PROVIDENCE – Contractors accused of doing shoddy work on the Washington Bridge are relying on flawed legal arguments in hopes of getting the lawsuit against them dismissed, according to a response filed by the state on Tuesday.
The 60-page filing does not shed new light on what caused the bridge to fail, but it reiterates the state’s argument that the companies that inspected the bridge before its emergency closure were negligent and failed to flag “critical deficiencies,” as did those hired to work on the repair project that was underway when the problems were found.
“These problems did not occur overnight – they were ignored over the years by the numerous entities thatpurported to inspect the Bridge to ensure it was in adequate condition and safe for use, and by thefirms who purported to design plans for the effective and complete rehabilitation of the bridge,” the response states.
AECOM Technical Services, the Barletta-Aetna Washington Bridge Joint Venture, Commonwealth Engineers and Jacobs Engineering, who are among more than a dozen companies named as defendants, each filed separate motions to dismiss the lawsuit earlier this winter.
More: The Washington Bridge has been closed for a year. Here’s the Journal’s special investigation
The state’s litigation team – made up of attorneys from the Rhode Island attorney general’s office, Savage Law Partners and the firm Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll – presented counterarguments against each of those motions in its Tuesday response.
Here’s how the legal team responded to each of the motions:
AECOM
AECOM, the engineering firm that was Rhode Island’s technical expert on the bridge for years, argued that the state’s lawsuit doesn’t identify specific ways in which the company breached its contract.
The state’s response: The lawsuit “puts AECOM on notice that its failure to properly perform under the contracts amounted to a failure to detect and report critical structural issues with the bridge at a time when those issues could have been repaired.”
In other words, the state is blaming AECOM for the fact that it wasted resources trying to repair a bridge that now needs to be demolished.
“If AECOM had performed as contractually required, it would have notified the state of the problems with the bridge at a time when the bridge could have been successfully rehabilitated, or the state’s current damages could have otherwise been avoided,” the new legal filings argue.
Work continues on the dismantling of the westbound span of the Washington Bridge, as seen from the East Providence side of the Seekonk River on Oct. 21, 2024.
Barletta-Aetna Washington Bridge Joint Venture
The joint venture of Barletta Heavy Division and Aetna Bridge, which was hired to repair, strengthen, widen and add new ramps to the bridge, claimed that the state’s lawsuit was “political” in nature.
Additionally, the companies argued that the internal steel supports holding up the bridge were already compromised in 2019, and the state should have tested them before beginning the repair project.
The state’s response: The lawsuit is arguing that those companies failed to acknowledge the existence of potential problems with the tie-down rods in their repair plan, and also failed to adequately review the past inspection reports on file.
“Despite representing it would perform an independent review of the Bridge’s structural steel, prestressed girder, and camber designs, the Joint Venture’s construction plans for the rehabilitation failed to address the existence of critical failures that resulted in the RIDOT, just two months later, issuing an emergency declaration closing the bridge in order to protect the safety of the public,” the response states.
Commonwealth Engineers
Commonwealth argued that it should be removed from the lawsuit because it did not assist AECOM with the two inspections of the Washington Bridge that allegedly overlooked critical flaws.
However, the company’s “smoking gun evidence” that it can’t be held liable is simply the fact that an inspection report says “Inspected by: AECOM” instead of “Inspected by: AECOM – Commonwealth,” according to the state’s response.
That’s not enough to dismiss the lawsuit, the state’s legal team argues.
Jacobs Engineering
Jacobs, which conducted an underwater inspection of the bridge in 2021, is accused of failing to “identify,recognize, or address critical elements of the bridge’s structural safety and integrity” in its resulting report.
The company argued that it should be removed from the lawsuit because the suit does not name any particular contractual provisions that were breached.
That doesn’t hold up for the same reason that AECOM’s arguments don’t hold up, the state’s legal team says.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Washington Bridge lawsuit should continue, RI AG’s office argues