that challenge today, in Oregon-Columbia Chapter of AGC v. ODOT (S071452), __ Or __, __ P3d __ (Apr 10, 2025). Accordingly, OBTC’s request for mandamus relief is now moot. The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.