"You also wouldn't be saying that "THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY BOUND TO THE PROPOSAL AS SET FORTH BY THE STATE." if you had asked any attorney first. Did you? I did. Simply put, an alternate proposal could only have been submitted after the standard required proposal was made. The standard proposal would have been a legally binding offer."
There has already been much discussion on this point. I have not consulted an attorney. My understanding is that a standard proposal can be submitted with variation points as a legally binding offer. These variation points could include any terms that GLR Inc. found unacceptable. I do not believe that a bidder is bound to the RFP's proposal simply by responding. I believe a bidder is bound to the document they submit.
"it does let those of us more in the know to help you understand if at all possible."
As I have been asked for my qualifications, I would ask you to detail how you are 'more in the know'.
"What is wrong with the picture that they have posted? Is it not true that the CHS snuffed out the Georgetown Loop Railroad?"
GLR Inc. chose not to bid. This has been a government contract from the beginning - people tend to forget that. Making any sort of commentary about the customer on a public web page seems inappropriate. At this point, I do not think that the stated message is fact. In any case, wouldn't it be more dignified to wish the CHS well than to spit on them, regardless of their wrongs?
"...would ANY of this be happening?"
I'm not saying the CHS is right. I'm that GLR Inc. missed their chance(s) to end this.
"The picture Posted by the Loop is calm, tastefully done and represents the truth."
The first two are a matter of opinion. I disagree. The third may be true, but it does not appear so to me from publically available record.
"If the RFP was such a great business idea, why do you suppose that they only received one valid offer in the end?"
I never said that the RFP as presented by the state made any sense at all. I just said that GLR Inc. could have submitted a clearly superior proposal and chose not to.
"That is also not a fact. Discussions were held with CHS and the Loop a week or two prior to the new operator being selected."
If private discussion took place, then I wouldn't know about them. The letter is dated as written the same day of the CHS announcement, and as received by the CHS on the 18th of August, one day after the CHS public announcement of a new operator.
"With not a single operable train among the respondents, that letter was everything the State needed to preserve this attraction at its current level."
After the CHS had publicly chosen a new operator? This seems true if it had been received earlier. Once an announcement had been made, it seems pretty set in stone to me. If GLR Inc. made offers to negotiate before the selection of a new operator, why didn't they make those offers public so that it was apparent they were kicked out?
"The CHS got to handpick who was on that committee...", etc
This would seem to be grounds for a written complaint against the RFP. Why did GLR Inc. not file these concerns in a written complaint?
I do not know enough about the RFP process to know whether your comments on illegal activities are true. If they are true, it would seem that a written complaint against the RFP would be in order, followed by possible legal actions. Since I still believe GLR Inc. could have responded to the RFP, a rejection to their response would seem to be compelling evidince that the process actually does not work as stated. Since GLR Inc. did not respond, the choice of Railstar does not appear to violate any of the written goals of the RFP.
"...turncoat...The GTL, Inc. exuded class in that they didn't fire him. "
This is a completely inappropriate comment.
"But Chris, as a part of Boulder County Railway Historical Society, I'm not surprised that you would be motivated to offer a CHS view of events"
My posts are not the CHS view of events. They are my own opinions formuated from public record. This is certainly not the view of the BCRHS.
I have tried to be as impartial as possible in evaluating this situation. I have tried to support my opinions with publicly available information. If you want to dismiss what I say because I belong to the BCRHS, that's your choice.
"You got what you wanted for the #74 and gave the CHS what they needed - a smokescreen perception that they can get an operable train here on the Loop."
True or false, this is not relevant to my arguments.
Chris
