Which firms submitted bids for the White House East Wing demolition and what were their proposed costs?

1. What the public record in these stories actually says about bidders and costs

Contemporary news reporting focuses on the scope and controversy of demolishing the East Wing rather than publishing a transparent procurement ledger: Reuters, CNN, BBC, The Guardian and AP cover the demolition timeline and the planned ballroom, but they do not present a sourced list of which firms formally submitted competitive bids for the demolition or the itemized bid amounts per firm ^{[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}. Engineering News‑Record highlights contractor accountability and regulatory exposure for companies doing the work, emphasizing compliance risk rather than publishing bid sheets ^[1].

2. Contractors and dollar figures that reporters do cite

Several sources identify parties and headline numbers. Wikipedia and other roundups state Clark Construction was awarded a contract for the broader project, reported there as a $200 million contract ^[3]. NPR and other outlets commonly frame the ballroom project with larger public cost figures — for example, one report cites a $300 million ballroom figure when describing public reaction ^[9]. Reporting also references privately funded construction and the White House’s statements about funding, but again these are project-level numbers rather than per‑bid breakdowns ^{[10] [9]}.

3. Firms explicitly named in coverage around demolition work

At least one demolition contractor, ACECO Engineering & Construction, is named in fact‑checks and local reporting as having been involved in the demolition and in public complaints about unpaid balances for work it performed ^[2]. Engineering News‑Record and other outlets discuss unnamed contractors working on demolition and raise questions about which companies executed work begun before formal design review, but they do not enumerate all bidders or the proposals those firms made ^[1].

4. Why the media doesn’t show a full bidder list or line‑item bids

Sources indicate the demolition was executed quickly and amid procedural controversy — demolition began before a formal design review and before some federal bodies had approved vertical construction — which muddied typical procurement transparency and review processes ^{[4] [1] [7]}. The White House told Reuters that demolition did not require the same approvals as vertical construction, and the administration said construction plans would be submitted later; that sequencing helps explain why reporting focuses on outcomes and compliance questions rather than full public disclosure of competitive bids ^{[7] [4]}.

5. Conflicting viewpoints and implicit agendas in coverage

Conservative-leaning commentary framed the ballroom as a legitimate and tasteful addition, arguing for practicality and classical design, while preservation groups and many Democrats protested the demolition as precipitous and legally questionable; outlets like The New York Times and The Guardian highlighted the controversy and potential procedural lapses ^{[11] [12] [7]}. Industry trade coverage, such as ENR, frames the story around contractor compliance risk, suggesting construction firms may face reputational or legal exposure for participating in work undertaken amid regulatory ambiguity — an angle that implicitly pressures firms to disclose more or to defend their compliance postures ^[1].

6. What is not found in current reporting (limits of the record)

Available sources do not list a comprehensive roster of firms that submitted formal bids for the East Wing demolition, nor do they provide a public accounting of the specific bid amounts each firm proposed. Likewise, there is no accessible, sourced procurement document reproduced in these articles that would verify per‑contractor bid numbers or show a formal low‑bid/award sequence (available sources do not mention a complete bidder list or per-firm proposed costs) ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

7. How to get the precise bidder and bid figures if you need them

To obtain the exact bidder list and bid amounts you would likely need: (a) procurement records or invoices released by the White House Office of Management and Budget or the agency that managed contracts; (b) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for contracts and bid documents; or (c) direct reporting from a trade outlet or public‑records investigator that has obtained and published the procurement package — none of which are present in the provided reporting (available sources do not mention FOIA results or released bid tabulations) ^{[1] [2]}.

Bottom line: reporting identifies Clark Construction as a major contractor on the ballroom project and names ACECO as involved in demolition work and payment disputes, and it cites $200M–$300M as headline project figures — but the articles supplied do not publish a full list of firms that submitted demolition bids or the exact proposed costs per firm ^{[3] [9] [2] [1]}.