Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hangar Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews single proposal to relocate Hangar L to Hangar Q site; committee recommends reissuing RFP
Summary
Staff reported one response to the Hangar L RFP proposing to move surplus hangar materials to replace Hangar Q; board members discussed height and siting requirements and recommended reposting the RFP to attract more proposals and allow applicants to complete scoring information.
The Cleveland Airport Board reviewed one proposal received in response to a request for proposals (RFP) to replace Hangar Q using materials and components from Hangar L, and members discussed regulatory and site‑preparation issues before recommending a second RFP posting.
Jenny Shipp, who presented the proposal to the board, said the committee received a single submission from a Quonset‑hut company and family representatives proposing to demolish a Quonset hut and rebuild Hangar L in the Hangar Q location using the materials currently staged at the airport. “We received 1 proposal back from, the Quonset Hut company, Genie Shipp and Family,” Shipp said.
Board members warned that demolition and new construction can trigger current height and siting standards that may not be entirely grandfathered. A member said height limits in proximity to runways are often grandfathered for existing buildings but that a new structure must meet current requirements. Staff and board members agreed that FAA and TxDOT would review plans during the construction submittal and that final approved dimensions would be determined in that pre‑construction review.
The RFP committee reported that the single proposal arrived late in the first posting window and that the committee’s score sheet lacked some required information, which would lower the initial evaluation score. One member recommended reposting the RFP for an additional two weeks and broadening outreach — for example, using social media and aviation industry lists — to attract more proposals. “My recommendation would be to put it out for another 2 weeks, for the RFP,” a board member said.
Members also discussed the airport’s revenue strategy, noting that additional hangar capacity could increase Jet A sales and attract tenants with light jets that require indoor storage. Several members said building both proposed hangars would provide greater long‑term benefit.
No final contract award was approved at the meeting. The board directed staff to consider reposting the RFP with clearer submission guidance so proposers can complete the scoring information and to confirm FAA/TxDOT preconstruction review requirements before any contract is finalized.
