An effort by a losing rail bidder to overturn the largest contract in city history has been rejected for a second time by the courts.
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a proposal submitted by Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc. in an effort to win a contract to build rail cars for the Honolulu train system was "unresponsive" to city requirements.
On March 21, 2011, the city rejected the Bombardier rail proposal, and instead awarded a $1.4 billion contract to Ansaldo Honolulu JV to build 80 rail cars as well as design, build and run the train operating system for the 20-mile rail line.
Dan Grabauskas, executive director for the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation, said the latest court decision affirms that the city followed state law in awarding the contract.
"The contract award was successfully upheld by three independent and separate reviews," Grabauskas said. "All of these extensive reviews underscored the validity of our procurement process."
Ansaldo is now designing the train cars and the operating system, and Grabauskas said city taxpayers "can expect a state-of-the art automated system that is safe and reliable. Equally important, we intend to keep this contract on time and on budget and this decision will help us do that."
Honolulu representatives of Bombardier said they were not authorized to comment on Wednesday’s decision, and Bombardier Honolulu Project Manager Andrew S. Robbins did not respond to a message left on his cellphone.
Bombardier filed a protest over the 2011 contract award to Ansaldo, but that protest was denied by the city.
A hearings officer with state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs also rejected Bombardier’s protest, and on Sept. 16, 2011, a state circuit judge rejected Bombardier’s appeal.
Bombardier then appealed that decision to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The company argued that the city had an obligation to engage in "meaningful discussions" with Bombardier before the train contract award over concerns the company had about potential legal liability for the rail contractor as described in the city’s request for proposals.
The appeals court disagreed, ruling the city met its obligations because it had warned Bombardier that the city was unwilling to change the legal liability requirement.
