IBJNews

  • Home

Airport demolition bids come in way under budget

Kathleen McLaughlin
March 15, 2013
Keywords
Construction, Construction Bids/Contracts, Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis International Airport, Midfield Terminal, Real Estate & Retail, Transportation, Distribution & Logistics
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Taking down the old passenger terminal at Indianapolis International Airport could cost half as much as anticipated.

The Indianapolis Airport Authority had budgeted $11.3 million, but the total project cost, including a 17-percent contingency for unforeseen problems, would be $5.7 million, according to an airport staff memo about bids received early this year.

The airport authority board voted Friday to approve all but one of the recommended contracts. Veit USA of Rogers, Minn., was the low bidder for the main demolition contract, with a bid of about $4 million. That would cover all buildings and slabs, as well as basements under the former “C” and “D” concourses, according to an airport authority memo.

The airport received 13 bids ranging from $3.5 million to $9.7 million on the demolition contract. The initial lowest bid was thrown out because of the bidder's math error.

The board delayed its vote on a $411,660 construction-management contract for Harmon Construction of North Vernon after airport staff realized that Harmon’s asbestos-management subcontractor, Shrewsberry & Associates of Indianapolis, is already working on design aspects of the project. A single firm is not allowed to work under two separate contracts, airport spokesman Carlo Bertolini said.

The airport will revise the scope of Harmon’s contract and place asbestos management under the engineering contract, where Shrewsberry is already a subcontractor, Bertolini said. The board will vote on both changes in April, and there will be no change in the project timeline or cost, he said.

The board also approved a $102,500 extension to Columbus-based DLZ Indiana LLC’s construction-phase engineering contract.

The airport initially planned to take down the old terminal over three years, but the staff last December recommended speeding up the schedule to make the site more marketable. The old terminal was abandoned after the new terminal opened in 2008. Parts of the old terminal date to the 1930s.

The demolition is expected to be finished by the end of the year.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Airport
    GaryMay 12, 2013 9:40 AM
    FYI
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Really Joe?
    MarshallMarch 16, 2013 10:02 AM
    We need an investigation to determine the range in the bids? Ummm... maybe the same reason I can go to Fridays and get a steak for $9.99 or go to St. Elmos and get one for $49.99? There... investigation over. They havent even awarded a contract yet and already someone is crying foul...
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Really
    JoeMarch 14, 2013 3:52 PM
    How about an article that investigates why the engineer's estimate was twice as much as the lowest responsive bid or how the bids could have a range of over $6 million? Certainly seems like there was just a wee bit of confusion. I don't recall every seeing such a large discrepancy in a public bid project.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • airport
    bruceMarch 14, 2013 3:28 PM
    heck what did it cost to build 5 million back then ?and it lasted all these years, shame to destroy. as anything new now days is not anymore a good deal at a billion dollars for the new one was it?but a mess with short lifespan in value, heck i always want to seee old airport start up a discount air service ir put the gov offices or charter school in them
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ

  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT