Assuming that Siemens has a competent rebuttal to EMD, is there any way that Illinois can turn around and basically say "We find your protest wanting"? Likewise, if EMD's protest were blown off, where could/would the process go from there?
To clarify for those who have not followed the link to the article, the protest from Caterpillar/EMD was rejected and the contract was awarded to Siemens.Well, would you look at this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/caterpillar-loses-locomotive-contract-2014-02-27-184491630
I would really like to see Illinois's response letter, to be honest.
That could still happen. Caterpillar/EMD could go to court claiming that their protest was incorrectly rejected or file an appeal.I m surprised, but relieved that that happened so quickly. I expected the lawyers to get involved then drag the process out over the next eleventy dozen years!
This is not just an Illinois state procurement, but a multi-state procurement. IL DOT is just acting as the coordinating lead agency. The Evaluation Report that gave higher scores to Siemens for Responsive points, price offer points is for IL DOT, CalTrans, and Washington State DOT (WSDOT). IL is representing the Midwest Coalition of IL, MI, MO. Then the contract is funded by the FRA HSIPR grants and CA state bonds (for a portion of the locomotives allotted to CA).Since Caterpillar is an Illinois based company, I am surprised that the state DOT would not favor a contract to them. I would think the state legislators would be under a considerable amount of pressure to help a home grown industry with millions of dollars in business. ?
As the (happily former) owner of an otherwise Isuzu truck with a CAT 3126 diesel, I strongly disagree with you. Everything on that truck worked right except the engine and the Allison tranny it drove through. The tranny is out of the preview of this post, but that engine, in no particular order, leaked fuel like nuts, hemoraged (expensive Cat brand only) oil primarily through crankcase blow-by, jettisoned its oil pump once (thank god for self protection!), and shot two HEUI (I called them hooey) pumps in 18 months and 32,000 miles. It was a nice truck with a crappy engine. Oh, and the cool part? The cool part was when the turbo compressor blades shredded, got into the engine, and managed to turn my $28,000 truck engine into something only suitable for maritime applications- generally as a 3/4 ton boat anchor.As a former resident of Elmwood, some 30 miles west of Peoria, a town where everyone worked at CAT, I am sorry to see this course of events. I remember what the 78 strike did to the company, and quite honestly I am saddened not to see CAT get the work. They build damn good stuff.
As a federal subcontractor, I am also aware of the protest process. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.
You are so right!The locomotives would have been built in Munice, IN. at a plant EMD/CAT built in order to fire all their union workers in London, Ont. Apparently Hoosiers don't mind working for lower wages than everybody else. So, Illinois really won't have benefited that much by giving the contract to EMD.
The base order plus the option is sufficient to replace all regularly used road power except the dual-modes at Albany (which would need a different contract anyway). The remaining fleet would be "road switchers" and backups. I seriously doubt that Amtrak is going to exercise the entire option, certainly not all at once. By the time Amtrak has funded part of the option, technology may have changed and it may be desirable to put out a new bid. It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).That being said, we have no idea if Amtrak will actually be able to afford to buy 225 locomotives for the long-distance routes.
Worse for Caterpillar and EMD, if they cause too much delay by protesting, they will generate ill-will at Illinois DOT. Which I wouldn't do if I were them.If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award....
If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
Which is essentially what I wrote. If the Siemens proposal is not compliant with the performance specifications, then the contract responsive points were not correctly applied and Siemens would lose the contract. The technical reviewers of the three bids determined that the Siemens proposal met the speed requirements, so EMD has an uphill fight here.That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award....
If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
No it wouldn't.It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
EMD's ability to prevail in an appeal does not depend on how scoring points were assigned for the items you mentioned and will not be impacted by the relative scores of the Siemens and EMD bids. The EMD complaint is focused on one issue and one issue only: the pass/fail requirement that the locomotive be a capable of 125mph. A pass/fail requirement is a gatekeeper. It is not scored for review. You either meet it or you don't. If you meet it, then the scoring in other areas becomes relevant. A bid that fails a pass/fail requirement is rejected without further review....The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
I don't see why Amtrak wouldn't want to replace their entire fleet of Diesels with just one model. Having a high parts commonality saves money during maintenance.The base order plus the option is sufficient to replace all regularly used road power except the dual-modes at Albany (which would need a different contract anyway). The remaining fleet would be "road switchers" and backups. I seriously doubt that Amtrak is going to exercise the entire option, certainly not all at once. By the time Amtrak has funded part of the option, technology may have changed and it may be desirable to put out a new bid. It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).That being said, we have no idea if Amtrak will actually be able to afford to buy 225 locomotives for the long-distance routes.
With a bit of imagination you could say the Genesis locomotive already does that.Perhaps I should have said "Retro" styling… A modern engine, but with a updated Retro look. Not a replica of an old engine, but more of a throwback design.
Was it Ford that went with a classic retro style on the Thunderbird, yet it was quite stylish and modern looking. Just a reminder of the classic 1960s models...
I was thinking a modern railroad engine, with a classic streamlined front hood and windshield.
The stuff that gets into the news in this type of situation is usually only a very small part of the whole story.Worse for Caterpillar and EMD, if they cause too much delay by protesting, they will generate ill-will at Illinois DOT. Which I wouldn't do if I were them.
Even after a contract is awarded, there is room for further negotiation. They could thus simply ask Siemens to make some modifications to the design to make it fulfill those requirementsThat is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award....
If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
Enter your email address to join: