Airport improvements in a holding pattern
Because the dollar amounts did not line up from the budgeted amount, the engineer’s estimate and actual bid, efforts by members of the Estherville City Council to accept a bid for the six unit tee hangar and taxilanes were grounded.
The council held a public hearing at its regular May 5 meeting for the Estherville Municipal Airport Improvements. Titled Project Federal Aviation Administration AIP #3-19-0032-6, the improvements center on the six-unit tee hangar and taxilanes.
The project is contingent upon the plans, specifications, form of contract, subject to FAA concurrence on the award, and contingent upon receiving the federal funding assistance. The city has budgeted a local match of 5 percent, or $20,850 of the project cost which at the outset was $417,000.
There were no comments from the public sector and the public hearing was closed.
Estherville Finance Director Vaughn Brua directed council to look over the tabulation sheet. He said of the 12 firms and contractors, only one, Christensen Construction of Estherville, submitted a bid.
Further inspection showed the budgeted amount for construction is $365,400 while the engineer’s estimate was a bit higher at $385,610. Christensen’s bid for construction was $592,139.19.
The estimate given by the engineer for the standing seam roof is $27,850 while Christensen’s bid included a cost of $8,800.
Engineering costs were as follows: budgeted amount of $51,600; engineer’s estimate of $53,618 (actual amount) and Christensen’s bid of $53,618 (actual amount).
The total amount for this project is $417,000 and engineer’s total estimate is $467,078. Christensen Construction total bid stands at $654,557.19.
Brua also tabulated the 5 percent local match differential across the board:
n Budgeted amount, $20,850.
n Engineer’s estimate, $23,353.90.
n Christensen Construction, $32,727.86.
Brua said alternatives are being considered but nothing is firm at this time.
“We have asked FAA to fund 95 percent of the higher project costs but we were told no.”
Council took no action and decided to table the matter until all other avenues are exhausted. The submitted bid is good for 120 days.
Brua reminded council the delay could mean a more expensive project.