For those faithful few following the dramatic twists and turns in the Love Field concessions bidding process, you may recall that proposals were due Wednesday, following yet another extension given in June when prospective vendors had questions and concerns in need of answerin'. Well ... at the beginning of this week, so happens, the deadline was once more pushed back to one week from today.
The reason? Well, as you'll see in addendum posted to the city's website earlier this week, vendors still have questions. Many questions. Thirteen pages' worth. Some are technical; others seek clarification, insisting the city's original RFP was too vague -- not the first time they've complained about that. And some want harder numbers from the city (several ask a variation on "Can the Airport provide a projection of enplanements for beyond 2015?" and it cannot). And some are plain grouchy, as in: "Why would anyone waste $15,000 - $20,000 to create a proposal, only to have it taken away by this 'lottery' need?" -- a query clearly posed by one of the upset incumbents not at all thrilled about the process. The going gets good 'round Page 8. Here's but one example:
33. There is no value at all for the pre-security location. Many other airports have tried this only to have them struggle or close. Would the City please remove this location from the assortment? If the traffic warrants a pre-security location, it can be developed after we know the exact EPAXs and traffic patterns.
Answer: The City disagrees completely with the statement that locations pre-security have no value. As a matter of fact, the current program at Dallas Love Field has offerings pre-security, and while not as successful as those post-security, they are profitable and provide a much needed amenity to the customers, employees, and those not ticketed.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
The phrase "the City disagrees" shows up quite a bit, matter of fact. Did this have to be this difficult?