Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Apc Progress topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MPO staff report FHWA-mandated edits to draft 2026–30 TIP; SR‑225 bridge bid far above estimate, project shifted to FY2026
Summary
MPO staff told the Tippecanoe County MPO Policy Board on April 10 that FHWA directed removal of certain language from the draft 2026–2030 TIP to comply with presidential executive orders, that FY2025 federal funds have been obligated, and that the State Road 225 bridge bid exceeded the engineer's estimate, prompting a move to re-let the project as a FY2026 standalone contract.
Get email alerts on the Apc Progress topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MPO staff told the Tippecanoe County MPO Policy Board on April 10 that recent federal guidance requires edits to the draft 2026–2030 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and that a State Road 225 bridge reconstruction project will be rebid as a standalone project in fiscal year 2026 after yesterday's bids exceeded the engineer's estimate.
Doug (staff member) reported the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided minor technical comments on the draft 2026–30 TIP but also instructed MPOs to remove certain language and analyses because of new presidential executive orders; FHWA warned that TIPs not revised to conform would not be approved. "Due to the executive orders from the president, we are to remove a number of different words from the document and any analysis related to that," Doug said. Staff scrubbed the draft of the specified wording, prepared a companion document that lists the changes, and planned to post the updated draft and companion material on the MPO website the following day.
Doug also described a possible administrative complication with the LPA (Local Public Agency) contract process: some state agencies want the specific dollar amounts shown in the LPA contract to exactly match the TIP entries. If that matching requirement were enforced it could require submitting updated LPA contracts to the district, which would then route them to other state agencies (including the attorney general's office) and could delay project implementation. Tim (staff member) explained that updating the LPA contract and routing for additional agency review could delay moving a project forward by "6, 8 weeks or even more." Board members were asked to be prepared that staff might have to return with amendments if additional guidance arrives after state deadlines.
On federal funding obligations, staff reported all fiscal year 2025 federal funds for the MPO area have been obligated in advance of the April 24 deadline. Doug credited NDOT local-program staff, singling out Kathy Eaton McCallop, for accelerating a large batch of LPA contract processing so that engineering phases for Soldier's Home Road phase 2 and an emergency-vehicle preemption project could be obligated on time.
Finally, staff reviewed the state's 18‑month letting list and bid results. Bids opened for a combined bridge reconstruction package that included the State Road 225 bridge. Two bids were received: the low bid for the package was $21,780,000 (a contractor based in Chicago) and the second bid was $35,290,000. Doug and Scott Chandler said those bids were substantially over the engineer's combined estimate (about $12,000,000 for the two bridges) and that the SR‑225 portion alone had an engineer's estimate around $7,000,000. Scott Chandler said limited bidder availability and competition likely contributed to high bids and that staff will explore whether contract structure or scheduling can improve market interest. "Our experiment to combine the projects didn't quite work the way we like," Doug said. "As of today, we are moving the 02/25 project back to a stand alone project, because that is our priority, and we are gonna move it into fiscal year 26."
Board members asked staff to pursue options to repackage or reschedule the work to attract bidders and to report back; staff said they will try to relist the SR‑225 project as quickly as practicable. Staff also pointed board members to the companion document that highlights wording removed from the draft TIP, and said the MPO will continue documenting public comment and cross‑referencing INDOT/STIP table formats where required.
The board offered no further comments and moved to other business.

