VI Gov’t issues Notice to Tenderers for airport runway extension of 787ft
.jpg)
This information was first disclosed by Premier Wheatley at the Public Engagement Session on the Constitutional Negotiations at the Catholic Community Centre on Virgin Gorda last evening, Tuesday, May 26, 2026.
“The Minister of Communications and Works, who is responsible for the airports, is very soon going to be requesting a Request for Proposal (RFP) to do a phase of the project, that will allow American Airlines to take off safely by adding, I think about 700 more feet to the west, and that is going to be coming out soon.”
787ft extension to western end of runway
The Notice to Tenderers for a runway extension of 787 feet was issued through the British Virgin Islands Airports Authority (VIAA) today, May 27, 2026.
According to the Notice to Tenderers, BVIAA is inviting suitably qualified firms and joint ventures to submit proposals for the design, execution, completion, testing, commissioning and defects rectification of the Terrence B. Lettsome International Airport West Runway Extension (787ft/240m) Project.
The tender deadline is 12:00 noon on August 31, 2026.
Premier Wheatley did not disclose how that phase of the airport project would be funded.
In a statement on October 30, 2025, Minister for Communications and Works Hon Kye M. Rymer (R5) said the Virgin Islands would seek to extend the airport runway at Terrance B. Lettsome Airport on Beef Islands by 7000 feet and that Cabinet had accepted and approved the recommendation of the Outline Business Case for the airport expansion project as of October 1, 2025.
UK seems concerned about contingent liability- Premier Wheatley
Speaking last night on Virgin Gorda, Premier Wheatley said that because the airport expansion is going to cost over $400m, it requires approval from the United Kingdom.
“And they are perhaps not as sensitive to our timelines as we would be…so we have been trying to get an extension done to our airport now for 16 years, and we have spent millions and millions of dollars on studies, so we had to do a Business Case and produce the Business Case [to the United Kingdom], but we have been asked for more information.
The Premier said KPMG, which did the Business Case, is a reputable company, “but additional studies have been requested, and more information has been requested [by the UK].
Dr Wheatley said the UK has expressed its support for having an extension to the airport runway done; however, it appears concerned about contingent liability.
.jpg)
.png)
Follow Us On
32 Responses to “VI Gov’t issues Notice to Tenderers for airport runway extension of 787ft”
Even though 787 feet isn’t the full expansion, it could still make a big difference for flights and tourism, especially if it helps larger airlines operate more safely and efficiently.
That being said, the government still needs to be upfront with the public about the cost, funding, and long-term plans. People want development, but they also want transparency and accountability.
Hopefully this is finally the beginning of real progress for the BVI.
2. Second para “ it could” make a difference is not same as “it will” make a difference. It’s one thing to try something that “could” make a difference that comes with an affordable price tag, but it’s altogether different if that price tag is comparable to the Territory’s GDP. Recall that the Territory has a very poor record of completing projects within budget and on time (e.g. Hospital, Pier Park, waste incinerator, power generation, etc.)
3. Quite right there should be transparency but all we get is the mushroom treatment (darkness and excreta). Until then, it cannot be a good move for the Territory
My point is not that the expansion guarantees results or that costs don’t matter. It is that the airport has been a long-standing constraint on connectivity and tourism, and even a phased step forward suggests movement after years of studies and delays.
I agree the business case and funding sources should be made public and properly scrutinised. Without that, public skepticism is understandable.
Where I differ is in dismissing incremental progress outright. A project like this can carry risk and still have potential benefit, but only if it is properly planned, transparently managed, and kept within realistic budget limits.
On that, I think we are actually closer in view than it seems.
A money grab for you and your buddies is all this is. Trying to get around rules sensibly imposed and at the same time hiding the evidence of the REPORT.
Shameful deceitful behaviour.