I-395 Bridge Contract

Former Miami City Commissioner Marc Sarnoff today went to court to block the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) from moving forward with its award of a contract to build a new, signature I-395 bridge, arguing the award violates a settlement agreement that promised local control over the bridge’s aesthetic design.
Attorneys Jay Solowsky and Mason Pertnoy of Miami law firm Solowsky Allen, P.L., reopened the class action lawsuit they filed in March 2013 on behalf of the residents of Miami, seeking to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. The Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement asserts, in part, that FDOT breached the parties’ agreement by causing the scores of the community-based Aesthetics Review Committee to be diluted.
“The additional weight given to technical reviewers has effectively stifled the voice of the community. This is Miami’s equivalent of the Golden Gate Bridge or the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. It is only right that Miami-Dade residents should determine that iconic design, not state bureaucrats,” Sarnoff said. “It is unfortunate that it requires ongoing litigation to protect a process established by the settlement agreement.”
Sarnoff said FDOT should honor its commitment to allow Miami-Dade residents to decide the design of the signature bridge, which will become an enduring icon of Miami for decades to come. FDOT is seeking to award the $800 million contract to build a design that received “poor” and “fair” marks from the local review committee during the final scoring phase.
“This motion is about protecting a process that FDOT and the plaintiffs agreed to, it’s not about trying to dictate a result,” attorney Solowsky said. Added Pertnoy: “The simple fact is that the process required that the five-person Aesthetics Committee would be the sole scorers of aesthetics.”
Sarnoff’s 2013 lawsuit resulted in FDOT’s agreement to establish the Aesthetics Review Committee, made up of four local representatives and one FDOT representative, who were to serve as the sole scorers of aesthetics during the procurement process. A five-person technical review panel of FDOT and MDX engineers was established to ensure that all designs selected for final consideration met the technical standards outlined in the bid criteria. The four local members of the Aesthetics Committee considered all qualified proposals and were unanimous in their preference for the design that finished second overall.
Sarnoff said FDOT’s recent actions disregard the settlement by giving more weight to the views of road builders and engineers than to the judgment of local committee members specifically asked to consider the look and feel of competing design proposals.
The motion filed today says, “This community came together and loudly proclaimed with a unified voice its support of a Signature Bridge project. The Settlement Agreement implemented that voice. By casting additional votes, FDOT diluted the voice of the community.”
Sarnoff noted that the settlement agreement expressly required that five members serve on the Aesthetics Committee, including one FDOT representative, each with one vote – not a nine-member Aesthetics Committee that gives FDOT five votes. By casting additional votes FDOT improperly undermined the weight given to community input, he said.
Sarnoff said he filed his motion to ensure that Miami’s voice is heard and its choice is reflected by this enduring, iconic project, which will also serve to reknit together Overtown, breaking down walls that divided and destroyed the historic community.
“Our local representatives on the Aesthetics Committee took seriously the task of choosing a design that would mend the divide caused decades ago when FDOT built I-395 through the heart of Overtown, cutting it off from downtown Miami,” Sarnoff said. “Since FDOT agreed to let local voices be the sole voice on aesthetics, it must be held to that commitment. FDOT must follow the process that it agreed to.”
To view a copy of the Motion to Enforce, click here.