The collapse of the iconic over two years ago Key Bridge has pretty much receded into the distant past bunched up with all the other calamities that happened since then. The long detours and the back-ups at the Harbor tunnel have become part of the daily routine but exact a daily toll on the Marylad economy.
But once in a while the topic of the missing bridge jolts back into the spotlight, for example yesterday. when Governor Moore toured the construction site with Republican Senators to ensure they don't give him a hard time for the delays and cost explosions or revoke federal funding. This March, exactly two years after the collapse, the contractor hired to rebuild was fired, and the "progressive design build" model thought to be so innovative and effective collapsed as fulminantly as the bridge itself. Initially estimated to be around $1.7 to 1.9bn bn the contractor's final cost offer was even double of the already doubled and tripled updated cost estimate of MDTA from last fall. ($4.3 billion and $5.2 billion) The $9bn that general contractor Kiewit presumably had proffered were just was too much to swallow. Now, four months after the firing of the contractor what could the Governor tell his sceptical political counterparts?
![]() |
| Moore on a boat tour explaining the Key Bridge rebuild (Maryland Matters) |
“We have to have a transparent process, I want to see why these costs have ballooned and what are the performance measures that are built in … because now, the whole country is paying for this.” (Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va., chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee)
Foremost, Moore was pointing to still ongoing work under the old contract. Driving foundation piles and building construction trestles for the next is work is part of early contracts not affected by the firing. But none of the additional work has been bid yet, let alone started, not even for the portions that don't depend on the foundation work or trestles.
There is no point in gleefully pointing to early skepticism about the originally proposed approach or the imprecise scope of the original contract which I covered in my earlier posts. Now it is time to look at the new approach and if it is more confidence instilling. The Governor surely hopes so, he told his guests on the boat that -while a completion date is still uncertain- the divided contracts will give the State better cost control. That is, once they have new contractors on board. In the meantime, construction cost seem to be on a run-away train fueled by general inflation and risen energy cost.
A big driver in the ballooning cost is that the new bridge is also almost 50 feet taller than the old one, something that slipped through without much discussion and required the demolition of the old still intact approach ramps. As far as I know, this wasn't mandated by anyone and is still a debatable requirement since very tall ships could be served at Trade Point Atlantic's piers currently under construction without passing the new bridge.
MDTA now wants to break the work up into four separate contracts, three as traditional design-bid-build contracts. This version of procurement means that MDTA needs to provide 100% design and construction documents to bidders which then provide a schedule and a commit to a cost. Getting the documents from 70% design which was done by the fired contractor to 100% is the reason why the bid has not yet been advertised.
This approach ensures an equal playing field because everyone bids the same scope of work and it gives cost certainty once a bid has been approved unless new and previously undiscoverable facts would emerge during construction.
The work bid this way includes the two landside approaches and the remaining demolition. The ramps on each side of the bridge over water are almost identical in their scope of work and design with a slight difference in length. It isn't clear what benefit splitting them will provide, especially on the accessory items such as guardrails, liking, signs, pavement marking etc. for which scale is an advantage. Having two different contractors provide the parts of the new construction on which the main bridge contractor rests his bridge has its own set of risks, namely the possibility of delays or pushing responsibilities around between the contractors if something goes wrong.
These packages are supposed to be advertised for bid this fall with a notice to proceed (construction begin) in the spring of 2027. This would mean that construction of even these very conventional bread and butter parts of the rebuild would not happen any earlier than a full three years after the collapse. No wonder that even the Governor doesn't want to promise completion by 2030, two years after it was originally envisioned.
![]() |
| Parts of the old approach ramps and the pylons are still standing (WBFF) |
The biggest contract is the main span over the shipping channel and the portion of the two approaches that are over water. This contract will be bid as Design-Build, i.e. similar to the original procurement exceopt that this time around the design documents are 70% complete. Still, the bidder has to verify their accuracy to take full responsibility, complete the remaining 30%, and then provide a firm cost for the construction. Certain innovations or deviations from the 70% design would be allowed as long as they don't violate the main established parameters such as the alignment, the lanes and their width, the required clear height and span, and the necessary pier protection.
It doesn't help speeding things up that this crown jewel contract will be advertised in two steps, first as a request for qualifications (this summer) and then in a second step in the spring of 2027 with actual proposals received from a shortlisted group. In this manner construction will not begin any earlier than the summer of next year. Given that Kiewit was fired in March of this year leaving a 70% design package and given that the entire industry has been aware of this project since the first "industry days" that MDTA conducted in 2024, not having a new contractor on board until the summer of 2027 appears to be a long delay. This new contractor for the main spans of the bridge will have to rely on Kiewitt's trestle work, the piles for the pylon foundations and the two other contractors building the approach ramps on each side of the bridge. That's a lot of stuff to coordinate for MDTA and potentially a lot to explain by whoever will be governor when the new bridge will be finally complete.
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA
The below slides are taken from the MDTA presentation given at the June 18, 2026 "industry day" to potentially interested contractors.
Contract 1: Demolition, $50m -100m
Design Bid Build
Demolition of 8 marine piers and two remaining land piers
advertised winter 27!! Some of the design will
be “directive” sealed by MDTA engineers. 70% design prepared to date will be
provided for reference purposes, however it has to be verified by (new)
contractor
Final schedule has not been completed.
Approach piers need to be there for the main span.











