Which companies submitted bids for the 2025 White House renovation contracts?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public reporting identifies Clark Construction as the lead builder selected for the 2025 White House ballroom/renovation project, with design and engineering partners named as McCrery Architects and AECOM; the project has been described in reporting as a roughly $200–300 million effort and partially privately funded by 37 donors [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets note that information about who formally bid (versus who was announced as selected or invited) and whether the work was competitively procured remains unclear; Senate inquiries and news reports say the White House did not disclose competitive-bid records [4] [2].
1. Who the White House announced as on the project — names that appear across reporting
The firms repeatedly named by the administration and by multiple reports are Clark Construction as the builder, McCrery Architects as the architect, and AECOM as the engineering partner [1] [4]. Construction Dive reported Clark leading a team including AECOM and McCrery Architects beginning work in September 2025 [1]. Senator Richard Blumenthal’s office likewise cited those three firms as designers/engineers/builders in a public letter [4].
2. What outlets say about bids and procurement — disclosure gaps
News outlets and congressional correspondence flag a lack of public information about how those firms were chosen and whether the contracts were competitively bid. The Senate inquiry asks for lists of federal contracts the firms bid for and the terms of involvement, noting no public explanation of selection procedures [4]. Wikipedia and news coverage also report the White House did not answer whether the renovation followed a competitive bidding process [2].
3. Price tags and scale — varying figures reported
Reporting gives different headline numbers for the ballroom’s cost: Construction Dive and some coverage describe a roughly $200 million contract led by Clark Construction [1] [2]. Other outlets and summaries have referenced figures up to $250–300 million for the ballroom and linked renovation [2] [5] [6]. The discrepancy illustrates evolving cost estimates in contemporaneous reporting [2] [5] [6].
4. Private funding and donor involvement — companies identified among backers
The White House released a donor list reported and reviewed by Fortune showing 37 private donors funding the ballroom; coverage highlights major tech and defense contractors among contributors, with names such as Lockheed Martin, Palantir, T‑Mobile and Comcast cited as having “pitched in” in at least one report [3] [7]. Reporting raises concern about conflicts of interest and influence when private companies with federal ties fund such a project [2] [3].
5. Competing perspectives: administration claims vs. critics’ scrutiny
The White House defended the project as a presidential prerogative to modernize the residence; a White House spokesperson said presidents have legal authority to renovate [8]. Critics, preservation groups and senators argue the project proceeded without sufficient review and without clear procurement transparency, prompting lawsuits and congressional questions [8] [4] [9]. Sources differ on whether required signoffs were obtained: outlets report the administration moved ahead despite lacking National Capital Planning Commission sign‑off [6] [7].
6. What is not clearly reported — limits of available sources
Available sources do not list a formal roster of every company that submitted competitive bids for the 2025 renovation contracts; they report who was announced as selected (Clark, AECOM, McCrery) and who donated, but do not publish a comprehensive bid list or procurement documents [1] [4] [3]. Congress has requested such records, indicating they were not publicly provided as of those reports [4].
7. Why the distinction between “selected” and “bid” matters
Competitive bidding is a transparency and accountability safeguard for taxpayer projects; when firms are announced without public documentation of procurement steps, it raises questions about fairness and conflicts, particularly where private donors include companies with large federal contracts [4] [3]. Reporting from Construction Dive and congressional letters underscore precisely this concern [1] [4].
Conclusion — what we can say with confidence and what remains unanswered
Public sources consistently identify Clark Construction, AECOM and McCrery Architects as lead firms on the White House ballroom/renovation and document significant private donor funding [1] [2] [3]. Sources uniformly note the absence of publicly disclosed competitive‑bidding records and show lawmakers seeking basic procurement information, meaning the full list of bidders and the terms of any bids remain unreported in current coverage [4] [2].