02-21-2025, 04:56 PM
I debated starting a new thread, but a comment from a poster sort of “triggered” me to make this post in this thread, since the bottom-line issues are more or less the same – “impacts of federal cuts on the State of Hawaii.”
According to this article on Big Island News
Bids for Nānue Bridge rehabilitation project tens of millions higher than state’s revised cost estimate : Big Island Now
The Hawai‘i Department of Transportation received three bids for a project to rehabilitate the more than 70-year-old Nānue Bridge, with the lowest bid coming in at 167 Million.
In November of 2024, the State awarded Isemoto Contracting Co. a contract for work on the Hakalau Stream Bridge for 81 million.
So – total amounts for both bridge projects is at 248 Million.
In accordance with the federal grant award through the U.S. Department of Transportation Infrastructure for Rebuilding America program, these projects are/would be funded by an 80-20 split of federal and state funds.
In January 2024, the state was awarded 74.6 million from this program to begin the work as outlined.
So, under the 80-20 split as called for by law, 198.4 Million would be paid by the federal government with the remaining 49.6 Million by the state.
If we take the anticipated 198.4 Million the federal government is expected to pick up, less the 74.6 Million already awarded, that leaves a balance of 123.8 Million. (And I would doubt that the original 74.6 Million has been released as “liquid cash” which typically is only released as monies are actually spent.)
So then, the trigger comment was:
“Terminations very often come with no warning. It's unfortunate. It's reality. Parties take responsibility for due diligence to ensure the solvency of the entities and their funding sources, with whom they contract and engage.”
Should the state reexamine and do some pretty hefty due diligence of the solvency of the entity that’s by law their 80% partner – before they write another contract for 167 Million? Do they tell Isemoto their 81 Million is really now 16.2 million?
I’d suggest they most certainly do some very hefty due diligence.
According to this article on Big Island News
Bids for Nānue Bridge rehabilitation project tens of millions higher than state’s revised cost estimate : Big Island Now
The Hawai‘i Department of Transportation received three bids for a project to rehabilitate the more than 70-year-old Nānue Bridge, with the lowest bid coming in at 167 Million.
In November of 2024, the State awarded Isemoto Contracting Co. a contract for work on the Hakalau Stream Bridge for 81 million.
So – total amounts for both bridge projects is at 248 Million.
In accordance with the federal grant award through the U.S. Department of Transportation Infrastructure for Rebuilding America program, these projects are/would be funded by an 80-20 split of federal and state funds.
In January 2024, the state was awarded 74.6 million from this program to begin the work as outlined.
So, under the 80-20 split as called for by law, 198.4 Million would be paid by the federal government with the remaining 49.6 Million by the state.
If we take the anticipated 198.4 Million the federal government is expected to pick up, less the 74.6 Million already awarded, that leaves a balance of 123.8 Million. (And I would doubt that the original 74.6 Million has been released as “liquid cash” which typically is only released as monies are actually spent.)
So then, the trigger comment was:
“Terminations very often come with no warning. It's unfortunate. It's reality. Parties take responsibility for due diligence to ensure the solvency of the entities and their funding sources, with whom they contract and engage.”
Should the state reexamine and do some pretty hefty due diligence of the solvency of the entity that’s by law their 80% partner – before they write another contract for 167 Million? Do they tell Isemoto their 81 Million is really now 16.2 million?
I’d suggest they most certainly do some very hefty due diligence.