The Atlanta airport hopes to open its new international terminal May 16, but the milestone could be delayed or marred if a judge grants an injunction blocking restaurant deals, an attorney for the city of Atlanta argued Thursday.
A delayed opening or an opening without concessions up and running would be “an international black eye that could take decades to overcome,” said Mark Trigg, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig who represented the city in Fulton County Superior court.
Beyond image damage, the city’s ability to replay debt may be compromised and Delta Air Lines and other carriers would also be affected, according to Trigg.
Four companies that did not win restaurant contracts — SSP America Inc., Midfield Concessions, Atlanta Airport Restaurants and Take-Off Concessions — want an injunction to prevent the city from executing contracts until their claims are resolved.
Those firms last week filed administrative appeals. Hearing officer George Maynard is expected to schedule hearings between late March and mid-April.
Some of the contracts are for locations at the new international terminal but others are for locations in the existing airport. Attorney Mike Bowers said his client, Midfield Concessions, is seeking a contract only in the existing airport space, so an injunction would not affect the terminal’s opening.
A city spokeswoman said the opening date hasn’t been officially set.
Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Cynthia Wright is expected to rule soon.
The Atlanta City Council and Mayor Kasim Reed approved legislation in early January to award airport restaurant contracts to nine different teams.
Losing concessionaires argued that delays are due to the city’s decisions, including its decision last September to throw out all of the concessions proposals it collected earlier in the year and restart the process because too many were missing documents. They also claimed scoring was inappropriate, some proposals should have been disqualified and evaluators did not have enough training or experience. They say the city violated open records law and the open meetings act and the council “merely rubberstamped” selections made by evaluation committees.
The city contends the process was appropriate.
Without an injunction, the city would move forward with the winning concessionaires. At that point, the losing concessionaires’ attorneys argued, there would be no meaningful remedy for their clients.
Trigg argued that the court doesn’t have the authority to grant an injunction and said the concessionaires maintain rights and legal remedies after the contracts are finalized.
Trigg also countered concessionaires’ allegations that the procurement process was a sham to reward the politically connected, calling them “fantastic, ridiculous, absurd.”
About the Author
