TERMINAL DELAY: CITY ON VERGE OF STARTING OVER

When a plan was approved last year to renovate the Cape Girardeau Municipal Airport terminal building, the project was expected to boost economic development and airport boardings.

But continued delays due to the Federal Aviation Administration's dogmatic enforcement of its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program has frustrated airport users and tenants alike.

The program essentially sets a quota for the percentage of minority subcontractors who participate in airport projects that use FAA funds.

At a May 4 meeting, the city council approved a resolution to reject all contractor bids and rebid the renovation project if the FAA didn't award the construction contract by Tuesday.

And although no contract has been awarded, the city has put off rebidding the project until the FAA rules on a bid by R.A. Schemel and Associates.

The FAA last month threatened to reject Schemel's bid of $907,000 because the company failed to meet the DBE requirements for minority subcontractors the second contractor to fall victim to the FAA's enforcement of the DBE program.

The FAA in March refused to approve an $880,000 bid from Sides Construction Co. for the same reason.

City Manager J. Ronald Fischer said Thursday he decided to extend the council's ultimatum deadline because Schemel assured him that given additional DBE documentation submitted this week the FAA will approve the bid.

"Schemel had arranged to get a qualified DBE electrical subcontractor, and that has been sent to the FAA for approval," said Fischer. "I felt like since they had a qualified subcontractor by our deadline date, that we should extend our deadline for them until we heard back from the FAA."

Fischer said that although the deadline was extended for Schemel, if the FAA rejects the bid, the project will be rebid immediately.

Tenants of the terminal building Trans World Express and National and Hertz car rentals were moved in February to two mobile construction trailers outside the building.

"It's a terrible inconvenience for renters out there," Fischer said. "That's where we're disappointed. We're very upset with the whole process."

City officials aren't alone in their discontent. Brenda Eakin, manager of National Car Rental, and Lourine King, a Hertz agent, said the mobile facilities are inconvenient, uncomfortable, and possibly unsafe.

"A construction trailer makes a good construction trailer, but not a good office building," said Eakin.

"It's very hard for us to operate all the equipment we have in here. We have to be sure we're not using the same side of the trailer or we'll blow circuits."

Eakin also said the offices are poorly ventilated, heated and cooled. "I don't feel comfortable during the tornado season either," she said.

She also had to relinquish her fire insurance when she moved into the mobile office.

"We were told we'd be out here six months, and now it looks like it will be six months before they even get started," said Eakin. "It's a shame a project this size is being held up."

She said Airport Manager Mark Seesing has had to suffer the brunt of criticism for the project delays. But Eakin didn't blame local officials.

"I don't think it's the fault of the city," she said. "They've tried to get things done. It's the federal government who's not been cooperative here."

But Fischer said the delay hasn't been a result of the FAA's inaction. He said the agency has been in close contact with the city throughout the process.

"For a federal agency, it's moving along rather rapidly," he said. "They just keep saying no."

The city manager said Cape Girardeau's quandary is not unique. He said all over the nation, the FAA is closely examining projects it funds to make certain contractors meet the DBE requirements.

Fischer said the FAA's bitter pill would be easier to swallow if the agency was funding a greater share of the terminal building project. Many FAA projects are funded almost entirely by the federal government, and require only 10 percent local matching funds.

"This is one where we're paying 60-some percent," Fischer said. "That's what's so disappointing to us.

"They're holding up the project, we're without use of building, and, yes, $300,000 or $400,000 which is what they're funding is a lot of money. But is it worth it? That becomes a question at this point."