5    of the bridge to repaint with lead-free paint.6 Among other operations, the Project required  containment and blasting work.SeeL&L PFC, at ¶¶9-11; Odyssey Reply to PFC, at ¶2. The  containment work required the enclosure of the site with tarps and nettings to protect against lead  and other chemicals entering the environment as well as shielding work requiring the installation  of platforms to protect both motorists and pedestrians from falling materials. SeeL&L PFC, at  ¶¶9-10; Odyssey Reply to PFC, at ¶2. The blasting work required removal of existing paint through  sandblasting followed by repainting.SeeL&L PFC, at ¶11; Odyssey Reply to PFC, at ¶2. The  base price of the Project exceeded $167 million.SeeUndisputed Facts, at 2 (¶1), 5 (¶2).  The  Subcontracts    After becoming the successful bidder, L&L sought to secure Odyssey as a subcontractor  on the Project. Odyssey’s work was to be done at an area designated as Location 2, specifically  the truss and towers, also referred to as the main span of the bridge.SeeL&L PFC, at ¶12; Odyssey  Reply to PFC, at ¶2. The work included the bridge’s four towers, which provided structural support  to the bridge and were topped off by spires. Undisputed Facts, at 5 (¶39). Odyssey’s two main  operations at its designated location were the preliminary operation of the containment work  followed by the blasting and repainting.SeeL&L PFC, at ¶¶13, 16; Odyssey Reply to PFC, at ¶2.  Although initially Semanderes advised that Odyssey would do this work for a price of $50 million,  he subsequently agreed to accept $40 million. Transcript E, at 12, 16. However, as Odyssey had  no bonding at the time, the parties sought to resolve this issue by breaking the agreement into four   6  See Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law by Plaintiff L&L Painting Co.,  Inc. and Additional Defendant on the Counterclaim Federal Insurance Company, (“L&L PFC,” Doc. No. 192), at ¶7;Odyssey’s Reply to L&L’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law(“Odyssey Reply to PFC,” Doc. No. 205), at ¶1, identifying proposed facts that are not disputed by Odyssey. The Court will only cite to the parties’ proposed findings of fact to support a finding where the fact alleged is undisputed.  Case 15-02164-CMB Doc 207 Filed 03/20/18 Entered 03/20/18 14:44:46 Desc Main  Document Page 5 of 42

Document 207