Five companies that lost out on contracts to run restaurants and bars at the Atlanta airport filed formal protests this week, trying to stop the deals and convince city officials that they deserve to win.
One company asked for additional documents, including personal bank statements from one of the winning businessmen, to make its case. Several said they had more relevant experience or awards than winners.
SSP America Inc., one of the largest companies to not win a contract, said the process was “fatally flawed” by conflicts of interest and inconsistent and arbitrary evaluations.
The tug-of-war is over contracts that could run for a decade or longer at Hartsfield-Jackson International, the world’s busiest airport. Sales over that span could top $3 billion. Companies selected will fill about 150 spaces in the new international terminal and elsewhere.
The city has defended its selection process. Winners were chosen by a panel of city employees and approved by City Council.
“The level of speculation and innuendo that has surrounded the process reflects just how competitive the environment is,” said Sonji Jacobs, spokeswoman for Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. She said the city has made millions of documents available to the public and to plaintiffs.
The protests will be considered by the city’s top procurement officer, Adam Smith. If he turns them down, companies can appeal to a hearing officer or sue.
Among the allegations:
SSP America, which made five proposals for food and beverage contracts, said winning proposals had missing or incomplete documents and should have been deemed non-responsive. The company also said city evaluators either did not take notes or did not keep them -- a claim bolstered by internal emails released under Georgia’s open records law and included in the protest.
Notes “would have been essential to conducting an informed and intelligent conversation,” SSP said in its protest.
Michigan-based Midfield Concession Enterprises and MBC Concessions of East Point said the company that beat them for a small restaurant package falsely claimed to be a disadvantaged business. That designation can help a company gain a foothold in airports, according to federal rules and city guidelines, and gave Atlanta Restaurant Partners points in the scoring process.
The complaint alleges that Atlanta Restaurant Partners obscured its relationship with Atlanta-based Jackmont Hospitality Inc. to disguise the fact that the companies together make too much money to qualify for the disadvantaged designation.
An executive of Jackmont and Atlanta Restaurant Partners said he and his partners met all the federal criteria. The Georgia Department of Transportation certified the business as disadvantaged, according to documents reviewed by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Jackmont’s value was definitely included in the process and was not obscured in any way,” Daniel Halpern, a partner in Atlanta Restaurant Partners, said in an email relayed by a spokesman.
It is rare for contract awards to be overturned under Atlanta’s protest process. In a previous batch of protests, all four were denied and none appealed to the hearing officer. However, one protest succeeded last month, when currency exchange company Travelex convinced Smith that the winning company’s proposal did not meet the city’s criteria.
About the Author
