
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8i Page 4 of 7
Meeting Date: January 9, 2024
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Alternative 1 – No temporary office and ramp support space for existing tenants
Cost Implications: $500,000 - $1,000,000 (Acceleration Costs and/or Schedule delays)
Pros:
(1) Additional costs to facilitate the design and construction implementation of temporary
provisions would not be incurred.
(2) Existing tenants located on Concourse B ramp will only be relocated once to their
renovated office space, in lieu of an additional temporary relocation.
Cons:
(1) Does not allow the project team to mitigate schedule delays or improve construction
sequencing and phasing.
(2) Potential to delay United Airlines Gate allocation on Concourse B in 2025
(3) Delays the GCCM from beginning work in tenant lease spaces critical to facilitating the
United Airlines Gate allocation.
(4) Costs will continue to escalate.
(5) Significantly reduces the advantages of the GCCM contracting method by delaying the
work the mechanical and electrical subcontractors could negotiate and perform now.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Delay delivery of United Airlines gate allocation on Concourse B to align with the
Concourse B mechanical upgrades (No temporary conditioned air).
Cost Implications: $500,000 - $2,000,000 (Acceleration Costs and/or Schedule delays)
Pros:
(1) Additional costs to facilitate the design and construction implementation of temporary
provisions would not be incurred.
(2) The impact and coordination to existing ramp operations would be eliminated as the
temporary infrastructure would not be located at Concourse B ramp.
Cons:
(1) Does not allow the project team to mitigate schedule delays or improve construction
sequencing and phasing.
(2) Potential to delay United Airlines Gate allocation on Concourse B in September 2025
due to dependence on mechanical upgrades to Concourse B.
(3) Significantly reduces the advantages of the GCCM contracting method by delaying the
work the mechanical and electrical subcontractors could negotiate and perform now.
(4) Does not align with the Port’s overall airline realignment criteria and future gate
allocation by advancing the relocation of airlines as planned.
This is not the recommended alternative.