Small Pangborn project triggers bigger debate over engineering costs

WENATCHEE — A relatively small passenger amenity project at Pangborn Memorial Airport prompted a broader policy discussion at the Chelan-Douglas Regional Port Authority about how the agency delivers design work for its growing list of capital improvements.

The project — which will add a post-security drinking fountain and bottle-filling station, relocate vending machines, install a small coffee service counter and create a sink where passengers can empty liquids before passing through screening — carries a construction cost of $38,454.90. Design, permitting and construction administration bring the total project budget to $73,994.

Port Construction Project Manager Nick Rohrbach said the disparity between costs for design and actual construction labor reflects the reality of public works delivery for small projects, where the level of effort required to produce plans, specifications and coordination is similar regardless of construction cost.

Commissioner Donn Etherington openly scoffed at the explanation as staff described the disparity between design and construction costs.

“We’re spending [more than] $30,000 just to design the thing and the construction costs are $38,000,” Etherington said. “Something’s out of whack with that.”

Commissioner Richard DeRock, however, used the example to question whether the port’s current approach to engineering contracts remains the most efficient as its capital program expands.

Staff emphasized that the percentage appears high in part because the construction bid came in well below the original estimate and because the work is located inside a secure area of the terminal, which limits contractor access and requires additional coordination.

Ridgeline Custom Builders submitted the lowest of three bids for the project. The company is already working at the airport on the TSA tenant improvement and baggage screening remodel, which staff said likely reduced mobilization costs and contributed to the lower price.

DeRock said the issue goes beyond a single project and reflects a structural challenge for an organization that is managing more capital work than in previous years.

Rather than continuing to treat small projects as stand-alone efforts, he suggested grouping multiple jobs into a single annual engineering contract.

“When you’re adding engineering costs when it’s a small project, you’re going to see way higher costs,” he said. “We need to package small stuff together and look at the work for the year and say, ‘Here’s our bid for engineering for the airport this year.’”

Such an approach, he said, would allow firms to price work more efficiently and give the port greater predictability in both cost and delivery.

Staff said the current system follows standard public works requirements and is structured to ensure compliance with state law, but agreed to explore options for handling small projects more efficiently.

The discussion ended without a change in policy, but with direction to evaluate whether a programmatic approach to engineering services could reduce costs as the port’s project list continues to grow.

Commissioners then approved the construction contract and established the full project budget.

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media