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 4220.1F) 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/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. For example, 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 1–2 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, 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 (FEC). 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%.