10
Loading video...
By Danica Bilicich-Mason
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Americans do not experience infrastructure through funding announcements. They experience it through whether the bridge opens, the highway improves, the water is safe, the housing gets built, and the train finally arrives. Yet our political conversation often treats securing money as the finish line. Billions are announced, projects are celebrated, and communities are told transformation is coming.
Then comes the harder part: actually delivering it.
That distinction matters as America undertakes one of its most consequential periods of infrastructure investment in decades. Money alone cannot repair a bridge or modernize a transit system. It must move through planning, environmental review, design, procurement, permitting, contracting, and construction before the public receives anything tangible.
Read More on Leadership Insights
Each step serves a purpose. But when the process becomes an obstacle to the outcome, Americans are right to ask whether the system itself needs attention.
Delaying Infrastructure Has Knock-on Effects
The cost of delay is not confined to a project spreadsheet. A bridge that remains unavailable changes commutes and freight routes. A postponed water project leaves aging infrastructure operating longer.
Delayed transit limits access to jobs, while stalled housing projects prolong shortages. Businesses make investment decisions around infrastructure that may not arrive when expected. Every additional year can mean higher costs, deferred opportunity, and another reason for communities to doubt whether public promises will become reality.
The reconstruction of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge shows how difficult that challenge can become. After the bridge collapsed in early 2024, rebuilding the critical transportation corridor became a national priority. Currently, the bridge remains closed.
But in April 2026, the Maryland Transportation Authority announced it would not retain its progressive design-build contractor for the second phase after concluding that the proposal significantly exceeded independent cost estimates. The agency instead divided construction into four separate procurements intended to increase competition and expedite contract awards.
...
Infrastructure Must be Adaptable
That decision should not become an argument for or against one particular procurement method. In fact, it demonstrates something more important: infrastructure delivery must be adaptable.
When cost assumptions, market conditions, project risks, or schedules change, public agencies need the authority and confidence to reconsider how a project is delivered rather than defend a process simply because it was selected first.
The stakes are rising. Deloitte's 2026 Engineering and Construction Industry Outlook points to persistent labor shortages, elevated material costs, supply-chain uncertainty, and other pressures affecting project delivery. In that environment, a rigid system can compound problems that are already difficult to control.
The worst outcome is not simply a late project. It is a cycle in which delays increase costs, higher costs trigger redesigns or procurement changes, timelines stretch further, and public confidence erodes with every reset.
Different Models For Different Projects
There is a better path. America can maintain environmental safeguards, competitive procurement, fiscal accountability, and public oversight while becoming more deliberate about how projects are delivered.
Traditional design-bid-build, progressive design-build, construction manager/general contractor approaches, and public-private partnerships all offer different advantages. No model should become the automatic answer. The question should be which approach best matches the project's complexity, urgency, market conditions, and risk.
Congress and state legislatures should require agencies overseeing major publicly funded infrastructure projects to complete and publish a delivery assessment before procurement. That assessment should compare viable models against four criteria: schedule risk, cost certainty, market competition, and accountability. If those assumptions materially change, agencies should be required to reassess the strategy rather than wait for failure to force a reset.
America should keep investing ambitiously in infrastructure. But announcing money is not the same as delivering progress. The public should judge infrastructure by the simplest standard of all: whether people can actually use what they were promised. A project changes a community only when it gets built.
Danica Bilicich-Mason is board president of the California Infrastructure Delivery Coalition and advocates for workforce development, small-business participation and long-term infrastructure planning. All opinions are the author’s own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines