Keolis Contract is now Extended; Contract Operator until 2026

From NBC Boston.

And they're announcing this now? You'd think KCS will invest even less in our service.

The article says they are not going to pick up the options, that the T is not happy with the contract or Keolis' performance, but Keolis is free to bid on it. But Keolis has lost 40M in 18 months...do they want to throw in the towel or double-down?

Also since the contract was let by the Patrick administration, and we know how skilled they were at writing contracts (see Evergreen Solar, or MBTA/PAR agreement to install PTC in freight locomotives so they could extend to Wachusett). Perhaps the Baker administration can do better. But who will be governor six years from now?

Hopefully NO ONE will bid on the contract and the T will have no other choice but to run it in-house and therefore be forced to hold THEMSELVES accountable instead of passing the buck/fining another entity for problems that were beyond their control.

Since when has MA state government held itself accountable for anything? The last time was the Ward Commission in the 1970s, and that has been completely undermined.

Is it going to be a big problem for Keolis to retain key employees?

Very surprising to announce this as early as they did. They probably have at least 2 more years before they would really have to consider going out to bid and laying the groundwork for an RFP, being only 2.5 years into the 8-year contract. That's not to say if a new administration came in after 2018 they couldn't reverse this. Rep. Strauss indicates this is more about the contract and what it leads Keolis to do. Perhaps a different contract approach would work better? For example a low base cost and with incentives as opposed to a high base cost with fines.

BandA wrote:Is it going to be a big problem for Keolis to retain key employees?

Doubtful, many of the "key" employees transitioned from B&M to Amtrak to MBCR to Keolis (or some portion of that). Those who run the service on a daily basis, including the front-line supervision, will be largely unaffected by this. The core of the workforce transitions, senior leadership and administration usually changes.

And the Globe's article has a similar slant regarding a change in the administration.

@Diverging Route could you please (if it's possible) rename this topic to something more accurate? For example "Commuter Rail contract will be rebid for 2022, not extended" as @BandA used in that reply is more appropriate. Keolis is not "out" as of 2022; they simply have to re-bid. The only thing that's going to be "out" is the current contract not the current operator.

@sery2831 if you see this first could you please rename this thread / topic?

BandA wrote:Since when has MA state government held itself accountable for anything? The last time was the Ward Commission in the 1970s, and that has been completely undermined.

This is the root cause of the majority of the problems on the MBTA without question. The MBTA's board of directors and big management staff of state employees are the responsible ones for the system's difficulties and both the Massachusetts state legislature and the news media continue to protect them and shift the blame to the contractor. However, what they fail to realize is that the MBTA provides all of the equipment that the contractor has to operate along with its budget, all while paying huge pensions to those state employees and servicing debt. The real way to rectify the system is to consider bankruptcy. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is a private company owned by the state after all. They could go through the reorganization process, which would allow for renegotiation of all of the contracts and restructure the MBTA's debt. It would also stop expansion, e.g. South Coast, when they can't even run the system that they have. Then, as part of the bankruptcy process, a new organization of railroad people, not made up of political cronies, could take over the management of the system and manage it properly with the legislature committing to a yearly operating budget. Governor Baker should have done this during the 2015 winter but didn't. The longer they kick the can, the worse it is going to get. Does anyone ever wonder why Amtrak does not bid to operate the commuter rail system when the contract comes up.

If Amtrak if out of the question, could CSX consider (at least for the south side routes)? They operated MARC as a B&O legacy service for many years.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:If Amtrak if out of the question, could CSX consider (at least for the south side routes)? They operated MARC as a B&O legacy service for many years.

Is that a serious question? CSX gave up the MARC contract almost 4 years ago. Also the last time I checked, CSX is moving out of Eastern Massachusetts.

Obviously, the administration doesn't like the contract at all. Problem is the new contract will likely be more expensive than the existing contract and contract extensions, but they seem motivated to bite the bullet. If I were Keolis I would be trying to hurry up and diversify my US contracts. Why not restructure the existing contract and extend it?

Who are the contenders for a new contract? PAR? Amtrak? G&W? Bombardier? Veolis? Going in-house? The magic 8-ball says unlikely. How about CRRC, since the "T" wants the next contract to include responsibility for the rolling stock. How about a joint venture between IP & Seimens? M&E? A new Irving subsidiary?

Although the "T" is insolvent CR personnel are Keolis employees, so I would assume there is no pension, medical or benefits liabilities to the T. Keolis workers could even legally strike.

Does Keolis have more or fewer employees than MBCR? Operating lean is one strategy to make money on a contract, but it obviously backfired.

A long term contract (20 yrs?) could allow the vendor to buy new engines and install high level platforms and automatic doors to reduce dwell and the number of conductors, for example. You might even see vendors' livery instead of the T logo.

Keolis got stuck cleaning up the "parting gifts" left behind by MBCR,and the HSP-46/Rotem cars "debugging" problems.
Add to that a fleet of power that's falling apart,along with a growing backlog of car repairs that now have to be
sent to a contract car shop to be repaired.
That Blizzard during the 1st year didn't help.

BandA wrote:Obviously, the administration doesn't like the contract at all. Problem is the new contract will likely be more expensive than the existing contract and contract extensions, but they seem motivated to bite the bullet. If I were Keolis I would be trying to hurry up and diversify my US contracts. Why not restructure the existing contract and extend it?

Who are the contenders for a new contract? PAR? Amtrak? G&W? Bombardier? Veolis? Going in-house? The magic 8-ball says unlikely. How about CRRC, since the "T" wants the next contract to include responsibility for the rolling stock. How about a joint venture between IP & Seimens? M&E? A new Irving subsidiary?

Although the "T" is insolvent CR personnel are Keolis employees, so I would assume there is no pension, medical or benefits liabilities to the T. Keolis workers could even legally strike.

Does Keolis have more or fewer employees than MBCR? Operating lean is one strategy to make money on a contract, but it obviously backfired.

A long term contract (20 yrs?) could allow the vendor to buy new engines and install high level platforms and automatic doors to reduce dwell and the number of conductors, for example. You might even see vendors' livery instead of the T logo.

There were only 2 bidders last time. Any pol who thinks this is such a sought-after 'get' that the floodgates will be open is sorely mistaken. That includes the groups capable of doing rolling stock (which the previous 3 incumbents could, if their contracts went that far). Something something definition of insanity.


Baker's steering this somewhere to a preference that's his/his staff's, for reasons that are his. And not offering a lot of tea leaves about the reasoning.

IIRC, one reason why Amtrak did not pursue the renewal of the MBTA contract was that there was a demand that Amtrak assume full liability in the event of an accident. Amtrak is self insured and it was thought too be great of financial risk to enter into those terms.