Key Bridge (Round Who Knows But Probably Not Last)

[kphoger]

[Rothman]

Maryland said, "Too high," Kiewit couldn't bring it down

MDTA rejected the price as too high, and Kiewit declined to sign a GMP at a lower number.

Those mean the same thing.

Kiewit -wouldn't- bring it down. No sale.

Which means they got fired.

"I didn't get fired.  I quit!" -- Kiewit

[Rothman]

What is life for a roadgeek, if not splitting hairs?  Quite empty, indeed.

[Beltway]

If anything, the off‑ramp reads closer to MDTA getting fired than Kiewit.

MDTA couldn't accept the GMP, couldn't fund the GMP, and couldn't produce the federal/state financing package required to support the GMP. Kiewit held their number. When the owner can't meet the conditions for a guaranteed‑maximum‑price contract, the contractor doesn't get "fired" -- the project owner effectively disqualifies itself.

The off‑ramp didn't trigger because Kiewit walked. It triggered because MDTA couldn't meet the prerequisites for a multi‑billion‑dollar GMP.

From Kiewit's perspective, this project was loaded with cesium‑137 and strontium‑90 -- too much risk, too little certainty, and no funding package behind the number.

[kphoger]

MDTA couldn't accept the GMP, couldn't fund the GMP, and couldn't produce the federal/state financing package required to support the GMP.

MDTA -wouldn't- accept it.  No dolphins.

[Rothman]

If anything, the off‑ramp reads closer to MDTA getting fired than Kiewit.

MDTA couldn't accept the GMP, couldn't fund the GMP, and couldn't produce the federal/state financing package required to support the GMP. Kiewit held their number. When the owner can't meet the conditions for a guaranteed‑maximum‑price contract, the contractor doesn't get "fired" -- the project owner effectively disqualifies itself.

The off‑ramp didn't trigger because Kiewit walked. It triggered because MDTA couldn't meet the prerequisites for a multi‑billion‑dollar GMP.

From Kiewit's perspective, this project was loaded with cesium‑137 and strontium‑90 -- too much risk, too little certainty, and no funding package behind the number.

Wait, how much did Kiewit pay MDTA as their consultant, then?  I mean, to be fired, you have to be working and paid by someone, right?

This is taking "I didn't get fired, I quit" to an astronomical level.

MDTA hired the contractor and fired the contractor.  That's all there is to it.

[Beltway]

Kiewit is finishing the contracted Phase 1 and is not participating in Phase 2 because the GMP negotiation failed.

Phase 2 -- the actual replacement‑bridge construction -- never existed as a signed contract.

There was no Phase 2 contract to "fire" anyone from. You cannot fire a contractor from a phase that was never executed.

Kiewit is a Tier‑1 megaproject builder. From their perspective, this job was radioactive: too much risk, too little certainty, and no funding package behind the number.

[Rothman]

You didn't answer the question.

I'll take this over that sillyness: https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/maryland-transportation-authority-ramp-progressive-design-build

"MDTA will not retain Kiewit's services for Phase 2 construction. In order to put the best interests of taxpayers first, MDTA will go back to the market to negotiate the best deal to deliver this bridge as quickly and safely as possible."

[kphoger]

Kiewit is finishing the contracted Phase 1 and is not participating in Phase 2 because the GMP negotiation failed.

Phase 2 -- the actual replacement‑bridge construction -- never existed as a signed contract.

There was no Phase 2 contract to "fire" anyone from. You cannot fire a contractor from a phase that was never executed.

Kiewit is a Tier‑1 megaproject builder. From their perspective, this job was radioactive: too much risk, too little certainty, and no funding package behind the number.

I work for a cable company.  Our field techs are contractors.  That's like saying that, if we terminate one of them after his route is done for the day, then we didn't technically fire him, because he hadn't started his next day's route yet.  Technically true, perhaps, because he wasn't technically our employee, and because he hadn't technically been given a route yet—but, realistically, we fired him.

[Beltway]

MDTA will never publicly acknowledge that the GMP collapse reflects a fundamental misalignment between scope, risk, and cost; that the 70% design is not buildable; that the procurement is now structurally unattractive to Tier‑1 contractors; that ER funding has already rolled off; that the schedule is no longer tethered to the advertised 2030 date; or that a full NEPA reset is the only technically defensible path. But every one of those points is procedurally true.

Agencies don't admit these things because doing so would concede that the original cost envelope was unrealistic, trigger political blowback, undermine confidence in the procurement, complicate federal coordination, and force a public acknowledgment that the timeline has slipped a decade.

We are looking at 2037 to 2042 before a new crossing may be in place.

[Beltway]

I work for a cable company.  Our field techs are contractors.  That's like saying that, if we terminate one of them after his route is done for the day, then we didn't technically fire him, because he hadn't started his next day's route yet.  Technically true, perhaps, because he wasn't technically our employee, and because he hadn't technically been given a route yet—but, realistically, we fired him.

Apples and tomatoes.

A cable‑company day‑route is a labor assignment.

A Progressive Design‑Build megaproject is a two‑phase procurement structure where Phase 2 does not legally exist until a GMP is accepted and funded.

Kiewit is finishing the contracted Phase 1. Phase 2 was never a signed contract, never funded, and never executed. There is nothing to "fire" anyone from when the GMP negotiation fails and the off‑ramp triggers by design.

I can assure you that the Kiewit project engineers are not crying in their beer over this -- they are relieved by not having an albatross around their neck.

[Rothman]

What is the value of one of Beltway's assurances?

[kphoger]

What is the value of one of Beltway's assurances?

$6.49 plus tax

[Plutonic Panda]

What is the value of one of Beltway's assurances?

Ensuring that oranges won't be part of whatever equation he uses.

[Max Rockatansky]

What is the value of one of Beltway's assurances?

I'll pay less than a penny for his thoughts.