7000-series - Delivery & Updates

[Busjack]

13 hours ago, BusHunter said:

More #7000 thunder from Bombardier

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160926/BLOGS02/160929865/new-flap-arises-in-ctas-1-3-billion-l-rail-car-deal

Only thing really newsworthy is that the document was released.

The attorney is overarguing to Crains, which won't decide the protest. As noted near the end,and as I said in the beginning, this is only to get it to the FTA.

What hits me though, and supports those of you that presume that everything is junk, is that the scores were 3.6 out of 5 and 2.8 out of 5. Nobody (and Bombarider certainly should have) scored near 5. To put it in car magazine terms, somebody wanted a Porsche Cayenne, but is arguing between a Jeep  Cherokee and a Buick Envision (that Buick being a Chinese car).

[BusHunter]

Bombardier is not going to lie down and take it though. They are a big company and have many lawyers looking through the paperwork for one hiccup. I see this whole contract being delayed while they argue this out. Legal matters can take a long time to decide. 

[Busjack]

14 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Bombardier is not going to lie down and take it though. They are a big company and have many lawyers looking through the paperwork for one hiccup. I see this whole contract being delayed while they argue this out. Legal matters can take a long time to decide. 

I was somewhat surprised that the article said CTA was about to rule on the protest (with the predictable outcome), but, again, it depends on how long it sits at the FTA (and, for that matter, whether the FTA decision would be subject to judicial review).

[Juniorz]

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

Bombardier is not going to lie down and take it though. They are a big company and have many lawyers looking through the paperwork for one hiccup. I see this whole contract being delayed while they argue this out. Legal matters can take a long time to decide. 

But the contract will move forward regardless of the protest. The bid was awarded and I'm pretty sure the CTA and CSR are moving forward with the 7000-series. Unless the FTA puts an injunction to stop CSR from continuing, I say Bombardier may have to cut their losses. As an added insult, the feds themselves granted the CTA's request for a loan to add 90 cars to the base order. 

I say, tough luck and safe traveling Bombardier ?

[Busjack]

30 minutes ago, Juniorz said:

But the contract will move forward regardless of the protest. The bid was awarded and I'm pretty sure the CTA and CSR are moving forward with the 7000-series. Unless the FTA puts an injunction to stop CSR from continuing, I say Bombardier may have to cut their losses. As an added insult, the feds themselves granted the CTA's request for a loan to add 90 cars to the base order. 

I say, tough luck and safe traveling Bombardier ?

You have a lot of assumptions that don't seem warranted.

First, I doubt that CTA and CSR are proceeding as though no protest were involved. That would be a huge waste of money in the face of high risk. Anyway, with the prototype due in 2019, I don't think CSR has put much into this yet.

The loan was not tied to any given manufacturer, and was in the financing mix before it was announced in some railway newspaper that the base order will be 490. All the feds care about with respect to the loan is if CTA has the farebox revenue to pay back the loan.

As I indicated before, leave it to the FTA to decide this (although you did not engage in the defamation someone else did).

[sw4400]

22 minutes ago, Busjack said:

You have a lot of assumptions that don't seem warranted.

First, I doubt that CTA and CSR are proceeding as though no protest were involved. That would be a huge waste of money in the face of high risk. Anyway, with the prototype due in 2019, I don't think CSR has put much into this yet.

The loan was not tied to any given manufacturer, and was in the financing mix before it was announced in some railway newspaper that the base order will be 490. All the feds care about with respect to the loan is if CTA has the farebox revenue to pay back the loan.

As I indicated before, leave it to the FTA to decide this (although you did not engage in the defamation someone else did).

It's still several years before CSR is due to send a prototype set(or in most cases, two sets) of railcars for testing in 2019. Building may not commence until sometime in 2018. So very little is being done right now except somewhere at CSR HQ, they might have a file or computer document with those renderings we saw about the new railcars.

With regards to the FTA, they are the final yardstick here, since they are providing funding for the new railcars. If they cut funding, then the 7000's, as far as CSR goes, are done. No money, no railcars. Bombardier may still not get the order in this case, because if FTA is being forced into this contract fiasco, they may ultimately pick their own candidate for the railcars and tell Bombardier and CTA to "suck it up and deal with it. You two can't deal with this with civility, then we'll pick a qualified candidate to build the railcars, since we're providing the funding for them."

Only time will tell, as this whole this is still ongoing.....

[BusHunter]

Its really going to rest on those prototypes. If they are that bad cta or the feds may throw out the  contract. Its all up to csr to deliver a quality railcar now. But you can bet bombardier will be hounding this also. If they feel they have been slighted and their pockets are deep enough this could carry on for awhile. 

[Busjack]

25 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Its really going to rest on those prototypes. If they are that bad cta or the feds may throw out the  contract. Its all up to csr to deliver a quality railcar now. But you can bet bombardier will be hounding this also. If they feel they have been slighted and their pockets are deep enough this could carry on for awhile. 

Only problem with that theory is that the prototypes are about 3 years down the road and there has to be a contract in place before there is an obligation to deliver them. You seem to think that the prototypes are a legal condition precedent to a contract, and if they fail, CTA can just call in Bombardier in 2020 and tell them to honor their bid.

Come to think about it, Bombardier had several missteps in their performance on the 5000s, but Crain's said there was some other lower bidder.* By your theory, CTA should have called them in then.

The only issue the FTA can decide now is whether there is any contract, depending on whether the bidding process was properly followed.

*Presumably Alstom.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, sw4400 said:

With regards to the FTA, they are the final yardstick here, since they are providing funding for the new railcars. If they cut funding, then the 7000's, as far as CSR goes, are done. No money, no railcars. Bombardier may still not get the order in this case, because if FTA is being forced into this contract fiasco, they may ultimately pick their own candidate for the railcars and tell Bombardier and CTA to "suck it up and deal with it. You two can't deal with this with civility, then we'll pick a qualified candidate to build the railcars, since we're providing the funding for them."

For a third time, this shows the misconception abut what is going on here.

The FTA is involved because there is some federal money involved, while in the Boston case, it was all state money, so all Hyundai-Rotem could do is sue in state court.

But before coming to any conclusion about what the result of the FTA protest would be, maybe everyone should read Chapter VII the Third Party Contracting Guidance materials. And if you look at those, the main thing FTA does is facilitates the TA's dispute settlement process, although it can withhold funding in situations cased by the recipient's error. .

[BusHunter]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

Only problem with that theory is that the prototypes are about 3 years down the road and there has to be a contract in place before there is an obligation to deliver them. You seem to think that the prototypes are a legal condition precedent to a contract, and if they fail, CTA can just call in Bombardier in 2020 and tell them to honor their bid.

Come to think about it, Bombardier had several missteps in their performance on the 5000s, but Crain's said there was some other lower bidder.* By your theory, CTA should have called them in then.

The only issue the FTA can decide now is whether there is any contract, depending on whether the bidding process was properly followed.

*Presumably Alstom.

No but if they fail cta has the right to change things. They wouldnt be called prototypes if they were unchangable. If the cars are really terrible cta will proceed with delivery??? I seem to remember an up to 900 contract that  didnt get past 10 or 11 buses.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

No but if they fail cta has the right to change things. They wouldnt be called prototypes if they were unchangable. If the cars are really terrible cta will proceed with delivery???

I didn't say that. CTA changed stuff on the 5000s.

The only thing to which I referred was to your:

6 hours ago, BusHunter said:

. If they are that bad cta or the feds may throw out the  contract. Its all up to csr to deliver a quality railcar now. But you can bet bombardier will be hounding this also.

Essentially there is no reason for "Bombardier to hound this." If a contract is made, it comes to this, and then CSR proves entirely incapable of performing, then the contract will have to be rebid, and you will be riding 3200s until maybe 2029. But Bombardier wouldn't thus get a leg up.

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

I seem to remember an up to 900 contract that  didnt get past 10 or 11 buses.

Now you have really blown a gasket. You now saying that after accepting 208 NF artics, CTA suddenly thought NF couldn't perform? Then why did CTA then buy another 100?

You know the fact is that while the CT Board was reported to have voted on the contract, CTA never gave a notice to proceed, and a notice to proceed is a condition of the contract. Apparently, NF didn't have enough brains to figure that out, but they must have eventually,* since they never sued CTA.

I suppose that CTA could never give CSR a Notice to Proceed, but then there would be no contract to get to the prototype stage.

_____________

*As reflected in later NF financial reports that they were no longer booking order backlog until the TA gave them the paperwork.

[BusHunter]

13 hours ago, Busjack said:

I didn't say that. CTA changed stuff on the 5000s.

The only thing to which I referred was to your:

Essentially there is no reason for "Bombardier to hound this." If a contract is made, it comes to this, and then CSR proves entirely incapable of performing, then the contract will have to be rebid, and you will be riding 3200s until maybe 2029. But Bombardier wouldn't thus get a leg up.

Now you have really blown a gasket. You now saying that after accepting 208 NF artics, CTA suddenly thought NF couldn't perform? Then why did CTA then buy another 100?

You know the fact is that while the CT Board was reported to have voted on the contract, CTA never gave a notice to proceed, and a notice to proceed is a condition of the contract. Apparently, NF didn't have enough brains to figure that out, but they must have eventually,* since they never sued CTA.

I suppose that CTA could never give CSR a Notice to Proceed, but then there would be no contract to get to the prototype stage.

_____________

*As reflected in later NF financial reports that they were no longer booking order backlog until the TA gave them the paperwork.

No i didnt. I was just referring to cta's successful attempt at putting the kibash on already built equipment. I never deflamed nf, you just said i did.if bombardier has a case who are we to stand in their way if anything the ball is in csr's court.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

I was just referring to cta's successful attempt at putting the kibash on already built equipment.

Only because there was not a  contract.

But you were the one who associated it with the prototypes failing.

Also, with regard to NF shipping buses without a contract, they reportedly also did it in San Francisco:

Quote

The musician's photograph hit the Internet in mid-October. But the $38.3 million contract authorizing the creation of the $700,000-a-pop hybrid buses wouldn't be voted on by the Board of Supervisors until two weeks later. These funds wouldn't be released for longer still. And yet, there it was: Coach No. 8706, assembled, bedecked in Muni colors, and even blessed with a vehicle number. A convoy of 50 such Muni buses surreptitiously rumbled our way late last year. (In a development equal parts ominous and humiliating, five conked out en route.)

...

Bus manufacturer New Flyer, they claim, offered to crank out a platoon of hybrids to Muni's specs, while assuming all the risks if the board saw fit to spurn the pending contract.

Asked to produce the paperwork verifying this, Reiskin and Haley claim none exists.

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

.if bombardier has a case ... if anything the ball is in csr's court

At this point, the only thing with respect to which it may have a case is how the procurement was handled. That's it. The ball is only in CTA's court, not CSR's.

[sw4400]

What I don't get is what does it matter who CTA chose to build the 7000-Series railcars? They put out a contract to bid on..... Bombardier and CSR put in competitive bids. CTA looked over the bids and determined which manufacturer they wanted for the contract. So, why is Bombardier whining? Nothing in the contract said "this will be awarded to the lowest bidder." CTA has in the past typically* taken the lowest bidder for contracts, but that has not always been the case.

All this is going to end up doing is getting the courts and FTA involved and may put a temporary delay in the 7000-Series being built, whomever ultimately gets the nod to build them.

[Busjack]

33 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

Nothing in the contract said "this will be awarded to the lowest bidder."

If you had read the article, that's exactly what Bombardier is claiming. They said they weren't the low bidder on the 5000s, and certainly were not the low bidder on the 7000s, but claim that the decision should be made entirely on the basis of the internal review sheet, which gave Bombarider 3.6K points compared to CSR 2.8K points.

33 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

What I don't get is what does it matter who CTA chose to build the 7000-Series railcars?

The point is that there are certain public contract laws which CTA must follow, both on the state level, and since federal funds are involved, also on the federal level. This is to prevent graft, like Phil Pagano spending Metra money willy-nillly, The specifications say what the contractor and CTA are supposed to do, and based on that, CTA is supposed to select the lowest responsible bidder. If it doesn't the bidder has the right to protest. But CTA does not have the right to go to Honest Eddie V's Train Lot and spend $1.3 billion in taxpayers' money as it sees fit. Heck, Emanuel was called out when he tried to give a no bid contract to Bombardier to rebuild the 3200s as compatible with the 5000s.

[Juniorz]

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/bidder-loses-appeal-of-biggest-rail-car-contract-in-cta-history/ 

The CTA will move forward with CSR! 

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, Juniorz said:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/bidder-loses-appeal-of-biggest-rail-car-contract-in-cta-history/ 

The CTA will move forward with CSR! 

As I said above, this was the predictable first step (no different than asking Roger Goodell to rule on Roger Goodell), and required to "exhaust contract remedies." The real question is if Bombardier takes it to the FTA and what the FTA does.

I've commented before that I think Bombardier's attorney (and even more, but irrelevantly, Crain's) overreached, but again we'll have to see if anything happens at the FTA,

[Busjack]

Gaylord also rates rail car proposals.

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

As I said above, this was the predictable first step (no different than asking Roger Goodell to rule on Roger Goodell), and required to "exhaust contract remedies." The real question is if Bombardier takes it to the FTA and what the FTA does.

I've commented before that I think Bombardier's attorney (and even more, but irrelevantly, Crain's) overreached, but again we'll have to see if anything happens at the FTA,

Probably bombardier will there pockets  are deep enough. If there was any error  here it will  be known once the cars arrive. Not that bombardier gets anything  out of it. 

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Probably bombardier will there pockets  are deep enough. If there was any error  here it will  be known once the cars arrive. Not that bombardier gets anything  out of it. 

In short you just said something inherently self-contradictory. Is Alstom still looking over the 5000s? As even someone posting in Crain's pointed out, Bombardier used a defective Chinese part.

There is a reason why CTA solicited for quality control inspectors (see up the thread).

[BusHunter]

But the question is are the inspectors doing their job effectively. Nabi comes to mind. A bad part is one thing a bad car is another issue. Its really up to csr to deliver. Rahm is taking a risk i think. Just putting in my 2 cents here.

[Busjack]

7 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

But the question is are the inspectors doing their job effectively. Nabi comes to mind. A bad part is one thing a bad car is another issue. Its really up to csr to deliver. Rahm is taking a risk i think. Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Like I said, someone working for CTA found the bad wheel bearing journals and that Bombardier had to reweld the front ends. Bombardier didn't volunteer that.

Also, if you remember back 13 years, CTA didn't send inspectors to NABI until after about 190 of the 226 buses were assembled. That's basically what started the practice of having the TA's representatives at the plant.

And on the unrelated point, with a teacher's strike coming up in 9 days, Rahm isn't going to be around to worry about some rail car in 2021.

[jajuan]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

Like I said, someone working for CTA found the bad wheel bearing journals and that Bombardier had to reweld the front ends. Bombardier didn't volunteer that.

Also, if you remember back 13 years, CTA didn't send inspectors to NABI until after about 190 of the 226 buses were assembled. That's basically what started the practice of having the TA's representatives at the plant.

And on the unrelated point, with a teacher's strike coming up in 9 days, Rahm isn't going to be around to worry about some rail car in 2021.

Well a teacher's strike isn't set in stone. They only set a date to do so if they don't finally come to an agreement with CPS. Getting back to transit though, I'll agree with you that Rahm isn't going to have this railcar dispute at the top of his agenda especially when prototypes aren't even due for a couple of years if they get to the notice to proceed point of the process. Which comes to my other point, why do folks continue to go to NABI comparisons and predict a manufacturer will produce a number of defective products to the degree that NABI did especially before production has even begun which in this case will be at least a couple of years from now? For the umpteenth time, CTA learned its lesson with that and since that time has been catching defects before they get to the degree of the NABI fiasco as Busjack has also noted. So I think it's time we finally put that fiasco to rest finally once and for all and stop looking for NABI situations everywhere each time CTA is ready to procure new revenue vehicles. Yes there will be defects found from time to time. That's inevitable because buses and rapid transit railcars are complex machines with thousands of parts per vehicle. But in the years since the NABI artic implosion, CTA has managed to keep each subsequent procurement from becoming that by finding any defects while an order is still in delivery and getting them fixed during that part of the process. So can we stop flirting with corporate defamation by predicting NABI type risks where there aren't any?

[Busjack]

On 9/29/2016 at 11:11 AM, jajuan said:

Which comes to my other point, why do folks continue to go to NABI comparisons and predict a manufacturer will produce a number of defective products to the degree that NABI did especially before production has even begun which in this case will be at least a couple of years from now?

...which brings me to another point (especially when someone said something about whether there will be a CSR car at IRM in 2065).

CSR is not shipping completed cars from Port of Shanghai. Maybe it will ship the shells, unlike Bombardier manufacturing them in NY, but that's about it. CSR (if successful) would still have to  comply with the Buy America Act, which requires assembly in and 60% of the components from the U.S.

The CT Board video indicated that the CSR proposal was 69% Buy America components, and that CSR would use 19 vendors CTA already does. Thus, for instance, there will be Vapor door controls manufactured in Buffalo Grove, no matter what company is the final assembler.

The final assembly is to be in Chicago. Thus, the only analogy would be that if the assembly (starting in 2020) were bad, people who worked at NABI couldn't get jobs across the state line at Nissan, q.e.d. the people working at CSR  couldn't get jobs at Ford, 1 mile to the north. I'm not going to presume that 4 or 5 years in advance.

 

[Busjack]

On 9/29/2016 at 8:15 AM, Busjack said:

I've commented before that I think Bombardier's attorney (and even more, but irrelevantly, Crain's) overreached, but again we'll have to see if anything happens at the FTA,

Crain's has both a summary and the text of the CTA decision here.

Consistent with what I said above:

The CTA "finds that the (Bombardier) protest relies on misstatements of fact, speculation, wholly unfounded accusations of misconduct and legally baseless arguments made by a proposer that simply failed to put forward the best-value proposal," Morey wrote.

Also, whether this was some sort of deal with Emanuel to bring the plant to Hegewisch:

But Bombardier, too, promised to do "some assembly" here, and to open a $5 million Services Center of Excellence here, Moray wrote, and therefore the statement could have applied to either company.

The article also reveals (for the first time of which I know) that Kawasaki was the unsuccessful bidder on the 5000s contract.

A CTA spokesman said that Bombardier itself profited from a similar incident 10 years ago when it offered the lowest price but was out-rated by a competitor, a division of Kawasaki. Bombardier got the $1 billion deal.

And in response to someone who posted the theory that Bombardier has rights from the first Invitation for Bids that was cancelled:

(emphasis added).

There are also references to that since in the addenda it appeared that Bombardier and Kawasaki were submitting a joint bid, Bombardier was bound by the answers given to Kawasaki, the CNR CSR merger, Bombardier had raised its price over that in the canceled IFB, and that Bombardier was not interested in a CTA briefing on the deficiencies of its Best and Final Offer until the day before the protest deadline.

My other observation is while this is signed by Carole Morey, obviously the CTA's lawyers wrote most of the response to the protest.

I'm not the FTA, but my assessment is that CTA sufficiently CYA, and there's not much the FTA can do on this record.