Hello All:
I am quite certain this post won't make me any friends on this site, but I'm going to say it anyways since no one else has. Hopefully the large number of you who will disagree with me will remember that it is possible to have different opinions and still be playing for the same team. My goal is historic preservation just like everyone else's.
I am posting the summary of my points up top, with a more involved discussion to follow.
In summary:
- This whole process appears to have been started by a personal vendetta from within the CHS.
- The CHS, and the state, followed a standard RFI/RFP system for negotiation and selection of a new operator. The RFP was created by the Colorado State Purchasing Office, not the CHS.
- The RFP was not worded in such a way that GLR Inc. could not respond to it:
+ The RFP allowed for written variation points where a bidder could modify the terms of the document and be contractually bound only to their version.
+ The RFP allowed for written protest to the SPO if the terms of the RFP were not acceptable.
+ Differences between the bidder's proposal and the RFP serve as a starting point for further negotiation.
- GLR Inc. chose not to respond to the RFP, showing their unwillingness to negotiate. Their only communication with the CHS was a letter sent after a new operator was selected and the CHS course was set.
- GLR Inc. was betting that the CHS would have to accept their terms, but by not participating in the RFP, they virtually guaranteed that the CHS would go elsewhere.
- GLR Inc. allowed employees to badmouth the CHS for months on this site, with no public statement of goodwill (or any other sort) to show the intent or desire of GLR Inc. to participate in a negotiation process.
- Finally, by putting the gravestone image on their website, GLR Inc. has acted extremely unprofessionally. Instead of completing their contract with dignity, they have chosen to take potshots at the CHS. This accomplishes nothing besides strengthening the CHS’s position on their removal.
==============================================================
Let me start off by saying that this entire mess at the Georgetown Loop appears to have been started by a personal vendetta from someone within the CHS. It's difficult to know for sure since I have not interacted with this person and was not present at any of the negotiations or meetings, but I have not heard any opinion that did not have Lee Behrens causing this mess. This seems rather petty of him, however the following points minimize any further effect he might like to have on the selection process.
Once it was announced that GLR Inc. and the CHS had reached an impasse in negotiations, (again, likely caused by a personal vendetta), the CHS decided to select a new operator based on the RFI/RFP system. This procedure is designed to ensure that the best possible contractor is chosen for the job. GLR Inc. chose not to respond to the RFP ***AT ALL***.
It has been suggested in this forum that GLR Inc. could not respond to the RFP due to unreasonable contractual requirements set forth therein. This is wrong. It is true that the RFP says "A submission in response to this RFP acknowledges acceptance by the bidder of all terms and conditions including compensation, as set forth herein." However,
the document also says that "An offeror shall identify clearly and thoroughly any variations between its proposal and the State's RFP." In other words, an offeror may submit a differing proposal as long as those differences are clearly documented in the proposal. The details of the state’s proposal (i.e. management fee, etc) are not binding to the bidder; the details of the response are binding, as long as such differences are clearly documented. The RFP is legally binding so far as potential operators are required to honor their own proposal in writing. THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY BOUND TO THE PROPOSAL AS SET FORTH BY THE STATE.
In addition to the allowance for written and documented variation points, Section M of the RFP also allows for protest if any of the terms of the solicitation are unacceptable. If I am wrong, and a response to the RFP constitutes agreement to the state’s proposal (which I do not believe), then GLR Inc. should have protested the RFP in writing. If the legal terms of the RFP were not acceptable, the process set forth by the state allows for written protest of why the RFP is unacceptable.
Furthermore, Section Y says "The State of Colorado reserves the right to [...] accept any portion of a proposal or all items proposed if deemed in the best interest of the State of Colorado." My understanding is that this does not legally bind the bidder to a contract that does not match their written proposal, but it allows the state to respond with "We accept points 1, 2, and 4 but not 3. Let’s negotiate point 3." ***The RFP binds the bidder to their contract if it is accepted in full by the state. If the state does not accept all of the proposed variation points, than this serves as a starting point for further negotiations. It does not mean that the bidder is bound to a proposal to which they did not agree.***
Finally, I would like to point out that this RFP was not even created by the CHS. Instead, the Colorado State Purchasing Office handled the entire proposal process. This is the primary reason I am convinced it was fair; the proposal was handled by an independent organization. The terms of this RFP are standardized and used for all Colorado government contracts. This document, and in fact the entire RFP process, is not discriminatory against GLR Inc. in any way.
This seems to me to be a situation not unlike that which happened to the C&TS two years ago. In that case, the RGRPC stated that they were unable to continue to fulfill their current contract. So, the state put out an RFP, ***TO WHICH RGRPC RESPONDED***. After the RFP process, it was abundantly clear that the RGRPC was by far the most qualified operator to run the C&T. So, the state came back to negotiations with them and created a management agreement that was acceptable to both sides. This is what should have happened with GLR Inc.
Instead, GLR Inc. decided to thumb their noses at the RFP process and not participate. They could easily have either submitted a proposal to run the railway the exact same way it is currently run or even filed a formal protest in writing if the terms of the RFP were unacceptable. Instead, they ignored the entire process as set forth by the state. They thought they were so invaluable that they could force the CHS to their terms. I would not recommend ever attempting to force a government to do something. The RFP provides a framework for mutual discussion and compromise, which GLR Inc. ignored.
So, by not submitting a response to the RFP, GLR Inc. effectively said that they were unwilling to discuss or negotiate. In fact, the only communication from them throughout this process was a letter submitted ***AFTER A NEW OPERATOR WAS SELECTED*** and the state had chosen a course. Even if this letter could be treated as a response to the RFP, it clearly violated Section I, 'late proposals are not acceptable'. Why didn’t they send the letter before the RFP process completed? Instead of looking like an honest attempt to negotiate, it appears to be an “Oh, crap!” belated change of direction.
From the CHS's point of view, why would they want to work with an operator who cannot be bothered to follow a standardized, fair process for negotiation? This seems only to demonstrate GLR Inc.'s arrogance and unwillingness to negotiate, caused by their confidence in the fact that another operator cannot be found.
Well, guess what, people. A new operator can be found. It certainly won't work as well as GLR Inc., especially not for the first year or two, but then again it was never supposed to have come to this. If GLR Inc. had followed the state's proposal process, they would be signing a new contract right now instead of packing their bags. Instead of participating, they took the risky gamble that the CHS would come crawling back to the table, and lost.
I would also like make a few other side points. The practice of GLR Inc. employees posting their personal opinions of the CHS on this site seems questionable, especially when signed with a "GLR Employee" signature. You’ll notice that there has been no unofficial discussion on this site or any other from CHS employees since negotiations began. It seems that a request from GLR Inc.’s management for employees to refrain from posting opinion with the GLR name attached would not be unreasonable.
When engaged in a contract negotiation, one side very loudly and publicly badmouthing the other would hardly seem reasonable. GLR Inc. should have stopped it to demonstrate goodwill to the CHS. I realize that these posts have represented the personal viewpoints of the employees, and that's fine. In fact, something along the lines of a "statement of goodwill" from GLR Inc.'s management would remove this entire point from my list. However, there was no such statement and so the opinions of GLR Inc. and the opinions of the employees implicitly become the same.
That these opinions match those of GLR Inc. is confirmed today by the appearance of the gravestone image on the GLR Inc.'s website. This is COMPLETELY UNPROFESSIONAL! Instead of ending their contract with dignity, they have chosen AS A BUSINESS to take potshots at the CHS. They should have said "We have enjoyed working to make the GLR what it is today, and we hope that success will continue for further generations", then they would live up to their claims of being a class act and I would never be posting this. Instead, they present the appearance of a group of ill-mannered children who are unfit to continue as operator, giving more credibility to the CHS than I would have ever thought possible.
I would like to point out that this is not an attack against the employees of GLR Inc. I think that the experience they have provided for customers has been excellent. They are hardworking, knowledgeable, and experienced. However, Railstar and the CHS have both stated in writing their intent to hire any and all of the existing employees. Employees who do not have a job next year do so by choice.
Again, I am attempting to point out what I see as a series of missteps by GLR Inc. management. I am posting in an effort to foster discussion and provide a new point of view, not to further animosity.
Chris Weaver
