By Brian Maass


DENVER (CBS4) – The developer of Denver International Airport’s Great Hall Terminal has publicly released a new construction update, confirming earlier CBS4 reporting that the project will likely open at least 30 months behind schedule, but the delay could stretch past three and a half years.

(credit: CBS)

The schedule update, dated June 14 and posted on a public website, warns that due to delays over concrete concerns in the terminal, the Great Hall redevelopment shapes up as 931 days, or 30 months, behind schedule.

“The preliminary schedule set forth above represents the D&C Contractor’s current preliminary estimates and is subject in all respects to further assessment, analysis, review, modification, all of which is ongoing…” reads the report.

It seems to suggest there could be even further delays if everything doesn’t go right.

“The above preliminary schedule assumes expedited design iterations and Permit approval processes. The achievement of such timeline assumptions, in certain cases, may depend on third party approvals over which the Developer has no control and agreement by the Owner with the proposed mitigation measures necessary to achieve such timing assumptions. If such expedited iterations and permitting processes cannot be achieved within the timeframes assumed by such assumptions, the above schedule will impact the Project Substantial Completion date at least by an additional 160 working days/233 calendar days.”

(credit: CBS)

That would mean the developer projects the delays on the $650 million redevelopment could hit 38 months.

The project was originally supposed to be completed by 2021 but now may not be done until at least 2024, according to the developer’s most recent estimate.

The terminal redevelopment started in 2018 with the intent of increasing terminal capacity, redesigning security, improving passenger flow and creating more retail space in the “Great Hall.”

But early in the project, the developer, Great Hall Partners, led by Ferrovial, an international airport developer, said testing showed terminal concrete was weaker than expected, stalling the project and adding time and costs.

In one confidential document viewed by CBS4, Ferrovial estimated cost overruns on the project due to delays, change orders and other factors may total $311 million, or a nearly 47% cost increase. Denver’s mayor has said the city is studying those developer-generated estimates and will respond with its own assessment.

(credit: CBS)

Additional testing by an engineer hired by Denver suggested the terminal concrete is safe to build on but that additional testing should be conducted on other areas of the airport.

The newly released construction update notes that GHP and the City of Denver are “currently assessing and seeking good faith resolutions regarding the schedule and monetary impact…”

The two sides are scheduled to engage in mediation this month to see if they can resolve their differences over project costs and delays.

A spokesperson for Great Hall Partners told CBS4 she could not comment on the most recent public filing.

Additional Information

Here is the most recent public schedule for the Great Hall Project.

Brian Maass

Comments (3)
  1. Lenny Manning says:

    Maybe it’s being managed by CDOT.

    Then again maybe this is just the norm in Colorado.

  2. Many will recall the substandard runway concrete problem back in the 1990s. Stands to reason that there were/are issues in the various buildings as well. The testing on the terminal done in the late 1990s- early 2000s (IIRC some floor sections were x-rayed) obviously didn’t find all of the problem areas. I suspect that the problems might be more widespread than previously known.

  3. John Sims says:

    So, I’ve heard that equipment used on site is falling through the concrete, which doesn’t “spec out” to holding up under the equipment’s weight. The floor is weak for mobile cranes that have been leased for necessary over head construction. Nobody bothered to core the floor in about 20 locations 2 yrs ago to determine the strength of interior slab? How about the analysis of the mud that was brought in for the pump-n-pour in the early 90’s? Maybe it’s been too many years to care about accountability? Western European construction companies have been doing so much high over head work in ancient cathedrals for so many years, do these companies only use hand built and erected scaffolding for this work because of the ancient flooring of the structures? Or, is there a better way using different, lighter, smaller equipment that may make the job go out maybe only another 6 months? I know that changing leases on equipment and its providers, and some man-power needs might be inconvenient.