After a protest and do-over in evaluating proposals, the Hawaii Tourism Authority awarded a
$34 million, two-year contract to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA), to handle outreach to tourists visiting Hawaii from other parts of the U.S.
Troubling red flags, however, have been raised by the fact that members of CNHA’s own transition team, named after the proposal process, deny having any formal relationship with the CNHA, or even knowledge that their names would be mentioned in the proposal.
CNHA was chosen after it protested the HTA’s decision-making in December. That came after the contract was first offered to the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau, which has administered the contract every year since its inception.
This contract has typically been thought of as a marketing initiative, seeking to draw tourists in to Hawaii. Over the years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been channeled to the HVCB. And HVCB has proven adept at attracting tourists, benefiting the tourism industry, but stressing other aspects of island life.
More recently, sentiment has grown that “marketing” is not the core service Hawaii tourism needs. The current contract calls for “brand management,” reaching out to potential tourists with the message that Hawaii wants visitors who will tread lightly on the land, support island-grown businesses and support its unique culture.
After CNHA’s protest, changes in the contract description were made, deemphasizing marketing as a role and providing for a 90-day transition period so that the organization with a winning proposal could develop a program description. A new request for proposals was issued in April with these changes — and with an amended proposal, CNHA came out on the top.
If the award stands, it will be the first time that a Native Hawaiian group has been in charge of marketing and brand management for the state’s largest source of visitors. Ostensibly, Hawaii could benefit from this viewpoint and leadership.
However, concerns are emerging over issuance and vetting of the tourism proposals, as well as possible misstatements on CNHA’s part.
The request for proposal process, as overseen by Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) Director Mike McCartney, appears haphazard.
First, the fact that DBEDT rescinded its initial December contract award to HVCB could be interpreted as an admission that the first request for proposals or award-vetting process — or both — could be flawed.
Next, the de-emphasis of “marketing” in the second request for proposals raises a question: Why wasn’t this shift in priorities identified from the beginning?
As for CNHA, it’s disturbing that the group would name two tourism industry stalwarts as part of its advisory team when that’s not the case — as disavowed in public statements by the two: longtime hotelier Jerry Gibson and former XTERRA CEO/co-founder Tom Kiely.
Additionally, some Hawaii tourism observers are concerned that CNHA may not have sufficient expertise to manage such an important contract. It’s notable that the revised request for proposals added a provision allowing for a new contractor to take over responsibility for U.S. brand management without a permanent team — or program description — in place.
The turnaround time is tight. HVCB, which has until Tuesday to challenge HTA’s award to CNHA, is operating under a contract extension that expires June 29. If CNHA takes over on June 30, the 90-day transition period will begin.
Kiely, one of the purported CNHA transition team members, has called for yet another do-over, and with reason: “If one box isn’t checked perfectly, then you stop and start again. This is not a little $10,000 sponsorship of a kite-flying tournament somewhere. This is the big deal.”
From what is known so far — not as much as needed, since proposals are not made public — the best next step would be to cancel this award, reissue a thoroughly vetted request for proposals, and choose a contractor that is beyond reproach.
