Advocacy

The current surface transportation authorization is included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Congress must pass the next multi-year surface transportation reauthorization before the current law expires on September 30, 2026.

For Minnesota firms, reauthorization decisions drive core questions around formula funding vs. discretionary grants, project eligibility, program requirements, and the administrative friction that agencies and consultants absorb during delivery. We track reauthorization proposals as they emerge in the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, and we communicate their impacts in Minnesota to our delegation.

Qualifications-based selection under the Brooks Act

The federal Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1104) requires federal agencies to publicly announce A/E requirements and select firms based on demonstrated competence and qualifications. Only after the most qualified firm is identified does the agency negotiate a fair and reasonable price.

These requirements are implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Subpart 36.6) and, for federal-aid highway projects, through 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2) and 23 CFR Part 172. This framework matters in Minnesota because it establishes the federal baseline for professional services procurement and shapes state and local practices for federally funded projects.

ACEC Minnesota supports federal advocacy to defend and strengthen QBS and to oppose contracting reforms that collapse professional services into low-bid procurement models.

Federal-aid highway and transit procurement requirements

For federally funded highway projects, 23 CFR Part 172 governs the procurement and administration of engineering and design-related services. It requires public announcement of requirements, evaluation based on qualifications, ranking of firms, and negotiation of a fair and reasonable price. State DOTs and local agencies must comply with these requirements when federal funds are involved.

For transit projects, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA Circular 4220.1G) incorporates Brooks Act procedures for A/E services. The circular explicitly recognizes that architectural and engineering services must be procured through qualifications-based selection procedures consistent with federal statutes.

We monitor changes to FHWA and FTA guidance because revisions to federal regulations directly affect how Minnesota agencies structure solicitations, scoring criteria, and contract negotiations.

Overhead caps and cost principles in federal programs

Federal-aid highway law establishes guardrails on how agencies audit and apply consultant indirect cost rates for engineering and design-related services. Under 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2)(D), once a firm’s indirect cost rates are accepted, the contracting agency must apply them for contract estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting, and payment and “shall not be limited by administrative or de facto ceilings of any kind.”

Minnesota does not receive those protections. 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2)(F) explicitly excludes Minnesota (and West Virginia) from subparagraphs (B)–(E), which include the audit and cost-principles framework and the prohibition on indirect cost ceilings. As a result, Minnesota firms operate under a different federal-aid contracting environment than firms in the other 48 states.

This statutory exclusion is reflected directly in Minnesota’s contracting practices. MnDOT’s Office of Audit publishes annual guidance establishing maximum allowable overhead rates for engineering and design-related contracts. MnDOT contracts with a start date of April 15, 2019, or later have an overhead rate cap of 170%. Contracts with a start date on or after October 1, 2024, have an overhead rate cap of 175%. These caps function as administrative ceilings on otherwise audited rates. Because Minnesota is excluded from the federal protections in 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2)(B)–(E), MnDOT retains authority to impose those ceilings in a way that most other states cannot.

Parity in Engineering Act (H.R. 3258)

ACEC Minnesota supports the Parity in Engineering Act, which would put Minnesota in parity with the other 48 states by removing Minnesota from the federal exclusion. The bill amends 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2)(F) to strike “West Virginia or Minnesota” and leave only West Virginia in the exclusion.

Our position is that Minnesota firms should operate under the same federal-aid contracting guardrails as firms in the rest of the country. That parity supports fair competition, predictable contracting, and delivery capacity across the national engineering market.

• Coordinate with ACEC National policy priorities and action alerts, especially on QBS and federal procurement reforms.
• Conduct targeted outreach to Minnesota’s congressional offices, focused on one or two high-leverage asks rather than volume, timed to committee and reauthorization windows.
• Translate federal changes into plain-language implications for Minnesota firms and public partners: what it changes, who it affects, and what to do next.
• Align, when appropriate, with MnDOT’s federal policy posture and reauthorization objectives to avoid mixed signals in Washington.

Supported by engineering professionals from across the country who work for member firms, the sole purpose of ACEC’s Political Action Committee is to elect candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate who support policies and legislation favorable to the engineering industry.

The PAC is overseen by a committee of Champions comprising engineering firm executives from all ACEC member organizations and is regulated by the Federal Election Commission. ACEC’s PAC is currently the largest federal PAC in the design industry. It supports candidates on a bipartisan basis and may give up to $5,000 to a federal candidate per election, and up to $10,000 per candidate for their federal election cycle. In the last election cycle, ACEC’s PAC had a winning percentage of 97%.

Minnesota funds large public infrastructure projects through capital investment bills authorized under Article XI of the Minnesota Constitution, which governs state bonding authority. ACEC Minnesota engages during even-year sessions when capital investment packages are negotiated. Advocacy in this lane focuses on:

• Ensuring public facilities projects remain viable and deliverable
• Aligning bonding timelines with agency capacity and consultant availability
• Supporting predictable capital investment pacing
• Addressing technical eligibility requirements for state bond funding

Because bonding bills often move late in the session and are highly negotiated, engagement in this lane requires sustained coordination with legislative leadership and agency capital budget staff.

Additionally, Minnesota periodically revisits its transportation funding structure, including trunk highway funding, gas tax indexing, motor vehicle sales tax allocations, and general fund transfers. ACEC Minnesota engages on:

• Long-term sustainability of transportation funding
• Alignment between funding commitments and MnDOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
• Implementation mechanics of transportation finance legislation
• Risk allocation and contract framework implications of alternative delivery methods

Minnesota’s procurement of professional and technical services is governed by Minn. Stat. § 16C.087, which establishes a qualifications-based selection framework for certain professional services. Under this statute, agencies must evaluate qualifications before negotiating compensation. ACEC Minnesota engages on:

• Protecting statutory QBS language in § 16C.087
• Preventing drift toward lowest-cost evaluation models for professional engineering services
• Clarifying implementation guidance issued by the Minnesota Department of Administration
• Ensuring consistency between state statute and federal-aid procurement requirements
• Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation requirements tied to federal funding
• Targeted Group Business (TGB) and Veteran-Owned Small Business programs administered at the state level

State engagement in this lane often involves committee testimony in the House and Senate State Government Finance and Transportation Committees, and coordination with agency procurement staff.

Engineering licensure in Minnesota is governed by the Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (AELSLAGID) under Minn. Stat. § 326. ACEC Minnesota engages when:

• Licensure eligibility rules are revised
• Education pathway requirements are modified
• Examination access is debated
• Administrative rulemaking affects firm ownership or responsible charge standards

Because rule changes often occur administratively rather than legislatively, this lane requires monitoring board rulemaking calendars and participating in public comment periods.

PFAS liability and environmental regulation (Amara’s Law)

In 2023, Minnesota enacted sweeping PFAS legislation commonly known as Amara’s Law (2023 Minn. Laws, Ch. 60), which phases out intentionally added PFAS in consumer products and establishes reporting, product bans, and regulatory authority through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

While primarily aimed at manufacturers, the law has downstream implications for environmental site assessments, remediation design standards, municipal water system upgrades, stormwater and wastewater design, and consultant liability exposure in environmental work. The statute grants the MPCA authority to adopt rules and establish reporting and compliance frameworks. As rulemaking proceeds, engineering firms may face evolving design criteria, testing requirements, and documentation obligations. We monitor rulemaking activity and liability implications to ensure that engineering professionals are not inadvertently assigned regulatory responsibilities that exceed statutory intent.

Data center energy and water policy

Minnesota has seen significant legislative and regulatory attention on large-scale data centers, particularly regarding high-volume energy consumption, water use for cooling systems, impacts on grid capacity, and siting and environmental review thresholds. Recent sessions have included proposals affecting how large energy-intensive facilities are regulated under state environmental policy law.

Engineering firms play a direct role in site design, energy modeling, cooling system design, and infrastructure integration. Changes in state environmental review thresholds or reporting standards directly affect schedule and permitting complexity.

Sales tax on professional services

Minnesota has periodically debated expanding the state sales tax base to include certain professional services, including consulting. While not enacted, proposals have surfaced in omnibus tax discussions that would apply sales tax to previously exempt services. For engineering firms, this would increase client costs, complicate billing structures, create competitive disparities between public and private projects, and introduce administrative compliance burdens.

The ACEC Minnesota Campaign Fund is a registered state political fund operating under Minnesota Statutes § 10A and regulated by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

The Campaign Fund is separate from ACEC Minnesota’s general operating budget and is used exclusively to support state legislative and constitutional office candidates who understand and support sound infrastructure policy, qualifications-based procurement, and a strong engineering workforce.