I believe the question was derived in what CA might do if the upstream monies were suddenly jeopardized (FEMA & water contractors via DWR exposed as Liable for the failure). (i.e. even though DWR has the line of credit, politically what would they possibly do if they knew their reimbursement sources went south).
Kiewit is a smart company with the legal & professional resources to deal with and anticipate the typical contract financial "games". DWR is desperate in "looking good" right now as this whole crisis & the official forensics don't look good. DWR is also facing a growing resistance in the relicensing politics.
The May 11 Legislative hearing revealed a scrutiny in questions on DWR's anticipated reimbursement costs by the financial sources in charge (State). With Legislator Gallagher & State Sen Nielsen (press & others) keeping close ties to activities, I suspect that any "games" with financial payments in reconstruction work would likely become public very quickly.
In fact, at that Legislative hearing, there was pressure applied to DWR to insure there were "incentive" payment rewards for the contractor in delivering "better-than" in schedules.
With all of this added together, I suspect that DWR (and the state) would think twice about messing in "payment games".
What I'm more concerned with is a "blitz" of "mis-information" intended to defuse the impact of the upcoming forensic report (if it hasn't been effectively thwarted internally by now - i.e. clue indicator - the forensic team asking public for confidential input)
I agree that "games" can be played. I also suspect that there will be new explosive revelations that DWR doesn't want out in the public. How? The first clue was the obvious "twisting" by the foundation inspection memo 8 report.
The stakes are extremely high right now for DWR (and indirectly including the state). This situation determines the level of what "games" or moves on the game table may be played to avert the potential damage.
Correction - the “incentive” payment item was brought up in an earlier Legislative hearing, not the May 11 hearing. (I need to find the earlier date).