So often the language outlining Minnesota's myriad laws is an eye-glazing thicket of legalese. But deep within the statute outlining the state's settlement with Interstate 35W bridge collapse victims is a clear, plaintive sentence summing up the devastation of that hot August rush hour: "No other structure owned by this state has ever fallen with such physical and psychological impact on so many."

Two years after the span plunged into the river, Minnesotans are still healing and still wondering how it happened. Yes, the gusset plates failed, as federal investigators concluded. But why wasn't the problem caught over 40 years of maintenance?

The lingering pain and uncertainty are why it's so disappointing to see how the Minnesota Department of Transportation's new leadership has handled the latest questions about the disaster. According to a recent story by the Star Tribune's Mike Kaszuba (tinyurl.com/m5rk2y), the state has put itself in a puzzling position by awarding more than $55 million in contracts to two firms it now claims are largely responsible for the bridge's collapse.

The lawsuits against Progressive Contractors Inc. (PCI) and the engineering firm URS Corp. were filed in recent months to recover some of the costs incurred by the state when the bridge fell -- about $37 million has been paid to survivors and victims' families. The lawsuits filed against the two companies allege that they contributed to the collapse. PCI should have told MnDOT about its plans to place heavy equipment on the bridge the day it fell, the state's suit claims. The complaint in the URS suit calls the firm "negligent" multiple times for its failure to review original plans and detect the underdesigned gusset plates. URS has declined to comment on the contracts; PCI's attorney said the recent contracts are evidence MnDOT has confidence in the St. Michael, Minn.-based road repair firm.

So why is the state continuing to rely on these two companies and award them new contracts? It's not only a matter of looking "odd," as state Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, pointed out this week. It's a safety issue. Does MnDOT trust these firms or not? More important, should Minnesotans feel secure as they drive through construction zones and over newly improved thoroughfares?

The public deserves an explanation from MnDOT. Yet multiple queries to the agency's new leadership have yielded a tone-deaf response: a standard "no comment" because pending litigation is involved. Is this the old MnDOT or the new, post-collapse agency promising transparency and accountability?

Interviews with legal and construction experts suggest the state has valid reasons to continue working with the firms. The lawsuit's allegations remain unproven. It's not unusual for governments to work with firms it's suing. And, companies barred from bidding for state contracts have mainly been those engaging in intentional criminal activity -- though maybe it's time to revisit that policy.

MnDOT could have provided this information without creating legal hassles. Having its new commissioner, Tom Sorel, a respected engineer, explain this would have done much to reassure Minnesota drivers.

MnDOT officials contend the agency has become much more transparent since the collapse. No argument there. Sorel is generally more accessible than his predecessor, and the agency has done much, particularly on its website, to help the public track construction projects and spending. But reverting back to "no comment" and failing to explain its ongoing relationships with the two firms it's implicating in the collapse is a step backward.