Questions requested by the MPRB on February 4, 2004 regarding MPRB's excursion boat RFB procedure. James R. Grabek, February 5, 2004
Has the MPRB really investigated the financial viability of the Padelford's Boom Island operation to assure that profits/losses warranted an increase in fees?
Why was a contract not negotiated and concluded after the Padelford's August 4, 2003 letter (see attached)?
Why was an RFP issued without the "criteria for excursion boat and charter operations" of the MPRB's policy Park Board Ordnance PB-4-92 (see attached) which was required of your previous client for 14 years?
Why was an RFP issued with stipulations of November 2003 to March 2004 bidding process when the MPRB had knowledge of this being detrimental to the Padelford client method of securing next year's business?
Why did the RFP require a "restricted discussions/submissions" section and then the MPRB complain that they were no communications between the MPRB and the Padelford client?
Why were the two proposals received in response to the MPRB's RFP proposals for the Bohemian Flats area of the Mississippi River and not the Boom Island proposal?
What are the specifics of the SkipperLiners proposal for Boom Island?
What will be the costs incurred by the MPRB with the SkipperLiner dockage proposals for Boom Island and Bohemian Flats?
What are the comparisons, side by side, of the Padelford contract and services for 14 years compared to the SkipperLiner proposal?
Why is this just a 2-year contract with options instead of a longer term contract?
Has a thorough investigation of the previous business experiences of the SkipperLiner company been accomplished and has a report on such due diligence been made public?
Why were there so many references of "perks" by MPRB staff of promises of the SkipperLiner proposal but specifically clarified that "this will not be in the contract?" (Example: promises of boat features, advertising, house boats, water taxi's, etc.)
Why is there such a "rush" to negotiate a contract with SkipperLiner when there seemed to be no rush to conclude the RFP until March 2004.
Why is the RFP timeline now being altered? Is it for the convenience of timing to allow SkipperLiner to meet seasonal needs? If so, why didn't the original RFP show consideration to a 14-year client with good performance not given the same consideration?
Comments
This article discusses another business deal the owner of SkipperLiner backed out of in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Posted by webmaster | Fri, 02/06/2004 - 7:14pm | Login to post comments
Mr. Sigglekows numbers are overly aggressive. Lets make sure to ask him next year at this time what the income was for the new excursion boats. Also, Skipperliner is pulling the paddlewheel boat from La Crosse to run in Mpls. If they find a better deal elsewhere will they do the same thing to Mpls.
Posted by anonymous | Wed, 02/18/2004 - 1:44pm | Login to post comments