So they want to dominate both the state segment and the independent retail segment of this market?
Wouldn't it then be in their commercial interest to make the GBR site borderline unusable in the hope people will use Trainline instead, because then they'd get the commission? Logically the only way that wouldn't be the case is if the GBR contract incentivised them to make sales to the tune of not far short of 10%, which as Tazi points out would seem abstractive. Trainline may have added some value to the GB railway, but not anywhere remotely in proportion to the amount of revenue it takes from the railway.
I have problems with the very notion that you can go into business offering a product or service for sale and then seek to grow your customer base by suing people who buy from your competitors. But even if I didn't, I can see what I consider to be legitimate reasons why DfT wouldn't want Trainline running this. Whether it is legitimate to extend a procurement contract for 10 years without testing the market by inviting bids is another matter, of course. I have no idea if this contract gives good value for money to the taxpayer, nor do I have any real way of assessing this.
I would rather see GBR's online retail operations brought in-house so GBR itself could establish whether they were getting good value for money out of it and could reinvest all the revenue into the railway. Keep the independent retail sector so that GBR would have to fight for market share to minimise the commission those retailers take - if you give GBR a monopoly then they won't invest in their platform and it will be rubbish.
Where to start?
First, if a contractor makes their product “borderline unusable”, they run a grave risk of losing all the business - both the competitive business and the baseline contract.
Second, Trainline are no more or less than the travel agents of old. They provide a channel for selling tickets, taking a relatively small commission.
Third, public procurement rules is governed by legislation which is designed to ensure fair competition between bidders. It’s entirely justifiable for a firm that believes it has been discriminated against in such a competition to seek legal protection. It’s rare to see that done because bidders tend to fear further retribution, so the fact the case is being advanced suggests a decently strong case.
Fourth, assessing value is difficult for any organisation to do. There’s a whole wealth of arguments about value for money assessment of outsourced contracts; from experience working for an outsourcer, it is very difficult for companies to really assess the value of work of their own staff as other, secondary, factors cloud judgment.
Finally, there is a question of whether an end customer organisation can recruit the skills required to work in house in a sustainable way - or that those they recruit will provide the skills that are needed in the long term. That’s especially true where public sector pay policies are involved, which tend to underpay significantly against what good people can make in the private sector.
