
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8f Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Cons:
(1) Does not meet airport Security Standards.
(2) Does nothing to mitigate security breaches around the perimeter.
(3) Creates unanticipated expense dollars as planning and design efforts through 90%
design will need to be expensed.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Minimize gate scope to the locations required by Perimeter Intrusion Detection
System, and individually upgrade the east perimeter in the future to bring them up to current
Security Standards.
Cost Implications: $3,300,000
Pros:
(1) Reduced capital spending in 2025.
(2) Reduced construction impacts to airport/airline operations in 2025.
Cons:
(1) Additional labor costs for contactors on-boarding and mobilization.
(2) Additional escalation costs.
(3) Additional risk in less attractive contracts for bidders.
(4) Higher risk of security breaches around the AOA perimeter.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Increase the budget and complete the full scope of work.
Cost Implications: $4,600,000
Pros:
(1) Reduces safety risks, minimizes operational impacts and increases efficiencies as
coordination and construction is managed as a single effort.
(2) Minimizes time to completion, limiting exposure to future cost increases, while
delivering benefits expeditiously.
(3) Eliminates the need for unanticipated expense costs in 2024.
Cons:
(1) Additional capital expenditures.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The project is still within the estimate range of $2,542,000 to $5,084,000 from the estimate
utilized at the previous commission authorization.