Obama Presidential Center Subcontractors Claim Millions Owed, Silenced by NDAs

Subcontractors involved in the Obama Presidential Center project, which has a budget of $1 billion, are experiencing significant financial strain. Mike Owen, president of Adamson Plumbing, mentioned that his company faced considerable losses stemming from unexpected delays. Additionally, many other subcontractors are reportedly constrained by non-disclosure agreements that prevent them from speaking out.

In a related development, a lawsuit has been filed against the Trump administration aiming to recover over $461 million. This lawsuit arises from a directive from the State Department that compelled a long-established embassy construction contractor to proceed with projects worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic.

B.L. Harbert International, a company with over two decades of experience building U.S. embassies, had previously reached a $370 million settlement with the State Department. However, they claim that the agreement was invalidated after intervention from the current political leadership.

The construction firm is now pursuing legal action against the Trump administration, which they filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This complaint involves 12 diplomatic construction projects spanning four continents, including locations in Turkey, Iraq, Thailand, Morocco, Mexico, and Central America.

Harbert asserts that career officials at the State Department agreed to the $370 million settlement in September 2025, but only a partial payment of $501,636 was made before the government withdrew. They contend that decisions regarding the abandonment of the settlement “came from the top.”

“We did not want to take this step,” said Charles Bohn, president of BL Harbert’s International Group, expressing the importance of their partnership with the U.S. Government. Yet, he emphasized the firm’s obligation to its employees and the future of their mission, insisting that they had met their commitments despite the extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Now, they’re hoping the government will uphold its side of the agreement.

Harbert, among a limited number of U.S. contractors capable of building secure diplomatic facilities abroad—requiring specialized security clearances and vetted workforces—has noted that some embassy projects now receive bids from only two or three qualified firms.

The conflict traces back to the pandemic’s onset when Harbert was working on a significant number of embassy and consulate projects, representing a sizeable portion of the State Department’s construction program. As global supply chains faced disruption, Harbert sought guidance from the State on whether to pause construction. The company believed they had grounds for an “excusable delay” under their contracts, based on the pandemic’s impact.

However, Harbert alleges that the State Department insisted on moving forward with its construction plans. They say they were directed to maintain readiness and continue procurement, all while documenting incurred costs for potential reimbursements. The costs became burdensome, with labor on the new U.S. Embassy in Guatemala running approximately $1.3 million each month.

Weeks after the initial discussions, the State Department told Harbert to keep procuring and shipping materials to avoid delays once global activity resumed. They acknowledged that this could lead to additional costs and instructed Harbert to request equitable adjustments as necessary. Ultimately, projects continued under pandemic restrictions, which Harbert claims led to increased expenses and reduced productivity amid operational challenges.

The government has since taken ownership of all twelve facilities involved in the lawsuit, having used several for over three years. Harbert submitted over $500 million in claims related to the pandemic directives and other project disputes, citing design changes and delays caused by the government.

Harbert believes that members of the political leadership at the State Department meddled in the process post-settlement and that abandonment of the agreement originated from high-level decisions. They have reached out to the State Department for comments but have not yet received a response.

With deadlines for preserving their claims approaching, Harbert certified them as of March 2026, encouraged by the State’s chief of staff, who assured that this would facilitate the settlement’s implementation. Yet subsequently, State contracting officers began denying these claims in July, and as of October 13, 2026, all 13 claims under scrutiny had been addressed.

Currently, Harbert is seeking at least $461,097,380 in damages, including interest and other forms of relief. Notably, the lawsuit does not demand enforcement of the alleged $370 million settlement at this moment, as those claims are still in the administrative phase, with the potential to be included later.

The implications of this dispute might extend beyond the financial stakes. Harbert has completed roughly 60 U.S. embassy and consulate projects since 1999, but they report a decline in the number of qualified American contractors willing to take on such work, sometimes leaving only a couple of bidders for certain projects. Embassy construction entails strict security and workforce vetting requirements, alongside complex logistical considerations, thus posing significant entry barriers for new contractors.

Harbert contends that if contractors lose faith in the State Department’s commitment to honoring their agreements, it could discourage them from pursuing future overseas construction ventures, narrowing the government’s options for establishing secure diplomatic facilities.