Everything You Wanted to Know About Love Field Concession Bids and Terminal Updates But Were Afraid to Ask

• City staff followed the Council directive.DFW has a concession policy,it states if the Airport Concession Department goes after a National Brand that will enhance the traveling public experience,increase revenues,the staff may go after said company and negotiate with them to open shop in DFW.That policy was passed to give the staff ability to recruit,National and High Name concepts.1% of DFW concessions are negated.The policy is clear and has criteria to follow,and it is followed.

• The City's consultant recommended that the concessions be divided up into two packages and awarded based on a competitive process. City staff <i>ignored</i> the consultant's recommendation. Again, if Aranza, Hudson and their political cronies are the best candidates for the contracts, that should become more than apparent during the RFP process.

• "Mayor's political guru signs up to lobby for concession company on April 13." Put up or shut up @Let's See. Name names. Which political guru. Which concession company. If your assertion is true, the Mayor must be reading Rick Perry's play book, using public office to enrich your friends and supporters. @Fair Park - same challenge "Attack some Democrats who were in the concession business long before they ran for public office." Helen Giddings was elected to the state house in 1992. James Cohen of New Jersey formed Hudson Retail-Dallas, Inc. in 1994 (Hudson Retail-Dallas, Inc. is NOT in good standing with the comptroller's office). Giddings seem to have formed Multiplex, Inc. while she was co-chair of the Dallas Transit Committee. how did she hook up with a New Jersey concession company a decade later, after her election to the house?

• I've just posted an item concerning Willis Johnson, Mayor Leppert and an Atlanta-based Concessions company. http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/05/shortly_after_i_posted_this.php

• The City of Dallas selected the process and has spent more than two years and tens of thousands of dollars hiring a consultant to make sure the process worked in the city's best interest. The question isn't whether one process is better than another. The question is why would the city negotiate (I assume in good faith) for years, have an open and transparent public process and then suddenly change the rules of the game after one side has already made numerous concessions and put all of its cards on the table? Is that really the message you want to send to the business community? Plenty of the space at Love Field will be open to competitive bids so others are not restricted from participating. This is a political ploy and not a good business decision. Either Dallas is a city that keeps its word - or a city where one council member can destroy years of honest work and good faith efforts by the city staff so he can run for higher office.

• &#64;Reply to Justin, "However, competitive bidding is not as good a strategy when you are bidding on a service. You need a dependable partner because that is less expensive in the long run. For example, Hudson has a track record throughout the country and has state-of-the art concepts that have dramatically increased sales at the airport they serve." But how many of those state-of-the-art concepts were derived from a no bid contract? Common sense would indicate that if there is no worry of being replaced there is little incentive to innovate. "My guess is that Turner worked with many of the same subcontractors for years using tough negotiations to get a good price but recognizing that cheap and value are two different things." I'd say that is 100% correct but all those subcontractors knew that as soon as quality slipped they were in a position to be replaced on the next contract (or even midcontract.) A service provider with no competition and no fear of being replaced for a decade or more doesn't have to provide the same value as those that have to bid and actually articulate, provide proof, and be held accountable for future value.

• &#64;Dr. Phil, That is an interesting connection you pulled out of thin air. Why didn't you amp up the drama a little more and say that the Iraq war is the result of competitive bidding? The cause of a $600 wrench is more the result of massive budgets that either have to get used or slashed as opposed to competitive building, and delayed projects are the result of either budget restrictions or shifting priorities based on strategic decisions of the type of engagements we are likely to be in, or the whims of changing administrations, defense secretaries, and JCOS. Do yourself a favor and pull your head out of your ass before you speak next time.

• If the proposed contract extensions for Aranza and Hudson (up to 20 years, and 2/3 of the concession space) will be the "best result" the City can achieve for residents and visitors, then Aranza and Hudson should have no trouble proving that contention in a competitive bidding process. To the hired guns here in support of an Aranza or Hudson contract extension: Stop attempting to suggest this has anything to do with race. As a minority resident of Dallas, I have to sate that those assertions are misguided. This is about 1) dollars and "sense" 2) fundamental fairness in city contracting and 3) what's best for one of Dallas' crown jewels. . .Love Field Airport.

• The Pentagon uses competitive bidding. That is why a new air force tanker contract has been delayed for decades and we have $600 wrenches. As Dr. Phil would say "hows that working for you?"

• A fair question. First of all the negotiated contracts were the city's idea not Mr. Aranza's. Negotiated contracts with proven vendors are common in the aviation industry, at the City of Dallas and in business in general. Bids are fine if you are buying police cars, where you can have people bid on the exact identical item. The same would be true for office furniture. However, competitive bidding is not as good a strategy when you are bidding on a service. You need a dependable partner because that is less expensive in the long run. For example, Hudson has a track record throughout the country and has state-of-the art concepts that have dramatically increased sales at the airport they serve. That is money that goes right to the bottom line. My guess is that Turner worked with many of the same subcontractors for years using tough negotiations to get a good price but recognizing that cheap and value are two different things. This was a political move by the Mayor aimed at his Senate race and has nothing to do with the way the contracts were negotiated.

• &#64;Double standard, What you are missing in your comparison is that Gilbert Aranza is looking for no bid contracts, did Leppert expect the same when he was CEO of Turner Construction? No.

• So when the Mayor is a member of the Dallas Citizens Council he is an upstanding business leader. When Gilbert Aranza is a member of the same group he is "politically connected." Talk about a double standard.

• Let's see. Mayor's political guru signs up to lobby for concession company on April 13, 2010. Mayor begins questioning concession contracts on April 28th. We sure don't see any connection. By the way these are negotiated contracts - developed over several years, in public with an outside consultant making sure the city got a good deal.

• This is a smoke screen for the Mayor's political ambitions and has nothing to do with getting a good deal for the city. The Mayor and city council were well aware of the long public process that led to the city staff's proposal. They are well aware the Mayor was perfectly comfortable voting for a negotiated contract at D/FW Airport. His concerns coincide with his efforts to become a viable Republican political candidate. Attack some Democrats who were in the concession business long before they ran for public office, try to link this clean above board process to Don Hill and his cronies, have secret meetings to try to get out of the political mess he created. The Mayor sat in on the very meetings where these contracts were discussed. They were approved by the Transportation Committee 10-0. This is city hall politics at its worst. The city deserves better from the Mayor.

• Dallas is going to be $130 million in the hole next year, who knows how much in the successive years, everything should go out to bid, Despite Helen Giddings and Carolyn Davis' histrionics in front of the council. Kickback contracts need to end.

• Given the choice to help the public or screw the public through giving big benefits to the wealthy or politically connected, the Dallas City Council has usually done the worst. Maybe if they are told there will be more tax remittances from businesses competing fairly they would do the right thing. But this is the Dallas City Council where the biggest concern is the mayor pro tem's poker games and building a city owned hotel during budget shortfalls. Sigh!

TotalComments: 16