The tender for a planned Terminal 3 at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport was finally awarded on Aug. 30. Since the tender for constructing the 640,000m2 terminal opened in 2018 — a combined tender for civil, electrical and mechanical engineering — the project has gone through many failed tenders, budget increases, redesigns and deadline extensions, and the tender has even been split into two parts.
The civil engineering part was finally awarded on March 30, and the electrical and mechanical engineering parts last month. The new deadline for completing the terminal is June 2026 — five-and-a-half years behind the original deadline in December last year.
The main tender for this project — the design — was awarded in 2015 to a collaboration of British architectural firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners and CECI Engineering Consultants Inc Taiwan.
The design — which was the top choice of 11 attending tender committee members, including six foreign experts or academics — has a wave-shaped roof, roof gutters, glass skylights, large glass curtain walls and a streamlined ceiling with 130,000 petal-shaped aluminum tubes for sound absorption. People have praised the design, calling it stunning.
Who knew that a nightmare was soon to follow.
According to the bidding documents submitted by the two firms, the estimated cost of the terminal’s main building was NT$22.12 billion (US$797.5 million at the current exchange rate), which is within the budget announced in the airport operator’s tender notice.
The estimate’s items included engineering costs and scheduling, together accounting for 15 percent of the assessment points.
According to tender rules, if a project’s estimated costs exceed the budget, the bidder will lose points. Bidders usually use the announced budget as orientation for their cost estimate, and the selection committee usually does not spend much time on figuring out whether the estimate is realistic; as long as the estimate stays within the budget, the bidder is given a high rating.
Pragmatic design proposals with realistic cost estimates that would not exceed the budget are often not selected.
Unsurprisingly, when the airport operator issued the first engineering tender based on the two firms’ design, the project’s cost had already exceeded the budget by more than NT$39.5 billion.
This proves that the firms’ estimate was insufficient for realizing the fancy design and decorations. However, instead of abandoning the design, the airport operator increased the budget by more than NT$170 billion — something it seriously has to reflect on.
The operator should consider the example of the Tokyo Olympics’ main stadium. After the Japanese government awarded the design bid, it was discovered that the cost would exceed the budget by about ¥100 billion (US$909.1 million at the current exchange rate).
Then-Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe was immediately informed, the design was scrapped and the tender reopened, saving ¥100 billion.
However, despite the huge increase in the budget for Terminal 3, the engineering tender attracted no bids, as potential bidders said that the budget was still too low for carrying out the plan, estimated construction time was too short and they would need to bring in large numbers of migrant workers.
After replacing the chairman of the airport operator’s board twice — and with the help of the Cabinet, the Ministry of Transportation and Communication, the Ministry of Labor and the Public Construction Commission — the operator and the two firms were required to change to design to reduce costs, and the tender was split in two: civil engineering on the one hand, and electrical and mechanical engineering on the other.
In addition, the introduction of more than 2,000 foreign workers was allowed.
When the construction tenders were awarded this year, the budget had continued to increase sharply, to more than NT$57.2 billion — NT$44.5 billion for civil engineering and NT$12.7 billion for mechanical and electrical engineering. This is about NT$35.1 billion above the two firms’ original estimate.
The skyrocketing cost and the six-year delay are unacceptable.Who should be held responsible? The designers blame inflation and additional requests by the airport operator, while the operator says that the designers are responsible, as their estimate was unrealistic.
However, the design was selected by the operator, and as it did not have the courage to reverse its decision, how can it claim compensation and how should the compensation be calculated?
The case shows how a stunning design that dazzles the selection committee often blinds their consideration of whether the cost might exceed the budget — because the estimate is incomplete or underestimates the cost.
The consequences are failed tenders, budget increases, extended construction times and so on. Discarding an overly flashy design and pragmatically selecting a suitable one is the only way to avoid repeating this kind of mistake.
Su Ming-tong is a retired secretary-general of the Public Construction Commission.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US