Will Celebrity get back into Glacier Bay now that CCL may lose their slots

[RDC1]

In 1999 Royal Caribbean plead guilty to environment felony violations. Being guilty of a felony kept Royal Caribbean and its cruise lines, from being able to contract slots in Glacier Bay. While they could have submitted a bid in the contract competition in 2008 (when they were once more able to participate) they chose not to.

 

Most of those slots are held by CCL lines (Princess and HAL mostly).

 

Now that CCL is pleading guilty, one would expect that those lines will not be able to contract for Glacier Bay. That would open up a large number of slots that Celebrity could bid on.

[Cruise Junky]

Aren't they long term licenses? I thought they were good for 10 Years, but maybe it's 5. I think RCL certainly has a better shot than they did before

 

Also didn't RCL dump in Alaska ?

Edited December 1, 2016 by Cruise Junky

[RDC1]

Aren't they long term licenses? I thought they were good for 10 Years, but maybe it's 5. I think RCL certainly has a better shot than they did before

 

Also didn't RCL dump in Alaska ?

 

The contracts are for 10 years. While RCL did dump in Alaska water, that is not what kept them out of Glacier Bay. The fact that the company had a felony conviction is what prevented them from bidding until after 2005. RCL chose not to bid in 2008. HAL and Princess won most of the slots, especially since they get some slots grandfathered in because of their historical participation.

 

If CCL is prevented due to its felony conviction then they would not be able to compete in the contract renewal in 2008 when the current contract ends.

 

That would leave most of the slots up for grabs.

 

The other question is what happens to the remaining years of the existing contract. I sent a letter to the Glacier Bay contracting officer asking is the legal case will impact the contracts and if so when?

[Charles4515]

Aren't they long term licenses? I thought they were good for 10 Years, but maybe it's 5. I think RCL certainly has a better shot than they did before

 

Also didn't RCL dump in Alaska ?

 

It was five years they were banned from Glacier Bay and that expired years ago. The last ten year permits were issued in 2009 so the next permit application date would be 2019.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Charles4515

[dkjretired]

It was five years they were banned from Glacier Bay and that expired years ago. The last ten year permits were issued in 2009 so the next permit application date would be 2019.

 

Perhaps you were not aware but Carnival pleaded guilty today to some dumping charges. I think what the op was asking is whether Carnival could be stripped of their leases.

 

I am guessing it will not have any effect on Alaska cruises since the violations occured in England.

Edited December 2, 2016 by dkjretired

[Charles4515]

Perhaps you were not aware but Carnival pleaded guilty today to some dumping charges. I think what the op was asking is whether Carnival could be stripped of their leases.

 

 

 

I am aware of that. I started the thread on the Princess Board this morning reporting the $40 million fine. I doubt that Carnival will be stripped of their current leases. I think it is possible they might be denied new permits when the current ten year permits expire in 2019. In any case whether CCL is denied permits in 2019 or not, Royal Caribbean and Celebrity will be able to apply for permits if they choose to do so.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited December 2, 2016 by Charles4515

[Charles4515]

 

I am guessing it will not have any effect on Alaska cruises since the violations occured in England.

 

 

The violation reported by the whistleblower was in British waters but subsequent investigation found other violations on other ships. I believe there were some in Alaskan waters.

 

Still I tend to doubt CCL will lose their Glacier Bay permits.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited December 2, 2016 by Charles4515

[RDC1]

The violation reported by the whistleblower was in British waters but subsequent investigation found other violations on other ships. I believe there were some in Alaskan waters.

 

Still I tend to doubt CCL will lose their Glacier Bay permits.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The reason Royal was banned was because of the felony convictions. A company convicted of a felony cannot be a government contractor. All of the cruise lines in Glacier Bay are government contractor. The slots are awarded as a result of bids for a services contract.

 

According to news results CCL has plead guilty to 7 felony charges. They, as Royal was, are under a consent decree and supervision for 5 years. That means that the earliest that they can again compete for a government contract slot would be 2021. If they successfully complete the 5 year supervision period they can apply to have the convictions removed, at which time they would be able to get government contracts.

 

Unless they managed to negotiate around the law, which would seem doubtful, since it actually is a law.

 

With the existing contract ending September 30, 2019, and the bidding process process starting in 2018, CCL lines should not be able to participate.

 

Technically under the law they should not even be able to finish the existing contract.

[Charles4515]

 

 

 

With the existing contract ending September 30, 2019, and the bidding process process starting in 2018, CCL lines should not be able to participate.

 

 

 

 

 

That might be. We shall see. I just would not bet on it.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RDC1]

I just checked the FAR. It was recently updated. The current language is now:

 

(a) As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that--

 

(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

 

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

 

 

They recently added the tax liability exclusion, at they same time it appears they weakened the Felony language in such a way that a department no longer must automatically suspend or debar a contractor, but instead can determine if there is any threat to the governments interests. Weaker language then when Royal went through this.

[Cruise Junky]

I just checked the FAR. It was recently updated. The current language is now:

 

(a) As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that--

 

(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

 

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

 

 

They recently added the tax liability exclusion, at they same time it appears they weakened the Felony language in such a way that a department no longer must automatically suspend or debar a contractor, but instead can determine if there is any threat to the governments interests. Weaker language then when Royal went through this.

 

They'd be awfully close on that 24 months wouldn't they? Do you know what month they have to apply?

[Charles4515]

I just checked the FAR. It was recently updated. The current language is now:

 

 

 

(a) As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that--

 

 

 

(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

 

 

 

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

 

 

 

 

 

They recently added the tax liability exclusion, at they same time it appears they weakened the Felony language in such a way that a department no longer must automatically suspend or debar a contractor, but instead can determine if there is any threat to the governments interests. Weaker language then when Royal went through this.

 

 

 

Thanks for looking that up.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fshagan]

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.[/b]

 

I guess these felonies were under British law if I'm reading things right. Do those count in this case since the wording is "Federal law" and not "any" felony?

[RDC1]

I guess these felonies were under British law if I'm reading things right. Do those count in this case since the wording is "Federal law" and not "any" felony?

 

CCL pleaded guilty to the 7 felonies in the US under US law. While it was initially reported in the UK. The investigation was largely done in the US and the charges brought by the US justice department.