1. Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA
Inc.
1501 Lebanon Church Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236 USA
www.bombardier.com
TEL 412-655-5700
FAX 412-655-5260
August 31, 2011
The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
Board of Directors
Ali‘i Place, Suite 1700
1099 Alakea Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Dear Board Members:
I am taking what some may view as an unusual step by communicating directly with you despite
an active appeal with the Circuit Court and a Protest to the Federal Transit Administration.
Given the importance of your mission as Board members on a project that will change the face
of Honolulu for 100 years or more, it is imperative that you be presented with facts and
information that I believe have not been made available to you to-date.
Bombardier also believes strongly in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor rail project
and has no objective to block it in any way. Our actions should prove this having been an
Offeror in 1991, having kept an active interest ever since, having fully re-engaged with the City
more than 6 years ago, having encouraged City officials to become educated and understand
global best practices and having offered cost-saving and passenger enhancements to City staff
and consultants as they made their way through a long, complicated and arduous procurement
process.
Bombardier qualified for the Priority Offeror List and was invited to submit a proposal for this
project. We responded to the RFP and 47 addenda and cooperated through numerous changes
in plan and due dates. We submitted not one, but three proposals having committed
experienced staff time, resources, subcontractor and supplier resources to this multi-million
dollar effort to offer the City and its taxpayers the best possible proposal for the heart of the
system – the Core Systems, as well as for long-term and ongoing Operations & Maintenance. I
believe City and HART staff would acknowledge that our efforts were serious, meaningful and
valuable.

2. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
Page 2
DISQUALIFICATION OF BOMBARDIER’S PROPOSAL
We are aware that some would characterize our actions of appealing our disqualification as
“sour grapes” or the actions of “sore losers.” In fact, we did not “lose” this award. Our proposal
was disqualified and not even considered. When we examined the public file documents shortly
after Mayor Carlisle made the award announcement on March 21, 2011, we were shocked to
discover that the disqualification of our proposal swept away what would have been the winning
bid. Although the City did not finish the scoring of our proposal, according to the City’s own
evaluation of pricing in its life cycle cost analysis, and the scoring it did do on the technical &
management aspects of the proposal, Bombardier had the lowest total price and highest score.
It took the media to expose this truth despite a misleading City press release and improper
redacting of documents. A summary of the pricing and the scoring is attached for your
convenience. Also attached is the City’s own “Life Cycle Cost”, or more appropriately, “Net
Present Value” analysis of all three bids, which clearly shows that Bombardier offered the lowest
total price proposal and best value by a significant margin.
What is even more shocking is the City’s handling of our disqualification. Bombardier included
one sentence in all three of its proposals attempting to clarify a poorly drafted provision in the
RFP. The provision involved the City adding language to create an overall cap on liability but
then leaving in language that circumvented the cap rendering it meaningless. While the City
pointed out other areas of our proposal that could be strengthened over this time period, the
City never specifically indicated to Bombardier through all this time that the objectionable
sentence would be viewed as creating a conditional proposal and would be used, just days prior
to awarding the Contract, as a reason to completely disqualify Bombardier and in the process,
to sweep aside the lowest total price and highest scoring technical and management proposal.
APPEALS WITH THE CITY AND DCCA
Bombardier protested this improper disqualification to the Chief Procurement Officer of the City.
We subsequently received a denial of our Protest, in reality by the same team that disqualified
our proposal in the first place, leaving us no choice but to appeal to the State Department of
Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA).
Unfortunately, at DCCA, the Hearings Officer granted the City its summary motion to dismiss
and we never were afforded the opportunity for a fair hearing where we could present evidence
and testimony of the actions of the City that would have shown that the City acted improperly
and contrary to the Hawaii Procurement code. In addition, the Hearings Officer relied on a
clever twisting of the facts by the City’s outside counsel when he conceived a theory that
Bombardier “conditioned” its proposal to gain a price advantage on its competition. There was
zero actual evidence presented to the Hearings Officer to justify such a theory. In fact,
Bombardier‘s price would not have changed one bit at that time or now. The proof that
Bombardier did not play this game is sitting in an Escrow bid file that is still in escrow today at a
local Title company and can be accessed to prove that the Hearings Officer got this wrong.

3. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
Page 3
APPEAL TO FTA AND CIRCUIT COURT
It is for these reasons that we were compelled to file further appeals with the FTA and in Circuit
Court. Bombardier has an obligation to its shareholders, its suppliers and subcontractors and
especially to its employees to see this through. The utmost concern for HART Board members
is the interests of the taxpayers. It defies logic that the City would, at the 11th hour, simply
sweep aside the lowest price and highest scored proposal based on one sentence of many tens
of thousands, that it felt was objectionable.
In fact, the Hawaii Procurement code was written with this logic in mind. The code is not
intended for the City to cry “gotcha.” It is written to create a situation where the City becomes an
agent to seek the best value on behalf of the taxpayers. In fact in HAR 3-122-97, it states:
A proposal shall be rejected for reasons including but not limited to:
(B) The proposal, after any opportunity has passed for modification or clarification, fails to
meet the announced requirements of the agency in some material respect…(emphasis added.)
If the City truly believed that Bombardier’s sentence created a conditional proposal, and despite
whether the City believes it warned Bombardier or not about submitting such a proposal, the
Procurement Code clearly establishes a road to seeking the best value for taxpayers. As had
been done on other bids in numerous jurisdictions including those involving Federal
Government funds, all the City had to do was to provide an opportunity for Bombardier to
address this issue and even withdraw the sentence.
Yet, instead, the City has pursued a course of action of defending its position and award, which
has led to a wide range of taxpayers questioning the wisdom of its actions and created a lack of
trust in the City’s stewardship of this large and complex Project. The City’s defense of appeals
from both Bombardier and Sumitomo has a common theme, namely:
1) All protests are untimely, as they should have been made prior to submission of Offers.
2) While the RFP may be poorly drafted and constructed in several instances, it stands.
While these have so far proven to be successful defenses for the City, with all due respect, I
must suggest that the HART Board of Directors have a more compelling interest and that is to
get this procurement right for the future of Honolulu and to ensure that the best value has truly
been obtained for the City.

4. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
Page 4
THERE IS TIME TO GET THE CORE SYSTEMS RIGHT
Fortunately, there is time for the HART Board of Directors to take charge and get this right. The
HART Interim Executive Director made a presentation to you at a recent Board meeting
indicating that the bulk of the anticipated $1.55B federal funding, via the Federal Full Funding
Grant Agreement (FFGA), is now not expected until October 2012. Additionally, the City Council
has stated its preference not to release significant funding from the excise tax account or permit
the floating of City bonds to advance funds to the project until the FFGA is secured. For these
reasons, significant construction cannot begin at this time and a reasonable delay in executing
the Core Systems contract will neither affect the Project schedule nor delay jobs, and especially
construction jobs, from being created.
Bombardier continues to believe that the best and most efficient course of action is to reverse
the improper disqualification of Bombardier’s proposal and permit the evaluation of all three
Offerors to pick up where it left off, including full consideration of Bombardier’s proposal. We
believe the results will be compelling and will provide confidence to taxpayers that HART truly
has acted fully to ensure that the best value was obtained. Such a course of action can be
accomplished very swiftly as most of the work has already been completed.
Should the course of action above not be possible, there is another avenue that is viable. HART
can call for new bids from all three Offerors, which can be accomplished, in a reasonable period
of time, likely not to exceed two months. Such an action has been taken in other jurisdictions
when a situation arises that potentially taints the procurement process.
We are aware that Sumitomo has suggested to you that, should the AnsaldoHonolulu proposal
ultimately be rejected, Sumitomo ought to be awarded the contract. You should be aware,
however that this would create a situation where HART selects the most expensive proposal of
the three submitted to the City, as the City’s NPV analysis attached to this letter clearly shows.
With Bombardier’s proposal reinserted into the evaluation, awarding to Sumitomo would also
mean that the City would have selected the lowest scoring and highest priced proposal of the
three Priority Listed offerors.
OTHER FEATURES OF THE BOMBARDIER PROPOSAL
The Bombardier proposal also contained many important elements that were passed over in the
course of this controversy and to which, as HART Board members, you have not been informed
of. For example, Bombardier was the only Offeror to include local assembly in Honolulu of a
majority of the fleet of rail cars, thereby not only creating local jobs, but also careers for people
who would then migrate into the operations & maintenance of the system. Bombardier was
again the only Offeror to propose 3-car trains thereby providing a higher level of comfort with
50% more seating per train than any other Offeror. Bombardier created training and internship
arrangements with both the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Leeward Community College. In
fact we already employ UH graduates on the mainland and have sponsored seven summer
interns to-date.

5. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
Page 5
Bombardier also included both noise & vibration and corrosion control experts on our team to
address very significant concerns in Honolulu and, perhaps most importantly, we included the
Vancouver SkyTrain Operating Company on our team to ensure that Honolulu’s system would
be operated correctly right from start. No other proposal included these important features.
Unfortunately, all of these elements were simply passed over due to the City’s actions in
disqualifying Bombardier’s proposal without specific discussions as required under the Hawaii
Procurement code and because Bombardier took that action of pointing out an ambiguity in the
RFP as, in fact, was its obligation to do under the RFP requirements.
I highly suggest that you review all three proposals available to you so that you can decide for
yourself about the quality of all three proposals.
CONCLUSION
In summary, Bombardier wishes to make the following points to the HART Board of Directors:
• Bombardier hereby extends the validity of its proposal through October 31, 2011.
Bombardier will not change the price in this proposal.
• Bombardier is a financially strong, serious, and highly respected global leader in the
supply of rail transit and aerospace products and solutions, and at no time did
Bombardier “play games” to gain an unfair advantage in Honolulu.
• Bombardier hereby waives the “condition” in its proposal relating to liability exclusions
that the City believes is contained therein and Bombardier confirms that it meets all of
the requirements of the RFP. The Hawaii Procurement code clearly permits the
withdrawal of any such “conditions” prior to the City being compelled to disqualify a
proposal.
• Bombardier delivered the lowest total price to the City in its BAFO #2 proposal and
received the highest technical and management scores of all three proposals from the
City evaluators.
• The HART Board of Directors has a compelling interest in not just defending past City
actions but in being stewards in seeking the best value and most compelling solution for
taxpayers and the future of Honolulu.
• With a delay in Federal funding until October 2012, there is time to get the critical Core
Systems Contract right. This should be of utmost interest and concern.
• The City will be engaging a Core Systems Contractor for at least an 18-year period and
therefore it is critical that a financially strong and capable Offeror be chosen who has
delivered the most compelling and cost-effective proposal.
We truly hope that this letter helps Board members understand the reasons why
Bombardier’s proposal should be fully considered. The Honolulu Rail project is too
important to the future of the City not to be done right. The HART Board of Directors has
the chance now to make this right, restore public trust in the process and act in the
interests of the taxpayers. We look forward to a solution that will benefit all of the citizens
of Hawaii and that will ensure a successful and affordable project for generations to
come.

7.
SUMMARY
OF
OFFERORS’
SCORING
AND
PRICING
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Initial
Proposal
Bombardier
Sumitomo
Ansaldo
Score
7447
(#1)
6940
(#3)
7019
(#2)
DB
Price
$820,788,511
$992,212,469
$679,848,161
Intermediate
O&M
Price
139,272,219
341,988,466
247,270,441
Full
5
Year
Price
243,583,851
360,157,078
337,365,985
Optional
Extended
5
Year
237,876,483
385,455,187
366,490,987
Price
Total
Contract
Amounts
1,203,644,581
1,694,358,013
1,264,484,587
(See
Note
1)
Total
of
All
Amounts
1,441,521,064
1,732,903,531
1,630,975,574
including
Optional
O&M
2nd
BAFO
Proposal
Bombardier
Sumitomo
Ansaldo
Score
(See
Note
2)
7513
(#1)
7389
(#3)
7462
(#2)
DB
Price
$697,263,592
$688,825,949
$573,782,793
Intermediate
O&M
Price
86,550,393
273,491,568
166,974,503
Full
5
Year
Price
176,167,567
240,438,085
339,056,303
Optional
Extended
5
Year
203,375,014
250,694,496
317,573,494
Price
Total
Contract
Amounts
959,981,552
1,202,755,602
1,079,813,599
Total
of
All
Amounts
1,163,356,566
1,453,450,098
1,397,387,093
including
Optional
O&M
Notes:
1.
DB
Prices
and
Intermediate
O&M
Prices
are
lump
sum,
firm-­‐fixed
and
include
escalation.
The
Full
5-­‐Year
and
Optional
5-­‐Year
Pricing
is
in
2011
Dollars
and
is
subject
to
an
escalation
index.
Therefore
adding
these
prices
together
is
to
illustrate
the
totals
for
each
Bidder.
A
separate
NPV
analysis
was
done
which
confirms
that
Bombardier
had
the
lowest
overall
cost
to
the
City,
with
Ansaldo
the
second
lowest
and
Sumitomo
the
highest.
2. For
the
2nd
BAFO
Proposal,
Bombardier’s
score
was
not
completed
due
to
its
disqualification.
The
score
shown
in
the
table
above
is
the
worst
case
scoring
predicted
for
Bombardier
should
it
be
re-­‐
inserted
into
the
process
and
fully
scored.
The
City
scored
Bombardier
up
until
the
“Price”
and
“Price
Realism”
categories.
To
estimate
Bombardier’s
total
score,
the
Hawaii
State
guidelines
were
used
for
the
Price
score
as
well
as
the
City’s
Technical
Committee
analysis
of
Price
Realism,
assuming
that
all
6
Evaluators
on
the
Evaluation
Committee
would
adopt
the
Technical
Committee’s
recommendations.
In
the
Debrief
Session
with
the
City,
the
City
confirmed
that
Bombardier
was
leading
in
the
Scoring
up
until
the
time
that
it
was
deemed
to
be
disqualified.