Timeline
On November 25, 2025, the California High-Speed Rail Authority ('Authority') issued a Request for Proposals ('RFP') from parties ('Proposers') interested in submitting bids for the HSR25-89 Track and Systems Construction Contract ('TSCC'). On December 19, 2025, The Authority organized a well-attended Pre-bid Conference and Small Business Workshop to allow potential bidders and subcontractors to familiarize themselves with the project.
Concurrently with the RFP, the Authority also issued the initial versions of its Instructions to Proposers ('ITP') and the TSCC Agreement template ('Agreement').
Over subsequent months, the Authority organized 10 question-and-response "rounds" for the benefit of the Proposers, while simultaneously producing 8 revisions ('Addenda') of both the ITP and the Agreement. The Proposal Due Date, initially set for March 2, 2026 , was subsequently pushed back to March 23, 2026 , April 1, 2026 and finally April 9, 2026 .
On April 29, 2026, the Authority issued its Notice of Proposed Award ('NOPA'), publicly revealing the identities of the two bidders for the HSR25-89 contract for the first time:
The Kiewit proposal was duly evaluated and scored. The CHSP proposal, however, was not: instead of a score, a cryptic "N/A" is provided, with absolutely no information as to its meaning. Later on, after some prodding by the Board of Directors, the Authority staff explained that the individual proposed by CHSP for the role of Design Oversight Manager lacked a valid California Professional Engineer license . Because of this shortcoming, the staff designated CHSP as "non-responsive".
On May 5, 2026, CHCP filed a Protest with the Authority, as per procedure stipulated in the Agreement, arguing that the licensure requirement was immaterial. The Protest was dismissed on May 29, 2026 by the Authority's so-called "independent protest official" . Subsequently, CHSP was given no time during which they could attempt to rectify the deficiency of their Proposal (for example, by hiring a properly licensed candidate). The Authority's refusal to postpone contract execution stood in stark contrast to their earlier flexibility in postponing the Proposal Due Date several times (see above).
The rejection of CHCP's Protest formally allowed the Authority to proceed to contract execution , which it promptly did on the very next business day.
At the June 1, 2026 Board of Directors meeting, Authority staff presented an overview of the HSR25-89 project and proposed that the contract regarding same be awarded to Kiewit, given that CHSP was determined to be "non-responsive". The Board, after some perfunctory discussion and airing of concerns , approved the Kiewit contract award unanimously.
Analysis
The Authority's summary disqualification of one of the Proposers resulted in a non-competitive (sole-source) procurement valued at $3.5 billion - and probably much more down the road, given the virtual certainty of future change orders. At the very least, the Authority and its Board of Directors demonstrated an abysmal stewardship of public resources. They chose to proceed without any awareness of market conditions, be they related to cost, quality, qualifications or experience.
A regulatory response from both California and Federal government agencies would seem logical, though details lie beyond the scope of knowledge (and pay grade) of the author. In the meantime, it will be instructive to try and unpack the licensure non-compliance that disqualified CHSP from the bidding process. As we shall see, the license requirement in question was not just immaterial, but outright gratuitous.
First of all, Section 5 of the proposed TSCC Agreement stipulates the requirement of appropriate accreditation acceptable to the State of California.
INSERT PIC
Note that the origin and type of permissible accreditations are not specified.
Schedule 17 outlines the responsibilities and required certifications for key individuals (a so-called "personnel matrix") overseeing the project. The role of Design Oversight Manager is especially significant, as it was the basis for diqualifying the CHSP Proposal:
INSERT PIC
Notably, the Design Oversight Manager is not required to perform engineering work or supervise those who do. This is a liaison position and involves "interfacing" with some of the other stakeholders in the project.
The non-engineering nature of the Design Oversight Manager role is important.
INSERT PIC