A highly anticipated light-rail extension project in Southern California has hit a major roadblock as officials reject the only bid received—deeming it too expensive to move forward.
The Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (FGLCA) announced it is scrapping its current procurement process for the final 3.2-mile leg of the LA Metro A Line extension after receiving a single proposal from Kiewit that was nearly $200 million above the project’s allocated budget and $350 million over the lowest internal cost estimate.
Kiewit, a construction giant headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, submitted a final bid of $994 million for the Pomona-to-Montclair extension, part of the broader $1.5 billion Foothill Gold Line expansion, which spans 9.1 miles and includes four new stations aimed at improving commuter access between the Inland Empire and Los Angeles.
“Despite numerous efforts by the Construction Authority to collaborate, including making dozens of contract changes requested by Kiewit to reduce costs, Kiewit’s final bid remained hundreds of millions of dollars above expert estimates and available funding,” FGLCA said in a March 26 news release. “As a result, it’s both impossible and inappropriate to move forward with their bid.”
.jpg)
The decision halts momentum on what was expected to be a transformative transit project for California’s rapidly growing eastern suburbs. The extension is designed to ease congestion and provide alternative transportation options for residents priced out of housing in Los Angeles but still commuting into the city for work.
In response to the rejection, Kiewit issued a statement attributing the inflated bid to surging construction costs, inflation, and supply chain volatility—issues that continue to plague the U.S. construction industry.
“Appreciating there is a reason we were the sole bidder as part of this most recent design-build contract, we worked transparently with the Authority to discuss construction, supply chain and subcontractor/vendor costs, and identify cost-savings opportunities,” the company said. “This included comparing data with one of the Authority’s third-party estimators during the process as costs increased due to inflationary issues.”
The situation has raised questions about why only one firm bid on such a large public contract. Industry experts suggest it may be a sign of caution among contractors, many of whom are currently steering away from high-risk, long-term public infrastructure projects where cost escalation could erode profits.
To understand the economic climate around construction bidding, FGLCA consulted Ken Simonson, chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America. Simonson highlighted the cumulative impact of federal policy decisions that have strained material availability and labor markets.
“The uncertainty and all the increases have led contractors to either pull back from bidding or to put in higher bids to cover the risk that they’re going to face, the even-higher costs, when they actually go to buy that material,” Simonson said.
He pointed to former President Donald Trump’s tariffs and tightened immigration policies as key culprits behind inflated costs—particularly for light-rail projects.
“Light rail — the name practically tells you — they use a lot of steel,” Simonson said. “And a lot of copper.”
The construction authority now plans to issue a new RFP in June, utilizing a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery model, which separates design and construction phases. This structure is often used to bring more flexibility and cost transparency to large public projects.
“The board believes this is the best approach to put available dollars to their best use and prioritize efficient construction,” the authority’s statement said.
The last major contract for the project—a joint venture between Kiewit and Parsons—was awarded in 2019 for $805.6 million and covered the earlier segment of the extension. This next phase is critical for completing the long-envisioned connection into Montclair, a key transit hub for the Inland Empire.
With the procurement process reset, project stakeholders are hopeful that splitting up responsibilities and re-engaging the market may attract more competitive and feasible proposals.
Originally reported by Joe Bousquin in Construction Dive.
.webp)
