Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

In the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered.

While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying.

In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Looking to the text of the FAA, the Supreme Court observed that the mandatory nature of the FAA’s text, which provides that a court “shall … stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been held…” Beyond the literal text of Section 3, the Court also noted that staying the litigation pending completion of the arbitration is in accord with other sections of the FAA. The FAA’s framework envisions litigation only to further arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. Id. at *4 (noting that interlocutory appeals are allowed for a court denying arbitration, but not for compelling arbitration). Further the FAA envisions the courts’ standby readiness to help enforce arbitration agreements. For example, Section 7 of the FAA permits parties to enlist a court’s assistance to obtain compulsory process for witnesses to appear in the hearing; Section 9 allows a party to confirm an award; and Section 10 allows a court to vacate an arbitrator’s award.

The Supreme Court’s ruling resolves the circuit split and provides for greater predictability and efficiency at the intersection of litigation and arbitration. Staying litigation of claims subject to an arbitration agreement maintains the status quo until the arbitration has run its course and allows either party to seek relief from the court should such assistance become necessary.

---

[1] Most cases involving the FAA arise under a federal court’s diversity jurisdiction; the FAA alone does not vest a court with subject-matter jurisdiction. Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).

Editor Brendan J. Witry is an Associate at Laurie & Brennan LLP. His practice focuses exclusively on representing and advising owners, contractors, and trade contractors in construction disputes at all stages. 

How to Construct a Winning Trial Presentation: Visuals, Demonstratives and More

The key to a winning argument is a compelling story, and strong visuals are an essential tool for telling that story. You and your team have been working on your case for years, and it is finally heading toward trial/arbitration. This is NOT the time to stumble at the finish line trying to persuade the judge, jury, or arbitration panel about your arguments. While this is true in any piece of litigation, the complicated nature of construction law makes this even more important. You’ve only got one shot to tell your story, so you certainly want to make it count and make sure that your arguments are not only heard, but understood. Incorporating design schematics, site diagrams (including photos), or even physical models in your trial presentation can greatly increase the likelihood that the trier of fact is going to comprehend and retain the message you are trying to convey.

Graphic created by the Nextpoint trial services team

What Data, Documents, and Programs Are at Play?

The first consideration you’ll want to take into account is: What are the data sources and file types that are pertinent to your story? Traditional emails, Word documents, PDF invoices, and 2D diagrams are not difficult to decipher and are fairly easy to display in traditional trial presentation software. But as soon as you bring CAD files, proprietary scheduling programs, and potentially thousands of site maps and photos into the mix, it becomes much more imperative to have a plan for not only how to leverage the contents of the data sources, but literally how it is displayed.

Sometimes the most practical approach is to have your expert walk through their findings and opinions in the native platforms themselves. This allows you to break down the technical aspects of the case into digestible segments while empowering your expert to shine as a true authority on the subject matter.

Flexibility is Key

While you can generally conduct direct examinations and opening and closing arguments with linear presentations that flow from one point/slide to another, it is imperative to be nimble for cross examinations in order to react to what the expert/witness has asserted. When working with standard data types (emails, Word documents, PDF invoices, etc.) you can accomplish this using PowerPoint or a trial presentation platform such as OnCue, TrialDirector, or Nextpoint’s Theater view (“Ms. O’Leary, will you please bring up Exhibit 12, the January 2024 construction invoices, and call out the total value”). But this becomes a much more complicated consideration when dealing with some of the aforementioned proprietary platforms that may have a lot of nested information (site views, CAD layers, scheduling scenarios).

To maintain flexibility when presenting data from complex construction platforms, you may want to have some predefined “modules” that are baked out with screen captures (potentially even including interactive “choose your own path” hyperlinks in PowerPoint that lead from one section to another to follow the direction of the flow). This will eliminate the time that might otherwise be required to dig deep into some of the key elements of the complicated software platforms.

Flexibility also comes into play with text/labels. Many times, expert service providers will create very complex and detailed scenarios, demonstratives, and animations that include text/labeling that is ruled inadmissible at the 11th hour, and there may not be enough time to edit and re-render.

When possible, designing demonstratives with an eye toward revisions (including last minute revisions) is key – especially the ability to turn on/off labels, change text, and adjust the order of presentation.

Graphic created by the Nextpoint trial services team

Educate Before You Advocate!

We are in the era of empowerment. While the onus has always been on judges and arbitrators to understand the facts and develop sound legal opinions based on the letter of the law, jurors are increasingly interested in “getting it right” and making sure they truly understand the complexities of the case before blindly siding with whomever speaks the loudest.

By breaking down the technical subject matter into digestible segments, your team becomes the educator and counselor leading them through complexities, enabling them to be much more comfortable forming opinions (ideally, in your favor).

Speak to Your Audience!

How you would present a case to a 30-year seasoned judge/arbitrator will be very different to how one might present to a jury. However, you still need to take their backgrounds and inherent confirmation biases into consideration when crafting your story. While judges should be very familiar with the law, it isn’t always a forgone conclusion that they are familiar with construction law, specifically some of the intricacies of the parties’ relationships (owner, contractor, subcontractor, builder, manufacturer, etc.) as well as some of the technical aspects of design delays, flaws, etc. It is imperative that the basic components of the matter (facts, people, and issues) are always well defined so the underlying message doesn’t get lost in the shuffle.

Also, jury demographics are rapidly skewing toward a more technically savvy profile that expects to be entertained. The “TikTok” generation that is used to quick, pithy images and statements isn’t going to be as engaged with text-heavy narratives that require too much deciphering on their side. Instead, keep things short and to the point, ideally with an accompanying visual that complements the underlying message.

When in Doubt, Bring in the Experts

In the end, you know the law and the aspects of the case you need to prove – that’s a lot to have on your plate. When it comes to the presentation, it is often more effective (both in time and efficacy) to bring in the experts who can help create your demonstratives, manage your exhibits, and focus on the show, while you focus on the law.

Additional Resources:

• Trial Prep eGuide: The Essential Guide to Preparing and Presenting Your Case
• Case Management Checklist: A Step-by-Step Plan for Comprehensive Litigation Success
• Deposition Prep Kit: Attorney's Guide to Preparing for Depositions

Since 2004, Megan O’Leary has consulted on hundreds of projects, working with many of North America’s top law firms as an expert in litigation communication consulting as well as ediscovery. She specializes in the visualization of complex legal and technical concepts through the use of clear and compelling demonstratives. Her background in mechanical engineering enables her to specialize in energy, intellectual property, trademark, and product liability matters; however, she has consulted on almost every major area of litigation. Megan can be reached at moleary@nextpoint.com.

Beyond the Numbers: Concrete is More than Compressive Strength

Concrete is commonly qualified by its compressive strength; it is frequently the primary figure of merit for engineers, architects, and inspectors alike. Since concrete’s mechanical properties are generally utilized in compression, this focus makes sense – at least for engineering design considerations. Yet, concrete performance and durability depend on far more than just compressive strength. From aggregate selection to mix design, placement methods to finishing techniques, there are a variety of concrete characteristics that can mean the difference between success and failure in concrete placements. Responsibility for failure can rest with the concrete supplier, general contractor, finisher, rebar supplier or even the engineer of record depending on the root cause(s) of the encountered problem(s).

Influence of Time on Compressive Strength

Concrete holds a unique place in the pantheon of materials science because it gets stronger with time since the hydration of the cement occurs gradually over an extended period. Typically, engineering specifications cite the compressive strength at 28 days or at shorter time intervals (1, 3, 7, 14 days) where early strength is particularly important. However, concrete can continue to strengthen to 56 days and beyond. The quality of delivered concrete is typically measured through the compressive testing of poured cylinders collected at the time of delivery, preserved, cured and tested at the specified time interval. And yet, compressive strength will only be maintained if the concrete has structural stability – making durability critically important to performance.

Common Causes for Concrete Degradation

Many concrete failures are not due to compressive crushing. Rather, cracking often occurs in response to externally applied tensile forces or localized tensile stresses from a variety of internal mechanisms.  Since a common rule of thumb is that the tensile strength of concrete is roughly 10% or less of the compressive strength, the sensitivity of concrete to the following degradation mechanisms can be understood.

Reactive Aggregate

If the aggregate used contains potentially reactive minerals, it can undergo a reaction with the alkali hydroxides in the pore solution that results in a volume expansion that generates tensile stress internal to the aggregate and surrounding paste causing localized stress cracking. This can lead to disintegration of the aggregate (Figure 1) and can lead to more widespread cracking allowing for water ingress and further deterioration. Terminology for these types of conditions includes Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) and Alkali Carbonate Reaction (ACR). Deterioration of the bond between the aggregate and the cement paste also reduces the ability for the aggregate to effectively prevent crack propagation and destroys the composite nature of the material.  

Figure 1.  Petrographic micrographs of ASR induced microcracking extending into paste from reacted aggregate (left, middle), SEM image of ASR gel filling air voids (right)

Reinforcing Bond Loss

The installation of reinforcing structures like steel bars or cages are typically used in construction to reduce the possibility of tensile stresses developing in the concrete structure. In many circumstances, this reinforcing steel is tensioned either before or after concrete placement to keep as much of the structure as possible under compression, though this requires a good bond with the surrounding concrete. The quality of the paste/steel interface – established through mechanical load transfer by paste adhesion to the wire – determines its strength. Poor bond strength can result from an embossed steel grip pattern that is insufficiently or incorrectly rolled or from low paste strength caused by excessive water content (Figure 2). Corrosion of steel is also a path to bond loss and localized stress cracking given its expansive nature.

Figure 2. Rebar Corrosion (left), Reinforcing wire (top right), Wire Pattern (bottom right) (Source: corrosion.ksc.nasa.gov) 

Environmental Degradation

Concrete placements may appear monolithic or impenetrable, but concrete contains air voids into which water can migrate. Freeze thaw damage occurs when the water that migrates into the concrete freezes and causes cracking, paste disintegration and aggregate spallation (Figure 3). To avoid cracking, air voids can be intentionally incorporated using admixtures to accommodate the volumetric expansion associated with ice formation. The effectiveness of air entrainment can be determined by the combination of the total volume and the spacing of air voids, both of which can be measured as part of quality assurance.

Figure 3. Freeze Thaw Spallation (left), Rapid Air Void Analysis Using Blackout Preparation Method (right)

Improper Surface Finishing

Improper finishing techniques can also be problematic, with excessive water added to the mix during placement, overworking or prematurely working bleed water back into the concrete. This can result in increased paste porosity or trapping rising bleed water and air just beneath the concrete surface creating zones of weakness resulting in premature surface scaling and disintegration (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Surface scaling (left), Petrographic cross section showing surface weakness (middle), SEM image of cross section highlighting porosity at surface (right)

Petrography as the Solution

Petrography is a field within geology that involves the detailed description and classification of rocks and minerals and has been extended to concrete and concrete raw materials.  This analysis is used as an important diagnostic tool for identifying basic components within the concrete, assessing the quality of workmanship and adherence to mix design, and detecting any deterioration mechanisms present.  Petrographic analysis involves a variety of microscopic techniques, including reflected light, polarized light and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Experienced petrographers can gather valuable information about common deterioration mechanisms in concrete, such as chemical attack, ASR, delayed ettringite formation (DEF) and damage caused by freezing and thawing cycles.  This detailed analysis also helps to determine the nature and extent of deterioration and predict whether it is likely to progress in the future. Importantly, construction professionals such as engineers and general contractors can use petrographic analysis to make informed decisions about effective replacement or rehabilitation strategies, making it an essential part of their overall assessment.  

Importance of Specifications

Engineering specifications and quality assurance procedures – from plant to delivery to placement – are essential tools in avoiding concrete problems and reducing the risk of performance and durability issues. Materials qualification testing and mix design evaluations are commonly required to demonstrate a supplier’s ability to meet specification requirements prior to delivery. On site quality testing captures information (slump, workability, density, poured cylinders) on the concrete as delivered. Some government contracts even include requirements for evaluation of as-placed concrete through the extraction of cores to certify the expected service life of the material as built.

When Things Don’t Go as Planned

If failure occurs, intense scrutiny of mixing parameters, placement procedures, materials quality, engineering design, and post placement operation and maintenance is sure to follow. Root cause determination will be informed by quality documentation and forensic field investigations. As built compressive strength is only one factor of this evaluation and may be difficult or impossible to accurately assess from cores removed from a damaged or deteriorated structure. Significant care should be taken when selecting and collecting specimens for evaluation with attention to both representativeness and appropriateness relative to the intended analyses. Petrography is a key component in evaluation of failure and/or degradation mechanisms but the interpretation can be limited by the provenance of the material being analyzed. Collaboration of experts in both structural engineering and materials science/petrography is often essential to reliably determine root cause of failure and assess questions of liability.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author Matthew Perricone, Ph.D., is a Principal Investigator and the Technical Consulting Group Manager at RJ Lee Group, Inc., where he directs and performs root cause failure analyses for multiple industrial sectors in support of product development, performance optimization, and manufacturing quality assurance. His projects also include addressing warranty, insurance and product liability claims.

Author Michael Baker serves as the Department Manager of the Concrete Materials Laboratory and has nearly a decade of experience in concrete petrographic studies at RJ Lee Group, Inc. In addition to managing the concrete materials laboratory operations, he directs and conducts petrographic evaluations, in combination with chemical and physical testing, to identify failure and distress mechanisms in concrete and cementitious materials.

Editor Thanh Do, Ph.D., PE, is a Structural Forensic Engineer and Forensic Visualization Manager with Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. He specializes in investigations of construction/design defects and collapses, standard of care assessment, and visualization/storytelling for litigation.

Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method

The Author, Lisa Love, admiring the view from the 
Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge in New York

Having awakened on the morning of March 26 to the devastating news of the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge after being struck by the Dali, a 984 length /52 beam foot cargo container ship, I thought of the many times I crossed the bridge as a child growing up in Washington, D.C. I also recalled Montgomery Schyler’s comments on the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge, when he stated that “the work which is likely to be our most durable monument, and to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge.”

I thought of the beauty of New York’s Mario Cuomo Bridge, a 3.1-mile cable-stayed twin-span bridge with eight traffic lanes, bicycle and pedestrian paths, six lookout points and room for future rapid transit. It was completed in 2018 and constructed under a design-build procurement model[i] at a cost of $3.98 billion. Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques were utilized in its construction. ABC techniques employ innovative planning, design, materials, and construction methods in a safe and cost-effective manner to reduce the on-site construction time that occurs when building new bridges or replacing and rehabilitating existing ones. ABC techniques improve site constructability, total project delivery time, work-zone safety for the traveling public and traffic impacts, on-site construction time, and weather-related time delays.[ii]

I also thought of the gracefulness of Boston’s Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge, a 0.27-mile hybrid cable-stayed steel and concrete bridge with pedestrian and bicycle access that holds 10 lanes of traffic. The Zakim Bridge was completed in 2004 at a cost of approximately $100 million as part of the $24.3 billion Big Dig.[iii] Despite its elegant, streamlined appearance, the bridge was designed to be exceptionally strong, withstand winds over 400 miles per hour and endure a magnitude 7.9 earthquake.[iv]

My thoughts then turned to the collapsed Key Bridge and the potential delivery methods that would accelerate its reconstruction, as the bridge is vital to the economic well-being of the Baltimore region and the country.  I was reminded that out of tragedy can come beauty and innovation, and I know that a beautiful, durable, and useful rebuilt bridge combining the latest bridge technologies is not only possible but essential.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge Reconstruction

Opened in March 1977, the Francis Scott Key Bridge, a 1.6-mile steel-arched continuous-truss bridge, was the final link of the Baltimore Beltway Interstate 695, crossing over the Patapsco River and connecting Sparrows Point to the southernmost tip of Baltimore. It was a four-lane bridge with a vertical clearance of 185 feet. The downed bridge blocks access to the Port of Baltimore, one of the busiest American ports, handling 52 million tons of cargo that contributes $80 billion to U.S. trade. It is the busiest port in the country for cars and light trucks.[v] In addition, the 47-year-old Key Bridge carried more than 12.4 million commercial and passenger vehicles in 2023[vi] and made up approximately 8% of the toll revenue of the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) in 2023, or approximately $57 million.[vii]

Promptly after the bridge’s collapse, Governor Wes Moore of Maryland declared a state of emergency and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the emergency relief application of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), making the event eligible for federal emergency relief funding. On March 28, the FHWA announced the immediate availability of $60 million in “quick release” emergency relief funds. These funds are available for debris removal, demolition, detours, emergency repairs and design, and reconstruction of the Key Bridge. The funds will also serve as a down payment toward initial bridge reconstruction costs. The FHWA stated that additional emergency relief program funding will be made available as reconstruction of the bridge continues.[viii]

Initial estimates of the cost to reconstruct the bridge were between $400 million and $1 billion and initial estimates of the time to complete were between 18 months and seven years, with the largest variable being the design.[ix] President Biden has committed to work with Congress to have the federal government pay for the entire cost of reconstructing the bridge.[x] In addition, legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Congress called the Baltimore Bridge Relief Act[xi] seeks to increase the 90% federal share typically payable for emergency bridge reconstruction to 100% of the total cost.[xii]

Progressive Design-Build Delivery Method

On April 25, only 30 days after the bridge’s collapse, the MDTA announced that it will reconstruct the Key Bridge utilizing the progressive design-build delivery (PDB) method.[xiii] The PDB method is a collaborative, multifaceted, phased and progressive process to establish the scope, schedule and cost of the project. PDB is an innovative alternative project delivery method and offers advantages of schedule compression and cost containment compared to traditional design-build delivery. Similar to traditional design-build delivery, PDB is an integrated contracting and delivery approach that provides the owner with design and construction services under one contract with a single source of project responsibility. Unlike a traditional design-build delivery, PDB commonly places the concept development work as a collaboration between the owner and the PDB team (contractor, architect, and engineer).[xiv]

The PDB delivery method is generally implemented in four phases. In the initial “selection phase,” the designer-builder is selected primarily based on qualifications and plans for managing the project and is retained early in the life of the project, in many cases before the design is developed. The intent is to prioritize the qualifications and experience of the design-build team over price. In the second phase, commonly known as the “validation phase,” the parameters of the project program, scope, schedule and budget are established, and existing conditions, potential issues with permitting, supply and other major project risks are evaluated to make decisions based upon the most accurate and reliable information available. In the third phase, commonly referred to as the “design and pre-construction phase,” the owner and design builder collaboratively develop the design based on cost, schedule, quality, operability, lifecycle and other considerations, and the design builder provides a formal proposal for the final design and construction phase.  Finally, in the fourth phase, commonly referred to as the “final design and construction phase,” the owner and design-builder agree upon the terms of the contract (including the project’s price, final scope and schedule) and the design-builder completes the design, constructs the project, tests, commissions and performs other agreed upon services.[xv]

The MDTA has demonstrated success in reconstructing bridges using the design-build method.  In October 2022, it opened the reconstructed Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge, a 1.7-mile bridge with four traffic lanes, a center median, a bicycle path, access for wide-load vehicles and a 135-foot clearance to enable tall ships to pass beneath. Spanning the Potomac River from Newburg, Maryland to Dahlgren, Virginia, the Nice Bridge is located on U.S. Route 301, and was procured under the design-build method at a cost of $462.9 million. The project was delivered on budget and three months ahead of schedule. The MDTA retained Skanska-Corman-McLean Joint Venture and bridge design engineer AECOM to design and reconstruct the bridge. The Nice Bridge is very similar in appearance and structure to the collapsed Key Bridge.

On May 7, MDTA held a virtual industry forum to discuss its plans to rebuild the Key Bridge. MDTA indicated that it envisioned a cable-stayed replacement bridge but it would consider other options and that the alignment of the new bridge would be along the existing center line to minimize environmental impacts.  MDTA estimates that the replacement bridge will cost between $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion and funds will be derived from insurance proceeds, cash on hand, bond financing and federal funds. The PDB approach will involve a two-phase contract with a single-step RFP procurement to be awarded in July 2024 to the selected PDB team based upon qualifications and experience.  Phase 1 of the PDB will consist of preliminary design and professional services contracted at cost plus fee with a stipulated not to exceed (NTE) amount. Phase 2 will consist of final design and construction contracted at a guaranteed maximum price with the new bridge expected to be completed in Fall of 2028. RFPs will also be issued for a single selection general engineering consultant with an estimated NTE of $75 million and the selection of three construction management and inspection contractors with an estimated aggregate NTE of $60 million.[xvi]

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, Including DRBs, in the PDB Delivery Method

In construction projects, disputes are almost inevitable due to the complexity and ambitious goals of many projects. Conflicts can arise from disagreements over contract terms, changes in scope, unforeseen conditions, delays, schedules, budgets, design specifications and other unexpected obstacles that can threaten the success of a project. Resolving these disputes efficiently is crucial to maintaining project momentum and avoiding costly delays and legal battles. In recent years, there has been a shift in the approach to dispute resolution in construction projects, with a focus on fostering collaboration rather than creating barriers.

One collaborative method for resolving disputes in construction is the use of dispute resolution boards (DRBs). A DRB is a board of impartial professionals formed at the beginning of a project to follow construction progress, encourage dispute avoidance and assist in the resolution of disputes for the duration of the project. DRBs are comprised of independent experts appointed at the outset of a project to proactively address potential disputes as they arise. DRBs provide impartial assessments of contentious issues and offer recommendations for resolution, thereby fostering transparency, accountability and early intervention.

The collaborative nature of a DRB is a perfect complement to the collaboration inherent in the PDB delivery method. Adopting effective dispute resolution mechanisms will be essential to mitigate risks and foster the collaboration essential to the PDB delivery method for the reconstruction of the Key Bridge. Employing DRBs with more traditional and common mechanisms of mediation and arbitration will enable stakeholders involved in the bridge’s reconstruction to identify common interests, explore creative solutions and reach mutually acceptable agreements without resorting to litigation, thereby maintaining the positive long-term relationships required to successfully reconstruct the Key Bridge.

Through the use of the PDB delivery method and embracing early dispute resolution practices, it is hoped that utility and design will intersect to create a durable, beautiful, esthetically pleasing replacement Key Bridge that will last into prosperity.

Lisa D. Love, Esq., FCIArb., is a mediator and arbitrator with JAMS, serving on its Global Engineering and Construction Panel, and a complex commercial transactions attorney who has worked on several bridge replacement projects and other infrastructure projects in the northeast United Sates.

---

[i] American Bridge Company, "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge," American Bridge, (2024), https://www.americanbridge.net/featured-projects/governor-mario-m-cuomo-bridge/

[ii] Federal Highway Administration, "Accelerated Bridge Construction," FHWA, (2021) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/abc/.

[iii]. Devon Denomme, Christopher Muscato, "The Zakim Bridge  Overview, Design & History," Study.com, (2023) https://study.com/learn/lesson/leonard-p-zakim-bridge-memorial-boston.html

[iv] Leonard P Zakim-Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge (I-93 and US 1) (bostonroads.com)

[v] Lea Skene, "Governor: Salvors making progress in removing Key Bridge wreckage, vows to rebuild," WBALTV news, 19 Apr 2024, 3:38 p.m., https://www.wbaltv.com/article/key-bridge-collapse-salvage-governors-update-april-19-2024/60547125

[vi]  Id.

[vii] Maryland Transportation Authority, "Final MDTA FY 2024 Traffic and Revenue Forecast Update Report," MDTA, (2024), https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20MDTA%20FY%202024%20Traffic%20and%20Revenue%20Forecast%20Update%20Report.pdf

[viii] U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, "Biden-Harris Administration Announces $60 Million in Emergency Work in Wake of Collapse of Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore," DOT, (2024), https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-60-million-emergency-work-wake-collapse-francis

[ix] Ben Finely and Brian White "Building a new Key Bridge could take years and cost at least $400 million, experts say," AP News, 29 March 2024, 12:10 a.m. https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-rebuilding-a126a3b732af95e86d1fbef01e9fb487

[x]  Rebecca Shabad, "Biden Says Wants Federal Government to Pay for Rebuilding Baltimore Bridge," NBC News, 26 Mar 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-says-wants-federal-government-pay-rebuilding-baltimore-bridge-ca-rcna145138

[xi] Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, "Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act," U.S. Senate, (2024), https://www.cardin.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Baltimore-BRIDGE-Relief-Act.pdf

[xii] See 25 U.S.C. § 125

[xiii] Tamory Winfield, "MDTA Announces Virtual Industry Forum on May 7 for Rebuilding Key Bridge," MDTA, (2024), https://mdta.maryland.gov/index.php/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/mdta-announces-virtual-industry-forum-may-7-rebuilding-key-bridge

[xiv] American Council of Engineering Companies of New York, "Progressive Design-Build," ACEC New York, accessed 2024, https://acecny.org/page/progressive-design-build

[xv] Design-Build Institute of America, “Deeper Dive into Progressive Design-Build,” DBIA, (2024), https://www.keybridgerebuild.com/#design-build-resources

[xvi] Rebuilding The Key Bridge (2024). https://www.keybridgerebuild.com/