Which companies bid on the White House East Wing demolition and who won the contract?
Executive summary
Coverage identifies ACECO LLC (a Maryland demolition firm) as the contractor that carried out the East Wing tear‑down and a consortium led by Clark Construction as the prime contractor awarded the larger ballroom/build‑out contract (reported values: about $200M–$300M) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows intense public and congressional scrutiny of ACECO’s demolition work while planning and awarding of the main construction contract involved larger national firms — but available sources do not provide a full bidders’ list for the East Wing demolition procurement [1] [2].
1. Who physically demolished the East Wing — a small firm at center stage
Multiple outlets identify ACECO (also styled ACECO Engineering & Construction or ACECO LLC) as the firm that performed the East Wing demolition and the company that drew sharp public criticism after the work began; coverage notes senators demanding documentation from ACECO about asbestos mitigation and other compliance matters [1] [4] [5]. WTOP and Engineering News‑Record frame ACECO as the demolition subcontractor whose involvement became politically fraught once crews started dismantling the historic façade [5] [1].
2. Who won the main construction contract — a Clark‑led consortium
Separate reporting and reference entries say a consortium led by Clark Construction was awarded the principal contract to build the new White House State Ballroom and associated work, with the contract reported at around $200 million and overall project costs variously reported up to $300 million in media coverage [2] [3] [6] [7]. Wikipedia entries summarizing coverage state Clark Construction was named the $200M contractor and that construction began in September 2025; independent outlets likewise report a Clark‑led team as the prime for the broader ballroom project [2] [3].
3. Bidders and procurement transparency — major gaps in reporting
Available sources do not list a full roster of companies that bid specifically on the East Wing demolition nor a comprehensive bid list for the Clark‑led ballroom contract; reporting focuses on the named winners and those performing visible on‑site work rather than the full procurement record (available sources do not mention a full bidders’ list) [1] [2] [3]. Engineering News‑Record and news outlets highlight contractor accountability and oversight questions but stop short of publishing the pre‑award bidder slate [1].
4. Why two different company types appear in the narrative
Journalistic accounts separate the quick demolition subcontractor (ACECO) from the larger prime contractor/consortium (Clark Construction). That distinction is common in large federal and private projects: specialized local demolition firms often execute hazardous teardown and site prep, while national builders lead multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar vertical construction work [1] [2] [3]. Coverage ties ACECO to the immediate demolition controversy and Clark to the long‑term ballroom construction contract [5] [2].
5. Cost and funding context — private donors and varying price tags
Outlets report the ballroom project’s funding is being sourced from private donors and give different headline numbers: Wikipedia and some reports place the contract at about $200 million, while other outlets and segments cite the overall ballroom price as $250–300 million [2] [3] [7] [6]. The Guardian and CNBC emphasize donor involvement and the administration’s position that demolition did not require the same planning approvals as vertical construction [8] [9].
6. Oversight, legal and political fallout — why bidders matter
Coverage and follow‑up reporting show that the demolition — and the choice of demolition contractor — triggered congressional inquiries and preservationist objections; senators pressed ACECO on asbestos mitigation and paperwork, and preservation groups sought pauses and legal remedies because demolition preceded some planning reviews [1] [8]. Those developments explain why public attention focused on the demolition contractor even as the main construction prime (Clark) held the headline contract [1] [8].
7. What remains unclear and where to look next
Available sources provide the names of the demolition firm (ACECO) and the prime contractor consortium (Clark Construction) but do not publish a full bid list, bid prices, or the procurement documents for the demolition or every subcontract award (available sources do not mention a bidders’ list or full procurement record) [1] [2]. For definitive procurement records, federal contracting portals, Freedom of Information Act filings, or the agencies that handled the award would be the next place to check — none of which are detailed in the cited reporting (available sources do not mention FOIA results or contracting‑office releases) [1] [2].
Summary: Reporting consistently names ACECO as the on‑site demolition contractor and a Clark Construction‑led consortium as the prime awarded the ballroom contract (with reported values around $200M–$300M), but the record published in news coverage does not provide a full list of bidders for either the demolition or the main construction award [5] [2] [3].