Floyd Grove Sheppard LLC is a resident-led organization dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and equal application of public procurement, land use, and governmental processes affecting Richmond neighborhoods and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This page summarizes records, FOIA requests, public postings, and correspondence concerning the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Expansion and Renovation project, identified in records as Commonwealth Project 238-18430-000 / VMFA Project 18430.

The focus is narrow: whether interested contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and trade firms had a fair, publicly identifiable path to locate and compete for CM@Risk construction-phase trade packages.

This page is not an official solicitation, not a procurement protest, and not a finding that any person or entity acted improperly. It is a public-record chronology identifying unresolved questions about bid access, timing, public advertisement, and possible competitive disadvantage.

Please do not send bid prices, proprietary estimates, confidential bid submissions, trade secrets, or privileged communications. Records showing notice, access, timing, platform instructions, public posting issues, or inability to access documents are the relevant materials.

If a protest depends on procurement records that are subject to inspection under Va. Code § 2.2-4342, the protest deadline may run ten days after those records become available for inspection, rather than simply ten days from award or announcement of decision to award. Contractors should not assume this extension applies without confirming the facts and timing.

A bidder or offeror who wants to protest an award or decision to award must submit a written protest to the public body, or to the official designated by the public body, no later than ten days after the award or announcement of the decision to award, whichever occurs first. The written protest must state the basis for the protest and the relief sought. The public body or designated official must issue a written decision within ten days stating the reasons for the action taken.

For a CM@Risk trade package, a contractor should identify the responsible public body and the designated protest official. If the bid package was administered through Gilbane or another construction manager, a contractor may still want to submit the protest to the public body or designated official and copy the construction manager, DGS / DEB contact, VMFA contact, and any listed procurement contact. The statute refers to the public body or designated official, not merely an informal project contact.

A protest should be written, dated, and sent by a method that proves delivery. It should identify the project, solicitation, trade package, eVA / FPR number, bid package number, award or proposed award being challenged, and the specific relief requested.

If your firm attempted to access, bid, or participate in VMFA Expansion / Project 18430 CM@Risk trade packages, please preserve records showing when you first received notice, whether you received BuildingConnected, COMPASS, eVA, plan-room, addenda, or bid-package instructions, whether you encountered access restrictions, and whether any listed contact information failed.

Please do not send bid prices, confidential estimates, proprietary submissions, trade secrets, or privileged communications. The relevant issue is notice, timing, public access, and whether qualified contractors had a fair opportunity to compete.

Interested firms should consider preserving:

• emails from VMFA, DGS, Gilbane, RMT, Canterbury, SmithGroup, or trade organizations;

• January 22 event invitations, registrations, slides, notes, and follow-up emails;

• BuildingConnected invitations or screenshots;

• COMPASS access records;

• eVA search screenshots;

• “Security: access denied” screenshots;

• bounce-back notices from listed contacts;

• bid-package download logs;

• addenda notices;

• prequalification submissions;

• communications showing when bid materials were first received;

• notes of calls with project contacts;

• records showing inability to access bid documents or participate.

Opportunity name: VMFA New Expansion and Renovation – CM@Risk Trade Packages
eVA / FPR record: FPR 122556-1
Agency listed: Department of General Services
Buyer listed in related correspondence: Benjamin Lewis
Project: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Expansion and Renovation
Known project identifiers: Commonwealth Project 238-18430-000 / VMFA Project 18430
Public search path: eVA All Opportunities page
Search phrase: “VMFA New Expansion and Renovation - CM@Risk Trade Packages”
Public eVA search page: https://mvendor.cgieva.com/Vendor/public/AllOpportunities.jsp

The public eVA / FPR posting has been described in correspondence as identifying Gilbane Building Company, along with RMT and Canterbury, as contacts or project participants for interested bidders.

Potential scope categories referenced in public-facing outreach include demolition, concrete, steel, finishes, sitework, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression, shoring, and special foundations.

Under Va. Code § 2.2-4380(B)(6), a state public-body construction management contract must require that no more than 10% of the construction work be performed by the construction manager’s own forces, and that the remaining 90% be performed by subcontractors procured by publicly advertised, competitive sealed bidding to the maximum extent practicable. Va. Code § 2.2-4380(B)(8) also contemplates eVA posting of when and where the general contractor plans to advertise subcontracting opportunities when appropriate.

The practical public-interest question is therefore simple:

Where, when, and how could a qualified contractor or subcontractor locate the actual VMFA trade-package bid documents, package list, schedule, prequalification requirements, addenda process, and submission instructions?

If a contractor needed to be connected to an earlier January outreach event, private distribution list, direct contact, BuildingConnected invitation, COMPASS pathway, or other non-obvious access channel before the public eVA posting became visible, then later public visibility may not have provided a fair opportunity to all interested bidders.

Records and correspondence reviewed so far indicate a possible mismatch between:

1. a January 22, 2026 VMFA / Gilbane networking or outreach event involving prospective project participants;

2. earlier VMFA Building Committee schedule materials showing bid documents being issued and bids being returned before the later public eVA/FPR posting;

3. a DGS FOIA response stating DGS had no records concerning the January 22 event;

4. a later DGS FOIA response stating DGS had no additional responsive records identifying the CM@Risk public-advertisement / bid-access pathway beyond prior productions;

5. VMFA’s FOIA response directing the requestor back to eVA;

6. the later eVA / Future Procurement record FPR 122556-1; awaiting posting history on or around June 16, 2026 via FOIA.

7. difficulties locating the operative bid-access path, including a public document link returning “Security: access denied” and a listed Gilbane contact email returning as undeliverable.

The concern is not that outreach occurred. Outreach to the contracting community can be appropriate and useful. The concern is whether the outreach, bid-document access, and subcontractor competition pathway were equally and publicly available, or whether some contractors effectively received earlier access or practical advantage.

January 22 — Gilbane outreach event held at VMFA advertised via LinkedIn post.

March 26 — bid documents forecasted issued from VMFA Building Committee records

April 26 — bids forecasted due from VMFA Building Committee records

May 11 — DGS FOIA request

May 18 — DGS no-records response

May 15–18 — DGS trade-package public-advertisement FOIA

June 5 — DGS no additional records

June 8 — DPB awareness notice

June 16 — apparent posting date of the Future Procurement Record in eVA

June 26 — VMFA FOIA response / DGS FPR posting-history FOIA

June 29–July 3 — bid-access inquiries, bounce-back, security-denied document issue

Contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and trade organizations may wish to preserve records and ask the following questions:

1. When did your firm first learn of the VMFA CM@Risk trade-package opportunity?

2. Did your firm attend the January 22, 2026 VMFA / Gilbane event?

3. Did your firm receive slides, handouts, bid-package lists, addenda, plan-room links, BuildingConnected invitations, COMPASS instructions, or follow-up emails from the January event?

4. Did your firm receive access before the public eVA / FPR posting became visible?

5. Did your firm attempt to search eVA for FPR 122556-1 or “VMFA New Expansion and Renovation - CM@Risk Trade Packages”?

6. Did your firm encounter “Security: access denied” or other download restrictions when attempting to access public bid documents?

7. Did your firm email or call the listed project contacts?

8. Did any listed contact information fail, including jgodwin@gilbaneco.com?

9. Was your firm able to locate a complete trade-package list, scope descriptions, due dates, addenda process, prequalification requirements, and submission instructions?

10. Did the July 17, 2026 date function as an estimated issue date, bid due date, public notice date, or another milestone?

11. Was there an earlier March / April / June 2026 bidding round before the July public eVA / FPR visibility?

12. Did any contractor, subcontractor, or supplier receive bid access through a non-public or invitation-only pathway?

If some firms received project details, bid-package access, schedules, or bidding instructions through January outreach or private distribution, while other qualified firms could not locate the public bid-access pathway until a later eVA/FPR posting, then the practical competitive field may not have been equal.

That does not by itself prove bid steering or misconduct. It does justify a records-based review of:

• posting dates;

• publication history;

• plan-room access logs;

• BuildingConnected / COMPASS invitation records;

• addenda distribution lists;

• bidder lists;

• prequalification records;

• bid-package issue logs;

• communications among VMFA, DGS, Gilbane, RMT, Canterbury, and project consultants;

• records identifying when and where bid packages were publicly advertised.

Contractors or other interested persons may consider requesting records sufficient to identify:

1. the creation, publication, revision, and public-visibility history for FPR 122556-1;

2. all predecessor, draft, related, superseded, or successor eVA records for the VMFA CM@Risk trade packages;

3. all bid-package lists, trade-package matrices, bid-release schedules, and scope descriptions;

4. all public notices, plan-room postings, BuildingConnected records, BidConnectUSA records, COMPASS records, and addenda distribution records;

5. all January 22, 2026 event materials, including invitations, attendee lists, slides, handouts, follow-up emails, and bidder-access instructions;

6. all communications among DGS, VMFA, Gilbane, RMT, Canterbury, and SmithGroup concerning bid-access timing, public posting, bidder outreach, and trade-package distribution;

7. all records identifying whether RMT or Canterbury acted as outreach partners, consultants, subcontractors, prospective bidders, trade contractors, or entities controlling bidder access;

8. all records identifying whether any contractor was recommended, preferred, advanced, included, excluded, or discussed in relation to contractor selection, trade-package bidding, or GMP development;

9. all records showing who had access to bid documents before the eVA/FPR posting became public;

10. all records showing whether the July 17, 2026 date was an issue date, bid date, response deadline, or revised schedule milestone.

The apparent access issue could still be addressed without litigation or a formal protest if VMFA, DGS, Gilbane, or the responsible procurement official confirms the public bid-access pathway and corrects any public-access defects. Potential corrective steps include publishing or restoring access to the operative bid documents, identifying the official plan-room or BuildingConnected / COMPASS pathway, confirming the trade-package list, clarifying bid dates and addenda procedures, correcting invalid contact information, identifying whether earlier March / April / June bid rounds occurred, and extending or reopening affected deadlines if public access was materially impaired.

The VMFA Grove Avenue Storage Facility raises a separate but related concern about how construction work associated with the VMFA expansion has been characterized, separated, and delivered.

Based on available records, the Grove Avenue Storage Facility was originally connected to the broader VMFA expansion planning process. It remained associated with the expansion project through the SmithGroup memorandum in September 2022, after which the facility was later characterized as private construction rather than part of a public construction procurement.  There are no formal records obtained to date removing the scope of work from SmithGroup's design contract,

That change in characterization matters. If a project component serving a public museum expansion is removed from the public procurement pathway and treated as private construction, contractors who otherwise may have expected a public opportunity to compete may never receive notice, access to bid documents, or a fair chance to participate.

The ~$6,000,000 Grove Avenue facility was ultimately assigned to Hourigan Construction rather than being publicly bid as part of the VMFA expansion work. Available records also indicate that the project structure avoided what were described as “burdensome procurement requirements.”  The facility is now subject to a 10-year $6,900,000 DGS Lease # L006164 from "non-general funds".  

This history is relevant to the current VMFA expansion procurement because it suggests a prior pattern: project-related work may be separated, reclassified, or routed through private entities in a way that reduces public procurement transparency.

Publicly available information also previously identified Mark Hourigan as having leadership or philanthropic ties to the Community Foundation for a Greater Richmond. VMFA public materials separately identify Community Foundation support or sponsorship in VMFA programming contexts. This does not establish wrongdoing or a procurement violation. However, where construction work connected to a public museum expansion is routed outside ordinary public procurement channels, overlapping contractor, foundation, donor, and institutional relationships are relevant to public-record review.

The offices for the Community Foundation for a Greater Richmond are also directly adjacent to a potentially vacant VMFA Storage Warehouse for which there are no records of VMFA usage which is just odd.  Gilbane Building Company is caddycorner to their offices and near the storage, as well.

For affected contractors, the key question is whether the Grove Avenue Storage Facility reflects an earlier example of the same concern now present in the VMFA expansion trade-package process: whether qualified contractors were denied a fair, transparent, and competitive opportunity to participate in publicly connected construction work.

The following Gmail records and attachments were reviewed in preparing this chronology:

• DGS FOIA response dated May 18, 2026 concerning the January 22, 2026 VMFA / Gilbane networking session.

• DGS FOIA response dated June 5, 2026 concerning Project 238-18430-000 / Project 18430 public-advertisement and bid-access records.

• DPB awareness notice dated June 8, 2026 concerning GMP timing and CMAR public-advertisement records.

• OSIG awareness notice dated June 15, 2026 concerning CMAR trade-package bidding and GMP timing.

• VMFA FOIA thread concerning Project 238-18430-000 / Project 18430 construction-phase bidding records.

• VMFA FOIA response dated June 26, 2026 directing the requestor to eVA.

• DGS FOIA request dated June 26, 2026 concerning eVA FPR 122556-1 posting history and public bid-access records.

• Bid-access inquiry sent June 29, 2026 to Gilbane / DGS / RMT / Canterbury.

• Gilbane bounce-back notice dated June 29, 2026 for jgodwin@gilbaneco.com.

• Follow-up email dated June 30, 2026 after referral to Steven / Stephen Shedd.

• Public notice referral email dated July 1, 2026 to contractor, trade, SWaM, media, and public-interest contacts.

• DGS FOIA request dated July 1, 2026 seeking PDF solicitation documents for FPR 122556-1.

• Follow-up email dated July 3, 2026 reporting “Security: access denied” on an eVA document link titled “eVA Notice – VMFA Full Building.docx.”

Floyd Grove Sheppard LLC
Richmond, Virginia
Email: floydgrovesheppardllc@gmail.com

Contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, trade organizations, or members of the public who attempted to access or bid the VMFA CM@Risk trade packages may contact Floyd Grove Sheppard LLC with records, screenshots, event materials, bid-access instructions, or public-posting information.

Please do not send proprietary pricing, confidential bid amounts, trade secrets, or privileged communications. The purpose of this page is to identify the public bid-access pathway and preserve transparency concerns, not to collect confidential bid submissions.

This page is provided for public-interest transparency and records preservation. Floyd Grove Sheppard LLC is not acting on behalf of VMFA, DGS, Gilbane, RMT, Canterbury, or any project participant. Nothing on this page should be treated as official procurement guidance, legal advice, a procurement protest, or a substitute for official solicitation documents, addenda, or agency communications.

Interested bidders should rely on official eVA postings, official project contacts, official solicitation documents, and current addenda. Contractors with legal rights or deadlines should consult counsel promptly.

• RFP 238-18430-000-6: RFP for VMFA Expansion, Renovation and Annex Building  resulted in the selection of Smith Group.

• CMR 7-1: VMFA New Expansion and Renovation RFQ for CM@Risk resulted in pre-approval of five construction firms as GC.

• CMR 10-3: CM@Risk Services for VMFA New Expansion and Renovation resulted in selection of Gilbane Building Company.

  • Gilbane's Public Plan Room - no VMFA museum  expansion Bid Opportunities as of 7/4/2026

• FPR-122556: VMFA New Expansion and Renovation - CM@Risk Trade Packages

• VMFA Expansion Spending

  • State budget records for VMFA Project 18430 show a capital project financed through a mix of VPBA project funding, General Fund support, and VMFA Private Donations Fund money. The report shows approximately $230.9 million in budget execution adjustments, including about $72.8 million classified as private-donation funding, while lifetime expenditures to date total about $15.9 million. Most spending so far — roughly 84% — is categorized as architectural, engineering, or professional services, which is consistent with a project still in design, preconstruction, or GMP-development phases. However, the spending to date appears to precede the major construction phase, where approximately $200 million in future construction-related spending may still be awarded, committed, or paid through CM@Risk trade packages, GMP approval, subcontractor buyout, and construction-phase change orders. The key question is whether contractors had equal access to those construction-phase opportunities, especially if some contractors were already participating in project-related events, pricing activity, or preconstruction coordination before the public bid opportunity was widely available.  (Last Updated 4 July 2026)

• DGS Construction Projects Services Manual 2025 Rev 0

• Virginia Public Procurement Act