The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has selected a relatively obscure Minnesota-based architecture firm, ATSR, to lead its $257 million renovation project, raising questions about the procurement process for the high-profile work. The center announced the overhaul earlier this year, which includes a comprehensive upgrade of its aging infrastructure, theaters, and public spaces. The renovation is slated to last approximately two years.

ATSR, a firm specializing primarily in the design of schools and churches and with a staff of about 50 employees including eight architects, was named the architect of record responsible for managing architectural design and coordinating various consultants on the project. The firm’s largest previous undertaking cited online was a $40 million high school renovation completed in 2016. ATSR’s work related to performing arts facilities is limited; one notable project was a music center satellite campus in Minnesota with a construction budget under $9 million.

The center’s sudden appointment of ATSR surprised many in Washington’s architectural and preservation communities, especially given the building’s prominence and complexity. Prior to this, the center had followed federal procurement regulations when selecting vendors, typically favoring larger or more specialized firms with relevant experience in theaters and historic buildings. However, last year the Kennedy Center revised its contracting policies to exempt itself from federal procurement rules, opting instead for a framework that allows the use of cooperative purchasing agreements to streamline contractor selection.

While the center has stated that hiring ATSR was conducted “in strict accordance” with its procurement policies and emphasized savings in time and costs through an existing cooperative purchasing agreement, it has declined to disclose the specifics of the agreement, whether alternative firms were considered, or what factors distinguished ATSR for the project. The cooperative purchasing mechanism permits institutions to leverage contracts negotiated by other entities without conducting their own competitive search, though procurement experts note that qualifications and pricing should still be assessed carefully.

Experts familiar with government contracting and historic preservation expressed skepticism about ATSR’s selection, noting that firms chosen for projects of this scope and nature usually demonstrate extensive experience in similar settings and hold offices in the Washington area. Sara Bronin, an architect and law professor specializing in preservation, described the choice as unusual given the building’s significance. Patrick Williams, a local architect who has competed for Kennedy Center work in the past, indicated that experience in school design would carry little weight under traditional federal standards for a project of this type.

The Kennedy Center has assembled a team of specialists for the renovation, including Washington-based preservation architect KCCT, structural engineers Walter P Moore, and acoustic consultants Threshold Acoustics, with ATSR tasked primarily with overall architectural coordination and management. The firm has already been involved in assessing structural issues, such as recent ceiling plaster damage in the center’s Grand Foyer.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Kennedy Center’s board and ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has voiced concern over changes to the center’s contracting practices, suggesting the new rules were adopted without sufficient oversight. While his allegations regarding other contractors relate to unrelated aspects of the center’s renovation, they have intensified scrutiny of the center’s procurement processes under President Donald Trump’s leadership since he assumed control of its board last year.

Legal experts caution that the Kennedy Center’s revised policies, though reflecting many federal procurement safeguards, include broad exceptions that could potentially allow departures from competitive bidding under a “compelling business interest,” a standard critics say could be interpreted loosely. The center has not clarified how ATSR met the criteria of relevant experience and expertise, leaving the rationale behind the firm’s selection a subject of ongoing speculation in Washington’s design and preservation circles.