MCI shocked and disappointed by concealed BIG report

The MCI is shocked and deeply disappointed by the concealed report on the deemed permissible entrustment of the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG) with the construction of the MCI Campus, as well as the untruths that continually cast the MCI in a negative light.

According to a report in the “Kurier” (January 10, 2025), a Viennese law firm specializing in procurement law issues from the state of Tyrol came to the conclusion that the construction of the new MCI building by BIG would be possible without any problems.

This results in one series of important questionswhich is in the highest interest of the taxpaying population, sponsors, students, researchers, teachers, employees, alumni, employers and stakeholders as well as the future of the shared location urgent clarification require:

• How can it be that a complex procurement law report is commissioned and its results are not only concealed, but are subsequently apparently viewed as irrelevant and remain unnoticed?
• Why does the initial procurement law report from a Tyrolean law firm that has been working for the state of Tyrol for years dealing with this issue also remain under lock and key?
• Why aren’t the reports in question finally made available to at least the users who are massively affected by the wrong decisions and have they been excluded from such important information and relevant planning processes for years?
• Why aren’t the contracts concluded with the Tyrolean law firm in question as well as the contracts and accompanying documents drawn up by them finally made publicly available, which are the basis for the shelved MCI campus project (total contractor agreement, contracts with subcontractors, etc.)?
• Why is the user not finally being integrated, contrary to the countless announcements and promises of the last few years, but the policy of concealment and concealment of the last few years is being continued seamlessly and the MCI and its students, researchers, alumni and stakeholders are being disavowed through negative attributions (e.g. Numerus Clausus refugees. ..)?
• Why was the claim repeatedly made in the media that the new MCI building was a “sumptuous building” primarily used for vanity instead of an urgently needed functional building that was comparable to existing university and college buildings at home and abroad?
• Why is a usable area of ​​16,000 m2 for the MCI campus presented as excessive and dispensable, when the MCI has a fifth (!) of the students actively taking exams and a quarter (!) of the annual number of graduates in relation to the 216,000 m2 of usable space at the University of Innsbruck and the University of Innsbruck is now undergoing structural expansions with the Agnes Heller House and the planned House of Physics By the way, does MCI consider it important and expressly welcome it? (*Source: Statistical Pocket Book – Universities & Research 2024)
• Why have construction costs of 300 million euros and more been repeatedly put forward – never proven – when several reports from renowned civil engineering offices and, in the end, even a drastically reduced offer from the general contractor speak of less than two thirds of this amount?
• Why were the three procurement law reports never published, because of which the cancellation of the winning project I (Loudon, Habeler & Kirchweger), which was chosen in 2016 and canceled in 2018, was argued to be essential, even though this project was convincing in every respect (functionality, economic viability, architecture, urban development… .)?
• Who assumes responsibility for non-compliance with the “time and cost guarantee” promised in the course of the new tender for the MCI campus project in 2020, which was used as an argument for the “competitive dialogue” award procedure – which was chosen despite countless warnings?
• Who assumes responsibility for the long-term sub-letting of the ground floor space of the party bar “SixtyTwenty” at the MCI location at Universitätsstrasse, which was purchased for urgent needs of the MCI – contrary to clear decisions by the Tyrolean state government and the Tyrolean state parliament as well as the MCI bodies – which placed massive burdens on the MCI and entails restrictions and ultimately costs the taxpayer enormous amounts of money?
• Why were the expertise and needs of the user completely left out of the review and evaluation of possible location alternatives during the “pause for reflection” called for by the state of Tyrol and the user not even included in the presentation and discussion of the results? Are the interests of private property owners really more important than the requirements of a sustainable university operation?

About the origin of the MCI students

• Why is the incorrect claim regularly made that the MCI primarily trains foreign students, when a simple look at the current university statistics proves the clear opposite, and students and employees from abroad also have an indispensable intellectual, substantive and economic education mean added value for the local location and it would be a capital and embarrassing wrong decision at the expense of the quality of studies, the students and the shared location to allow domestic students to study exclusively among their peers?
• Where else, if not at a university, should one deal with international issues, prepare for international challenges, learn intercultural aspects and learn to move in an international environment – an aspect that also needs to be taken into account against the background of legal and socio-political requirements ?

University | Total | of which Austria | Austria in %
University of Innsbruck | 26 971 | 13 196 | 48.9%
Medical University of Innsbruck | 3 652 | 1 942 | 53.2%
MCI Innsbruck | 3 385 | 1 859 | 54,9%
University of Applied Sciences Kufstein | 1 636 | 876 | 53.5%
Source: Unidata, access date January 3, 2025

• As can be seen,
  • The MCI’s numbers are absolutely comparable to other universities in Tyrol,
  • However, it also requires demanding application and admission procedures that ensure that particularly qualified students who are seriously interested in studying and demonstrate convincing study and career goals receive a place at university,
  • consistently collects tuition fees (even large amounts from EU third-country nationals),
  • binds students closely to future employers during their studies and beyond (teachers, projects, theses, internships, career centers…),
  • can point to a completion rate of >80% of all those starting their studies (usually even within the target period of study),
  • provides training for professional fields that are in urgent demand (“professions in short supply”): engineering, life sciences, IT/software engineering, business, law, health & social affairs, etc.
  • and MCI students can access an average of 2.6 job offers at the time of graduation (source: MCI Alumni Survey 2023).

Important final note

Whether the MCI new building project on the Innsbruck Fenner area, which has been pursued for decades and decided upon several times, will be realized or not, is ultimately a matter of debate, regardless of the urgent, frequently proven needs and convincing arguments political decisionwhich must be accepted by the MCI, whatever it may turn out to be in the end.

However, a decision of such significance for the location and all stakeholders of the MCI must be made against the background of comprehensible facts and rational considerations, for which transparent information is essential.

This aim is intended to be taken into account with this publication.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Altmann, Rector