John Swygert  |  17 October 2026

Companion to The American Industrial Harbor Network: An Expanded Bridge-First National Industrial Capacity Strategy

Figure 1. Proposed separation of federal stewardship, state ownership and purchasing powers, private manufacturing, research, and accountable project delivery. The diagram illustrates governance relationships—not powers presently conferred by a single statute.

Abstract

The American Industrial Harbor Network (AIHN) proposes to turn urgent bridge and harbor reconstruction into lasting domestic manufacturing capacity, supported by port-city campuses, inland specialty suppliers, civilian employment, private investment, research universities, AI centers, and defense-ready industrial assets. Part 2 addresses the implementation questions left open by the expanded founding paper. It distinguishes existing DoD industrial authorities from authorities that Congress would have to create; offers two legislatively specified governance paths; establishes a voluntary American Bridge Demand Compact in which project forecasts are never confused with funded purchase commitments; and codifies non-discriminatory access for established off-campus fabricators. It also proposes measured federal incentives, realistic appropriations discipline, phased capital authorization, an interagency legal review, a model Compact term sheet, and a Baltimore-specific first-action checklist. The work is an institutional and legal design proposal—not an enacted bill, binding procurement instrument, legal opinion, engineering estimate, or costed feasibility finding.

Keywords: American Industrial Harbor Network; bridge manufacturing; public-private investment; military stewardship; federalism; multiyear procurement; port modernization; industrial capacity; semiconductors; AI centers; legal governance.

Executive proposition

The first bridge restores a crossing. The factory restores a capability. The network gives that capability somewhere to grow. Part 1 established the bridge-first manufacturing logic; Part 2 asks how the same logic can survive legal review, attract private capital, secure recurring orders, and remain accountable through changes in federal leadership. The essential implementation principle is simple: build capability only when lawful authority, usable sites, reliable utilities, market access, and verified demand have been demonstrated.

The principal recommendations are (i) enact a time-limited and reviewable federal enabling law; (ii) preserve state and port authority jurisdiction; (iii) separate strategic military stewardship from civilian commercial operations; (iv) make participation in standard bridge-element families voluntary and competitively neutral; (v) publish multi-year candidate pipelines while identifying purchases as binding only when supported by valid contracts and funds; and (vi) keep advanced semiconductor and AI facilities behind their own commercial and utility decision gates.

1. What Part 2 adds to the founding architecture

The expanded founding paper defines three technology tiers: bridge and marine manufacturing first; packaging, power electronics, industrial AI and specialty production second; and full-scale wafer fabrication or hyperscale computing only where independently justified. It also establishes two governance options, a national bridge-demand compact, site-screening criteria, and cost/utilization reporting. Those commitments are preserved here, with detailed attention to interfaces between federal, state, local and commercial authority. [1]

Part 1 foundation

Part 2 operational extension

Bridge-first industrial network

Implementable demand commitments and owner procurement instruments

Military-stewarded or civilian-led sites

Jurisdictional boundaries and interagency legal issues matrix

Private industrial capital

Investor-neutral qualifications, eligible revenue and disclosure

Five-year plans and decision gates

Appropriations constraints, reauthorization and continuity safeguards

Baltimore founding pilot

First-action approvals and signatory-specific responsibilities

2. Existing authority is a foundation, not a universal license

2.1 Defense industrial precedents and their limits

Federal defense law already provides narrower precedents: 10 U.S.C. § 2474 establishes Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence for depot-level and arsenal activities and permits certain public-private cooperative arrangements; 10 U.S.C. § 2667 addresses leases of qualifying non-excess defense property; and 10 U.S.C. § 2535 provides for a defense industrial reserve of selected facilities and equipment. These provisions demonstrate that government industrial stewardship, civilian work, private participation, and readiness objectives can coexist in specific settings. They do not, standing alone, authorize the Department of Defense to govern a mixed-use state port, direct private university research, exempt commercial tenants from ordinary law, or promise general-purpose civilian industrial subsidies. [2–4]

The proposed AIHN Act must identify federal parcels and authorities expressly; distinguish the defense enclave from the surrounding campus; name the responsible civilian financial and contract officers; and specify how a military strategic office coordinates without assuming ownership of non-federal land or command over civilian employees. It must not rely on the label “military-managed” to imply powers that have not been conferred.

2.2 Two parallel legal governance options

Function

Option A: DoD strategic steward

Option B: civilian federal director

Federal strategic assets

DoD oversees designated federal property, readiness and security

Civilian director operates campus; DoD controls designated defense enclave

Commercial leases

Independent civilian campus operator with explicit delegation

Civilian authority conducts public leasing and tenancy

Bridge production orders

State/federal eligible buyers procure through their own laws

Same—no automatic central purchasing authority

Private and academic operations

Civilian partners retain independent operations and labor protections

Same

Port/navigation decisions

Port owner and competent regulators remain in charge

Same

Security priority conflicts

Defined escalation and appeal; no blanket takeover

Defined escalation and appeal; no blanket takeover

Option A reflects the founding preference for military stewardship of designated federal strategic assets, with civilian administration of commercial operations. Option B keeps the same defense capability while placing overall campus administration under a civilian federal director. Congress should review both on legal feasibility, accountability, state participation, and investor acceptance; neither should be presented as already established under a single existing authority.

3. Interagency legal boundaries to resolve before site award

Each proposed campus should receive an interagency jurisdiction memorandum jointly reviewed by federal counsel, state port and transportation counsel, local authorities, and affected landowners. This is a prerequisite for funding and real-property agreements, not paperwork postponed until after factories are built.

Issue and present legal anchor

Agency or owner with relevant authority

AIHN decision and required evidence

Federal property / defense industry: 10 U.S.C. §§ 2474, 2535, 2667

DoD; military departments; property counsel

Identify title, permitted use, lease term, revenue treatment, security and reimbursement

Navigable waters: Rivers and Harbors Act § 10; CWA § 404

USACE regulatory program; applicable state agencies

Project-specific determination on structures, dredging, fill, waters, mitigation and permits

State ports and terminals

State port authorities and public/private terminal owners

Written land access or option; preservation of state port and commercial powers

Federal-aid bridge delivery: 23 U.S.C. § 112

State DOT / project owner and FHWA

Competitive process or legally approved alternate method; no automatic AIHN sole source

Federal purchasing: FAR Parts 6, 16.5, 17.1

Authorized federal contracting officer

Fair competition, IDIQ minimum/maximum, cancellation risk, valid appropriations

Federal fiscal limits: 31 U.S.C. § 1341

Federal budget and legal officers; Congress

No obligations exceeding funds or unauthorized promises of later appropriations

Domestic materials: 23 U.S.C. § 313 and current FHWA rules

FHWA and grant/project recipients

Project-specific Buy America review, certificates and waiver rules

Environmental, labor, community impacts

Applicable federal/state/local regulators

NEPA applicability, hazardous-site diligence, labor and safety compliance

USACE permits for work in navigable waters and discharges into jurisdictional waters are separate from the Corps’ own civil-works/navigation mission. A Corps engineering role does not cancel permit requirements or give the program jurisdiction over state-owned port facilities. [5–6] Likewise, the federal procurement tools in FAR Parts 16 and 17 govern specified federal purchases, not independent state bridge orders unless an independently lawful agreement provides otherwise. [7–9]

3.1 Independence and appeal

The program should establish published procedures for bid protests, lease disputes, access suspensions, cybersecurity restrictions, environmental grievances and conflicts of interest. A defense-security decision should be documented by the competent official and, where possible, reviewed without disclosing protected information. Site residency, political connections, military relationships, and prior federal grants may not substitute for qualification against performance-based procurement requirements.

4. The American Bridge Demand Compact: voluntary demand before capacity

4.1 Purpose and market discipline

The Compact is a voluntary arrangement among eligible public bridge owners, participating federal agencies where authorized, and qualified manufacturers. It pools advance information, interoperable design families, technical verification and prospective delivery windows. It neither centralizes ownership of bridges nor requires states to relinquish procurement authority. Its most important rule is that a forecast is not an order. An order is binding only when the particular buyer has made an authorized, adequately funded commitment through a valid contract. [1, 7–10]

4.2 Four demand statuses

Status

Definition

Allowed investor treatment

A — Forecast

Owner-identified possible bridge project; technical and funding assumptions

Market signal only; not an order or bankable backlog

B — Programmed

Included in an adopted plan or preliminary budget; approvals still pending

Higher confidence indicator, not a contractual commitment

C — Solicited

Procurement has been advertised or an authorized request issued

Competition underway; no supplier commitment yet

D — Obligated

Signed, enforceable, funded purchase or task order

May count in committed backlog subject to cancellation terms

All investors, lenders and campus boards receive the same status labels and the same underlying owner-certified data; no manufacturer may advertise forecasts as committed revenue. Forecast-to-order conversion should be independently checked each quarter, and each plant’s proposed capacity must be sized against plausible demand rather than headline project counts.

4.3 Voluntary participation incentives that do not buy a captive market

The lightest effective incentives would pay for public goods that many owners cannot efficiently fund alone: shared design validation, structural testing, independent qualification, standardized digital records, and owner engineering assistance. Where an existing grant program permits such expenditures, assistance should be neutral among qualifying suppliers; where preferential funding is proposed, Congress or the relevant agency must first establish the necessary authority. A Compact member should remain free to use a nonstandard design where the actual bridge warrants it.

1.  Offer a competitively awarded engineering-support grant for owner adoption of interoperable, code-conforming bridge families; eligibility based on transparent public criteria, not membership alone.

2.  Fund independent test labs and common material-traceability protocols, with equivalent pathways for private test results and accepted external accreditations.

3.  Permit voluntarily coordinated procurement windows and cooperative purchasing only where each state’s law authorizes them and each owner separately makes its award.

4.  Require participating state agencies to publish a public reason when they deviate from an adopted reference family, without penalizing legitimate safety or site-specific choices.

5.  Condition recurring federal technical support on data quality, competition, public reporting and measured cost/time improvements—not preferential awards to particular plants.

4.4 Procurement structures and legally limited offtake

For federal agencies, competitive multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts can reserve qualified suppliers while making only the contractual minimum legally binding; FAR 16.504 requires a meaningful minimum and a stated maximum. Requirements contracts and multiyear contracts have their own conditions and must not be confused with state orders. For states, instruments can include lawfully authorized multiyear agreements, framework procurements, master pricing agreements or cooperative contracts, always subject to local statutes and funding. [7–9]

The Compact may publish a five-year pooled forecast; it may not pledge to purchase it. The first factory investment gate should require independently verified utilization scenarios, actual bid opportunities, a limited order floor where legally possible, and explicit protections for cancellation or funding lapses.

5. No campus monopoly: equal access for existing American fabricators

The manufacturing market must be open to firms already operating throughout the United States—including specialty steel shops, precast producers, union contractors, smaller regional fabricators, independent laboratories and new entrants. A factory’s location within an AIHN campus must not be a prerequisite for qualification, bidding, contract award, access to published specifications, or participation in a shared testing registry. This exclusion of automatic resident preference is essential to the program’s credibility.

Open-market safeguard

Proposed rule / verification

No residency requirement

Bid eligibility is independent of campus address, lease status or equity participation

Independent technical qualification

Objective product tests, inspections, material records and accepted equivalent certificates

Multiple-award access

Use competitive procedures and multiple suppliers where procurement law and performance needs permit

Transparent land and leases

Public valuation, leases competitively offered, related-party reviews, no hidden cross-subsidies

Small-business participation

Unbundling where practicable, supplier development and statutory small-business requirements

Price and performance transparency

Publish comparable delivered cost, on-time performance, defect rates and independent assurance

Antitrust / data firewalls

No exchanging competitors’ sensitive future bids through shared Compact dashboards

The federal competition principle is grounded in FAR Part 6 for federal contracts and 23 U.S.C. § 112 for federal-aid highway construction, subject to the rules’ specified exceptions. This paper does not propose overriding existing public-bidding laws or forcing bridge owners to use the AIHN campus as a sole source. [10–11]

6. Political and fiscal durability without permanent insulation

A program funded across multiple administrations must survive appropriations cycles, but it cannot guarantee congressional appropriations forever. The safeguards are public inventories, legible funding accounts, enforceable contracts only when authorized, useful private assets that can survive shifts in policy, statutory oversight, and scheduled reauthorization—not a claim that Congress has surrendered budget control. The Antideficiency Act explicitly restricts unsupported obligations. [12]

1.  Create a statutory authorization with a bounded initial pilot and a separately reported bridge/marine capability account, defense-readiness account, technical-training account and commercial project-vehicle reports.

2.  Adopt a five-year rolling capital plan but distinguish planned outlays, appropriated funds, grant awards, legally obligated amounts, and contingent liabilities.

3.  Require annual audited financial statements, quarterly demand/utilization reports, inspector-general access and periodic GAO performance review.

4.  Provide published sunset and reauthorization dates; expansion requires evidence that existing pilots meet delivery, cost, safety, competition and utilization standards.

5.  Include correction, recompetition, private repayment or clawback, asset transfer, mothballing and wind-down procedures if a campus fails measurable thresholds.

6.  Protect independently contracted and funded obligations only to the extent lawfully authorized; do not promise perpetual supply contracts or untouchable annual subsidies.

The program’s long-term appeal should be economic, not merely political. A campus that can win civilian bridge orders on price and quality, while serving defense-readiness needs and conducting competitively funded innovation, has a more durable claim on capital than a facility requiring indefinite operating grants.

7. Baltimore pilot: first 180 days and authority sequence

Baltimore is the founding narrative and a natural feasibility candidate because bridge reconstruction, port logistics, regional engineering capacity and industrial redevelopment are already present. But waterfront access, suitable land, utility reservations and tenant availability must be demonstrated, not assumed. Existing developments at Sparrows Point have substantial private commitments and environmental remediation programs; they cannot simply be redesignated for federal use. Maryland Port Administration retains its state port role. [13–14]

Window

Owner / deliverable

Decision threshold

Days 0–30

Maryland, port officials, USACE and federal sponsors: chartered data room, title and site inventory

No claimed site control without written proof

Days 30–60

Utility providers and site owners: dated power, water, rail, highway and marine service letters

Reject missing or implausible utility readiness

Days 45–90

DOT bridge owners + FHWA: candidate module families and five-year demand status registry

Forecast versus obligation shown distinctly

Days 60–120

DoD, DOT, state AG, USACE counsel: jurisdiction matrix and governance choice

Written authority for each proposed function

Days 90–150

Industry consortium: open RFI to resident and nonresident fabricators; universities: skills inventory

Competitive capacity evidence, workforce commitments

Days 150–180

Independent panel: bounded pilot memorandum and phased investment recommendation

Proceed only with site, utilities, bids, lawful orders and value case

7.1 First-product procurement screen

Begin with repeatable short- and medium-span bridge families, precast elements, deck panels, protective systems and other components that existing state and local bridge programs can actually order. The replacement of Baltimore’s long-span Francis Scott Key Bridge remains an engineering-intensive case and must not be misrepresented as proof that a standard module can replace the entire structure at a predetermined discount. The pilot should measure capability formation as well as delivered structures. [1, 15]

8. Keep chip fabrication and AI expansion behind independent gates

Part 1’s advanced production and computing program remains essential, but bridge and harbor capacity must not wait for a speculative full-scale wafer fabrication plant. Semiconductor advanced packaging, qualification, power electronics and industrial AI can enter earlier where partners, demand and clean utility envelopes justify them. Full wafer fabs, hyperscale compute facilities, or defense-secure data centers should require separate site, grid, water, cyber, environmental, workforce, and commercial feasibility approvals. The early bridge supply chain should neither cross-subsidize these developments nor be delayed by them. [1]

Local technical colleges and university partners should be free to offer apprenticeships, stackable credentials, research programs and shared laboratories without mandatory defense classification of open research. Place-based research programs such as NSF Regional Innovation Engines illustrate the value of integrating industry, academic research and workforce development, though AIHN eligibility and funding would need their own statutory or programmatic basis. [16]

9. An implementation test: can the system pay its way?

The following numbers illustrate a sensitivity test, not estimates for Baltimore, a quoted vendor price or a federal savings forecast. Suppose a proposed modular fabricator incurs $18 million annually in fixed cost, has a $120,000 variable cost per standardized unit, and sells qualified delivered units for $200,000 each before financing costs and any project-specific installation. Contribution margin is $80,000 per unit. It would require 225 units per year to cover the assumed annual fixed cost before financing and other unmodeled items. That calculation becomes misleading if uncommitted projects are counted as sales.

Units delivered / year

Contribution at $80k each

Minus $18m annual fixed cost

Indicative balance before financing

100

$8.0m

$18.0m

−$10.0m

225

$18.0m

$18.0m

$0

300

$24.0m

$18.0m

+$6.0m

The test must subsequently include capital amortization, cost of public funds, utility tariffs, site remediation, port charges, transportation, workforce costs, quality failures, permitting, cancellation risk, maintenance and residual asset value. Its purpose is not to proclaim savings; it is to prevent approval of impressive but chronically underused factories. A site advances only when independent demand and cost evaluation supports the case.

10. What would change the recommendation?

Finding

Required policy response

Projected pipeline rarely becomes funded orders

Shrink or defer capacity; improve compact participation only through neutral public-goods incentives

Independent fabricators can meet needs at lower whole-life cost

Buy from them; avoid duplicating private capacity

Site utility or permit readiness fails

Select another site or delay relevant production tier

DoD leadership imposes unworkable civilian-commercial burdens

Adopt Option B or alter statutory scope

Campus becomes dependent on recurring below-market subsidies

Rebid leases, restructure, repurpose or terminate the site

Standard module fails safety, durability or site geometry tests

Do not standardize it; preserve owner-specific engineering

A credible infrastructure-industrial strategy should be able to abandon an unsuitable pilot without abandoning the broader national goal. Its enduring asset is the method: prove demand, build capable supply, compete openly, preserve knowledge, and continuously improve design and manufacturing.

Conclusion: from a bridge program to a governed industrial system

The American Industrial Harbor Network can be made institutionally credible only by treating legal authority, state autonomy, open competition, demand commitments, fiscal limitations, and industrial capacity as one system. Federal strategic stewardship should support readiness, not become a substitute for lawful commercial management. State participation should create better engineering options, not surrender ownership or purchasing discretion. Private investment should create useful productive assets, not depend upon fictitious future orders. Advanced semiconductor and AI initiatives should strengthen a viable bridge-and-marine base, not displace it.

The design principle survives the practical scrutiny: rebuild the bridge; establish the factory that can build the next hundred; connect that factory to port cities, inland metallurgy, universities, AI research, and defense-ready capacity—but expand only when each new capability is justified by the evidence required to sustain it.

Appendix A. One-page American Bridge Demand Compact term sheet

Illustrative model for discussion among public bridge owners, participating federal agencies where authorized, engineering bodies, and suppliers. This term sheet is nonbinding unless implemented through a separately authorized written agreement and properly funded purchase contract.

Term

Proposed position

Purpose

Voluntary interoperability, transparent demand visibility, open qualification and faster bridge renewal

Participants

State DOTs, counties, local bridge authorities, tribal entities, eligible federal owners and qualified suppliers

Duration

Five-year renewable cooperation term; annual legal and cost review

Forecast publication

Quarterly five-year pipeline; A/B/C/D demand-status labels and project-owner certifications

Bridge families

Openly published reference envelopes; site exceptions explicitly permitted

Qualification

Independent tests, structural codes, material traceability; equal recognition of compliant off-campus suppliers

Purchasing

Each buyer retains funding, selection, contract and cancellation authority under applicable law

Commitments

No volume guaranteed by term sheet; separate authorized contracts establish only their own obligations

Cost-sharing

Lawfully funded common engineering, testing and quality infrastructure; no guaranteed supplier revenue

Intellectual property

Published interface standards; protect legitimate proprietary technical data

Integrity

Anti-collusion, conflicts disclosure, no insider-only bidding, competition and antitrust review

Reporting

Order conversion, quality, time, delivered costs, factory utilization, defects and competing bids

Exit and review

Voluntary withdrawal subject to independently signed obligations; annual public audit

Appendix B. Interagency legal-issues memorandum: assignments and open questions

This appendix is a research agenda for agency counsel and legislative staff, not an attorney’s opinion. Each question must be answered in a signed legal memorandum before property transfer, borrowing, military management or long-term commitments are authorized.

1.  DoD General Counsel: Which federal property, leasing, readiness, procurement and industrial partnership authorities apply to the actual proposed assets, and what new powers would require legislation? [2–4]

2.  DOT/FHWA counsel: Can state-purchased bridge modules be procured under each proposed instrument consistently with 23 U.S.C. § 112 and federal-aid conditions? What FHWA approval or demonstration is needed? [10–11]

3.  USACE counsel and local Corps district: Which proposals invoke navigation work, Section 10 authorization, Section 404 discharge permits, or another separate federal civil-works process? [5–6]

4.  State attorneys general and port counsel: What land, lease, easement, port, labor, environmental and sovereign-approval powers remain with the state; are additional state statutes required? [13]

5.  Federal procurement counsel: What minimum order is required for any federal IDIQ; when are multiyear cancellation charges lawful; how do federal and state procurement authorities remain separate? [7–9]

6.  Budget/OMB counsel: Which accounts may finance property, operations, training, research, commercial credit and subsidy; what liabilities must be scored and disclosed under appropriations law? [12]

7.  Labor/environmental counsel: Which work rules, prevailing-wage statutes, occupational-safety, remediation and environmental review provisions attach to each owner and funding stream?

8.  Commerce/NIST, DOE, NSF and cybersecurity counsel: How are open academic research, export-controlled technical data, secure computing, and private intellectual property separated under the applicable legal regime? [16]

Appendix C. Illustrative statutory clauses for legislative counsel

Proposed authorization concepts only; these are not statutory text in force.

Section 101. Limited purpose and scope

Establish a time-limited national pilot for bridge and port industrial capacity; prohibit interpretation as a grant of general military police, zoning, port, or commercial regulatory power.

Section 102. Site governance

Require selection between the DoD strategic stewardship option and civilian-directed option for each federal strategic site; publish a chart of final decision authorities.

Section 103. Voluntary state cooperation

Expressly preserve state decisions over project selection, bridge ownership, funding, standards approval and procurement; prohibit compelled participation.

Section 104. Supplier neutrality

No person otherwise qualified shall be excluded from a public procurement solely for not holding land or tenancy at a network campus.

Section 105. Demand integrity

Mandate four status labels for pipeline entries; prohibit representation of nonbinding forecasts as contracted obligations in official investor materials.

Section 106. Fiscal discipline

Separate appropriations/accounts, report contingent liabilities, require independent review and prohibit obligations unsupported by law.

Section 107. Oversight and expiration

Mandate public performance reports, site-level audits, congressional review, and sunset/reauthorization based on explicit decision criteria.

Appendix D. Founding pilot verification checklist

• A signed site control or option instrument; title and brownfield evidence reviewed by counsel.
• A bridge module family whose likely customers have independently identified technical suitability.
• A public forecast registry separating possible projects from funded legal orders.
• Utility capacity letters specifying delivered power/water dates and limitations.
• Published qualification protocol admitting existing off-campus and new fabricators equally.
• A governance memorandum choosing Option A or B and separating defense sites from civilian areas.
• An applicable procurement plan certified by each buyer’s legal and contracting officers.
• An independently reviewed whole-life economics model including below-plan utilization scenarios.
• University/workforce commitments and explicit open-research versus protected-research boundaries.
• A decision to proceed, alter, postpone or reject the pilot, with public reasons and bounded costs.

References and source record

[1] Swygert, John. (17 October 2026). The American Industrial Harbor Network: An Expanded Bridge-First National Industrial Capacity Strategy. Companion founding paper, supplied manuscript.

[2] U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 U.S.C. § 2474, Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation; public-private partnerships. Current text consulted 17 October 2026. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title10-section2474

[3] U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 U.S.C. § 2667, Leases: non-excess property of military departments and Defense Agencies. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title10-section2667

[4] U.S. Government Publishing Office. 10 U.S.C. § 2535, Defense Industrial Reserve (U.S. Code, 2024). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title10/html/USCODE-2024-title10-subtitleA-partV-subpartI-chap385.htm

[5] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regulatory Request System: Permitting—Sections 10 and 404. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://rrs.usace.army.mil/rrs/home/permitting

[6] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage District. Regulations and Resources: Rivers and Harbors Act § 10 / Clean Water Act § 404. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Regulations-and-Resources/

[7] Acquisition.gov. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Subpart 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts; §§ 16.503–16.504. FAC 2026-01 (effective 13 March 2026). https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-16.5

[8] Acquisition.gov. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Subpart 17.1, Multi-year Contracting. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-17.1

[9] Acquisition.gov. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 6, Competition Requirements. FAC 2026-01 (effective 13 March 2026). https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-6

[10] U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 23 U.S.C. § 112, Letting of contracts. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title23-section112

[11] Federal Highway Administration. Construction Program Guide: Construction Contracting Method. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/contract.cfm

[12] U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 31 U.S.C. § 1341, Limitations on expending and obligating amounts. Text current to 7 October 2026. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t31/s1341/

[13] Maryland State Archives. Maryland Port Administration: Functions and State Port Responsibilities. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/24dot/html/24agen.html

[14] Tradepoint Atlantic. Industrial Real Estate Development at Sparrows Point: Port and Industrial Development Status. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.tradepointatlantic.com/development/

[15] Federal Highway Administration. Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems: Accelerated Bridge Construction Technologies. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/

[16] National Science Foundation. About NSF Regional Innovation Engines: Research, Technology Translation and Workforce Development. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/regional-innovation-engines/about-nsf-engines

[17] Federal Highway Administration. Buy America, Construction Program Guide; updated 3 February 2026. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/buyam_qa.cfm

[18] Maritime Administration. Port Infrastructure Development Program, FY2026 guidance and grant eligibility. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants

[19] U.S. Economic Development Administration. Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance: program purposes and eligible activities. Consulted 17 October 2026. https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/economic-adjustment-assistance