Did they ever figure out who was sleeping with whom/who was related to whom?

Is there some obvious reason to blame that specific contractor?

But I didn't see anything in that description that was against serving the public. The only way to serve the public at that point in time was launching an investigation, not making super preliminary statements about what could have gone wrong and who could have been hurt.

I wouldn't say the tone deafness itself is a significant sign of corruption.

‘Don’t blame the contractor?’ Concern.

I think he said both of the things you listed. How do we interpret saying both?

The thing he didn't do was separate, saying much about how dangerous it was.

If you answer that question considering that corruption may indeed be involved, the answer is quite obvious no?

Well that's not true. Incorrectly blaming a particular company in the heat of the moment could lead to harm or harassment, and it's good to remind people to wait for a real investigation. The last thing the DOT wants at that point is even more avoidable mistakes.

And if it was motivated by corruption that statement seems like a bad idea. It draws a lot of attention to that specific contractor while telling people to wait for the investigation. If they are at fault, that extra attention is bad for them in the long run.

There is zero legitimate reason for the DOT to try to protect the contractor in this situation.

It easily could have been a different contractor, or even not a contractor.

You can't do anything about the past, but you can do something about the future.

The DOT head should be looking at both things. But at that point in time there's nothing they can meaningfully say about what happened except by making a serious promise to investigate. On the other end, the harm from incorrectly blaming the wrong people is something they can try to prevent.

It probably was tone-deaf but when you say their underlying concerns are wrong I disagree.