Which contractors and architects were awarded the East Wing demolition and renovation contracts?

1. Who the public announcements list as designers and lead builder

The White House’s July 31 announcement and subsequent construction-industry reporting list McCrery Architects as the architect behind the ballroom design and AECOM as the engineering/design firm; Clark Construction Group is repeatedly named as the general contractor charged with building the addition ^{[5] [1] [4]}. Engineering News-Record (ENR) summarizes the project as a roughly $200M–$300M, 90,000-sq-ft ballroom designed by McCrery, engineered by AECOM, with Clark as general contractor, presenting those three names as the core design-and-build team ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The demolition contractor named in multiple local and trade outlets

Local outlets and construction trade reporting identify ACECO (variously ACECO LLC or ACECO Engineering & Construction), a Silver Spring, Maryland firm, as the demolition contractor actively carrying out teardown work on the East Wing prior to the ballroom build. ENR and Construction Dive both single out ACECO as the firm leading demolition operations and note it has faced public scrutiny and congressional attention ^{[2] [6] [3]}.

3. Why multiple names appear in reporting — roles versus phases

Reporting indicates a separation of roles and project phases: the named architect/engineer/general contractor trio (McCrery, AECOM, Clark) are described as the design and build team for the ballroom addition, while ACECO is cited specifically for demolition work on the existing East Wing fabric—an earlier phase that drew immediate public attention when heavy demolition proceeded ^{[1] [6] [2]}. Trade pieces emphasize that demolition and historic-preservation risk management often involve specialist subcontractors working under a larger prime contractor setup ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Oversight, funding and scrutiny tied to contractor selection

ENR and other coverage stress that the project’s private funding, expedited demolition, and questions over regulatory approvals have driven congressional and public scrutiny of contractors’ compliance practices. Senate committee inquiries and reporting on “compliance risk” suggest contractors working on federal property—even privately funded projects—are under heightened review; ACECO’s online profile and its public reception are specifically mentioned in this context ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Big-tech and defense donors named separately from contractors

Several outlets list major tech companies (Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Google) and defense/communications firms (Lockheed Martin, Palantir, T‑Mobile, Comcast) as donors to the ballroom effort; those names appear in reporting about funding and influence rather than as design or construction contractors ^{[7] [8]}. Distinguishing donors from contracted builders is important because some critics frame donor involvement as a potential conflict influencing project pace or approvals even though donor firms are not necessarily the general contractor or demolition subcontractor ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Gaps, inconsistencies and what reporting doesn’t say

Available reporting converges on McCrery (architect), AECOM (engineer), Clark Construction (general contractor) and ACECO (demolition contractor) but does not publish a single consolidated contract award record in the pieces provided here; detailed contract award documents, procurement numbers, subcontractor lists, or signed federal procurement filings are not included in these sources ^{[1] [2]}. If you seek exact contract award dates, dollar figures per contract, or formal federal procurement identifiers, those specifics are not present in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).

7. Competing perspectives in the coverage

Construction trade outlets treat the project as a complex historic-renovation build with standard industry risk and compliance concerns, while preservationists, some lawmakers, and local press emphasize process shortcuts, lack of prior commission sign-off and the symbolic loss of the East Wing; both angles are present in the sources—industry pieces focus on logistics and contractor roles, while political and preservation coverage focuses on oversight and donor implications ^{[6] [2] [8]}.

8. Bottom line for readers checking contractor claims

Based on the cited coverage, identify McCrery Architects, AECOM and Clark Construction Group as the design/lead-construction team and ACECO (ACECO LLC/ACECO Engineering & Construction) as the demolition contractor ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For contract-level proof—signed awards, contracting agency records, or full subcontractor rosters—those documents are not included in the present set of sources and would be the next step for verification (not found in current reporting).