The Burns McDonnell MWBE lawsuit, filed by California cybersecurity firm Certus Cybersecurity Solutions in January 2026, accuses the engineering giant of using minority- and women-owned business partnerships as a selling point to win a $60 million Seattle City Light contract, then excluding those firms from the actual work once the award came in. The case is now in federal court in Washington state, with a jury trial set for July 2027.1PACER Monitor. Certus Cybersecurity Solutions LLC v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
What Certus Says Happened
Certus filed its complaint on January 12, 2026, in King County Superior Court.2ENR. Certus v. Burns & McDonnell Complaint The complaint alleges that 1898 & Co., Burns & McDonnell’s technology and security consulting subsidiary, pitched Seattle City Light on a “seamless team” that would form “true partnerships” with WMBE-certified subcontractors, Certus among them. According to the lawsuit, 1898 & Co. then “reneged on its commitments and has not included those businesses in any work” after the contract was awarded.3ENR. Burns and McDonnell Targeted Over Alleged Broken Promise To Use MWBE Firms
The complaint points to four specific instances in which Burns & McDonnell representatives allegedly told Seattle City Light officials that none of the approved subcontractors had the capability to perform particular task orders. Certus says those statements were false, citing what it calls “notable related experience” in each area.4BNP Media. Certus Cybersecurity v. Burns & McDonnell Legal Analysis On that basis, the suit adds defamation and unfair business practices claims to the breach-of-commitment allegations, contending that Burns & McDonnell undermined Certus’s reputation with the city to justify shutting it out.5Law360. Burns McDonnell Sued by Ex-Partner Firm Over Seattle Deal
Certus also says it hired staff specifically for the Seattle City Light project. When the promised work never arrived, those employees either resigned or were terminated.3ENR. Burns and McDonnell Targeted Over Alleged Broken Promise To Use MWBE Firms
The Seattle City Light Contract
The contract at the center of the dispute is an on-call utility technology roadmap agreement worth $60 million, awarded by Seattle City Light, the city’s publicly owned electric utility. 1898 & Co. serves as the prime contractor. Seattle, like many municipalities, imposes women- and minority-owned business enterprise requirements on large public contracts, meaning primes are expected to include certified WMBE firms in the work. The lawsuit frames the alleged conduct as an abuse of that program: using WMBE partnerships to score the award, then keeping the work in-house.
How Burns & McDonnell Is Responding
Burns & McDonnell has publicly disputed the lawsuit’s characterization of events. The company said the complaint “does not accurately reflect the nature of the relationship” between the two firms and described Certus as a “potential subcontractor” rather than a committed partner. It also pointed to what it called a “long history of commitment to MBE- and WBE-owned businesses” and said it looks forward to presenting its account in court.3ENR. Burns and McDonnell Targeted Over Alleged Broken Promise To Use MWBE Firms
That framing points to a likely central dispute at trial: whether Certus was ever formally committed as a subcontractor on the project or merely listed as a prospective one during the proposal phase. The obligations a prime owes a named subcontractor on a public contract differ meaningfully from those owed to a firm mentioned in a bid but never engaged.
Where the Case Stands
Burns & McDonnell removed the case from King County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 12, 2026. It was assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00529 before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Certus has filed a second amended complaint, and Burns & McDonnell filed an amended answer in June 2026. A jury trial is scheduled for July 19, 2027, with the parties currently in discovery.1PACER Monitor. Certus Cybersecurity Solutions LLC v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
How This Fits a Known Pattern
The allegations resemble a pattern documented in the construction and engineering industries, in which primes are accused of listing minority- and women-owned firms in bids to meet diversity requirements, then sidelining those firms once the contract is secured. A 2014 Manhattan grand jury investigation described what it called “systematic criminal conduct” involving MWBE pass-through schemes on New York City projects, where certified firms were hired in name but did no substantive work and sometimes acted as billing conduits for a fee of two to four percent of contract value.6Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Grand Jury Report on MWBE Fraud
Certus is not alleging that kind of explicit kickback arrangement. Its claim is closer to what regulators describe as a failure to perform a “commercially useful function”: WMBE firms were promised real work, then frozen out. Whether that translates into damages depends heavily on the governing rules. Courts in some jurisdictions have treated MWBE participation goals as aspirational rather than enforceable, which has made recovery difficult for excluded subcontractors.7Columbia Law Review. Unattainable Equity: A Look Into Fraudulent Activity Under the State of New York’s MWBE Program How Seattle’s WMBE requirements are worded, and whether they create enforceable obligations on the prime contractor, will likely be a pivotal question as the case moves toward trial.