im2kull wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:45 pm
Didn't Burns & McDonnell offer up a nice, new airport solution to the city well before the voter referendum and heavily criticized bidding process began? Did we just burn that bridge for a wishful (promise) lie that we could get an airport sooner, and for cheaper if we went with ______ company?
You're dreaming if you think it would have been cheaper.
Under the bid proposals Edgemoor was originally at $1 billion which was up to $2.2 billion with financing costs included. (35 years)
B&M's no bid proposal was $2.9 billion with financing costs included.
Their No bid cost was 130% of Edgemoor's bid cost. That's without the size increase.
At the end of the day the size increase would have seen everyone's price go up. But B&M was already at 130% the price and no one had the tariffs in play when they bid.
Their plan, except for the shape, was the same basic design (this article has the same costs as the link below)
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/ma ... al-airport
*maybe* we could have got more per dollar but that's wishful thinking at best. And one key piece had the financing as different. Edgemoor had the only 100% privately financed bid and they're responsible for cost overages.
What you're seeing right now is planning up front under this risk profile. They can't pass on cost increases and extra labor for additional days through change orders. They need to identify the total price up front. Once the agreement is finalized they will hit both cost and date targets because their profits are on the line if they don't. The streetcar used a similar overage risk model with success.
For comparison this is B&M's LAX project. They went 66% over budget.
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2015/09/17/ ... udit-says/
The first scope of
Source for costs.
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... loper.html