A Tempe company has submitted an apparently low bid to build the first of three Interstate 40 transit interchanges (TIs) in Kingman. Although six companies were plan holders, he was the only one to make formal bids for the West Kingman Beale Street TI.
Fisher Sand and Gravel Company's bid was $106.5 million, about 9 percent lower than the state's estimate of $115 million. Other bids held in Phoenix on Friday included:
$123.4 million from FNF Construction, Inc. of Tempe, $143.7 million from Granite Construction Company of Tucson and $168 million from Scottsdale-based Pulice Construction, Inc.;
ADOT expects analysis of the submissions to lead to a bid award in the spring, followed by a two-year construction campaign.
The goal of the infrastructure upgrades is to give Interstate 40 and U.S. 93 motorists a seamless connection between Phoenix and Las Vegas without having to stop at intersection ramps. The improvements are also intended to accommodate increased traffic volumes, reduce congestion and avoid backups that often occur during busy travel periods.
“ADOT has been monitoring traffic growth and congestion in West Kingman for many years,” the agency's website states, adding, “Traffic volume is increasing compared to the amount the current Diamond Interchange is designed to accommodate. It exceeds that.”
The selected contractor will be responsible for Phase 1 of the project, which will first construct a directional ramp from Phoenix to Las Vegas. Other directional ramps connecting Las Vegas and California will be in Phase 2, with schedules determined by future traffic volumes and available funding.
The other two Kingman I-40 TI projects include Kingman Crossing, led by Kingman Regional Medical Center, and Rancho Santa Fe TI, led by the City of Kingman and private partner KDP Managers.
The status of the partnership between Kingman and KDP Managers, bound by a Development Agreement (DA), has become unstable over time and is currently very ambiguous.
The council held lengthy executive meetings on the DA or project in both January and February. The Feb. 21 board meeting included another hour of closed-door discussions.
After each executive meeting, the council remained silent and took no action, leaving a curious public seeking enlightenment.
