I usually try pretty hard to use the language properly. For some reason the rules about who and whom never registered with me. I guess that whom just sounded pompous to me. Feel free to educate me.
The city used to ask businesses to bid on contracts and then let the contracts run through to completion unless the bidder did not perform according to the contract. When you bid on a contract you need to know the length of the commitment so that you can recover your costs.
The city’s word pretty much used to be gold. They let the contracts run to completion. As far back as I can remember the city has placed wording in the contracts that allowed them to terminate a contract early “for convenience”. The contractor did not have to do anything wrong, the city could just change their mind.
We seldom saw the city terminating contracts for convenience and thus bidders did not have much to worry about.
Lately it seems that the city is terminating contracts for convenience. Honor, keeping their word, seems to have gone out the window. In this situation the city found a firm it liked better, issued a new contract, and fired the old contractor.
I don’t know the particulars. Maybe they should have been fired. If they deserved to be fired the city should have done it “for cause” (because the contract was violated).
Now bidders need to be careful. They need to get their start-up costs out of a contract earlier instead of spreading them over the life of the contract. They city cannot be trusted to live up to their original commitment.
This will raise the price of bids.
We deserve better
elpasospeak 
“Who” and “whom”: that’s always a tough one.
For a quick and easy grammar lesson, check my explanation:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx
LikeLike
Many thanks.
The “him” pointer really helps.
So “Convenient to whom” is what it should be.
LikeLike
Increasingly, big companies that have or use attorneys to draft agreements are also including “termination for convenience” clauses in their contracts with vendors. An unwillingness to remove that clause shows a lack of commitment, a lack of trust, and a disregard for relationships. It is also indicative of organizations that strive to maintain an upper hand. Vendors are disposable. In the case of our local government, that clause is a tool to keep suppliers in line with a perpetual implied threat of termination, which is particularly effective in the current economic environment. Welcome to the jungle!
LikeLike
Regarding the specific transportation contract you exhibited, the party that originally had the contract appears to have been a locally owned business. The recipient of the new contract is MV Transportation, a large out-of-town company headquartered in Dallas.
LikeLike