IBJNews

Airport demolition bids come in way under budget

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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
    FYI
  • Really Joe?
    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...
  • Really
    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.
  • airport
    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

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.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT