The Commonwealth ran a transparent competitive process to select a partner with the vision, experience, and financial commitment to transform Massachusetts’ 18 Service Plazas to a world class standard.
Since losing on the merits, Global has launched a public campaign filled with misleading numbers, selective facts, and personal attacks — all designed to cast doubt on a fair process that resulted in Applegreen being selected as the MassDOT preferred partner.
They say they are advocating for transparency – but it’s spin and PR stunts by Global designed to change the outcome in its favor.
But in Massachusetts, the truth still matters. And it’s time to tell the truth.
We’ve got all the details below, but some of the key highlights include:
Misleading Financials
How Global’s leadership is misleading Massachusetts by avoiding accurate comparisons of rents and capital investments.
The Smear Campaign
How Global has organized and orchestrated a smear campaign against those involved in the process.
But Capability Matters
How the 2 companies and proposals stack up against each others.
A Misleading Financial Comparison
Global is trying to spin the figures to tell a better story.
For example, Global claims they bid a total capital investment of $649m (not in today’s dollars) and are comparing that to Applegreen’s $750m (which is in today’s dollars). That is misleading.
Here are the facts;
This table shows the total spending on rent and capital costs, adjusted to reflect the time value of money at a 3% annual discount rate.
Comparing the two bids in today’s dollars
| Global ($m) | Applegreen ($m) | Difference ($m) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent (in today’s dollars) | 845 | 551 | 294 |
| Capital expense (in today’s dollars) | 475 | 750 | (275) |
Total | 1,320 | 1,301 | 19 |
- Global’s often quoted future rental payments of $1.5bn over the 35-year term are not in today’s dollars. This is equivalent to $845m in today’s dollars.
- Global’s capital investment of $649m equates to $475m in today’s dollars.
- Applegreen’s future expected rental payments of $994m over the 35-year term equates to $551m in today’s dollars.
- Applegreen’s capital investment of $1.111bn equates to $750m in today’s dollars.
- The total difference between the two bids over the 35-year term in today’s dollars, is just $19m.
- Applegreen’s financial bid scored higher due to the accuracy, consistency and reliability of its figures which underpinned the financial offer.
- For a full breakdown of the calculations click here and scoring click here. Note that if you remove any one member of the scoring committee, Applegreen is still the strongest bidder in all scenarios.
The Smear Campaign
A fourth generation Massachusetts based business failed to win a Service Plaza bid against an experienced specialist who is the largest Service Plaza operator in the US.
A sense of entitlement motivated Global Partners to launch an orchestrated smear campaign against those involved in the MassDOT procurement process.
This included emphasising the misleading financial claims (detailed above) and also included the following:
Global Claim
Global said that as a Massachusetts company, they are the only company who can benefit MA residents through this project. (1)
The Truth
The Truth… Applegreen’s proposal includes approximately 1,500 long-term local jobs, 750 local construction jobs, and local business partnerships. (12)
Global said that they partnered with the CommonWealth Kitchen in their bid proposal. (2)
The Truth… Global did not mention the CommonWealth Kitchen anywhere in their proposal. (13)
Global said Applegreen asked for a $260m taxpayer bailout in NY for the New York Service Plaza redevelopment project. (3)
The Truth… Applegreen did not seek or receive any bailout for its highly successful New York service plaza redevelopment project. (14)
Global said nothing is firm about Applegreen’s $750m offer. (4)
The Truth… Global’s own bid said their “final cost to be refined with MassDOT” and included several other loopholes and caveats and the original Global bid included a caveat that Global would renegotiate the rent after 10 years. (15)
Global said Applegreen has previously been accused of greenwashing. (5)
The Truth… The source linked to this claim was an article about Apple Inc. – the iPhone company! (16)
Global said Applegreen has a “weak track record” and “a questionable history”. (6)
Global said that there were multiple “last minute” changes in bid requirements and that the process for making those changes was not transparent. (7)
Global said MassDOT was able to tilt scoring in Applegreen’s favor via a “subjective” ‘Program Understanding’ category. (8)
The Truth… Applegreen scored higher even without the Program Understanding Category. (19)
Global said Applegreen had a lack of secured funding for its proposal. (9)
The Truth… Applegreen is committing significant equity to this project – something that Global has not committed to, relying on external debt to fund the project. (20)
Global said Applegreen formed special purpose entities to execute the Lease and Transition Agreement. (10)
The Truth… Global had also planned to form a new entity ‘Global SPE’ which would execute the Lease and Transition Agreement if successful. (21)
Global said they are a fourth-generation family business. (11)
The Truth… less than 30% of the Global shares are directly owned by the Slifka family. The rest are held by faceless financial investors. (22)
Global’s false & misleading claims are all part of a multi-faceted smear campaign to reassess the award made following a comprehensive 15-month long evaluation process supported by third party experts at KPMG, Greystone and Nossaman to try and force a reassessment of the award.
But Capability Matters
The Commonwealth asked for a partnership with an operator with the vision, experience, sustainability and reliability to deliver 18 world class Service Plazas and a vastly improved experience to the traveling public.
Applegreen has VISION, EXPERIENCE and is a RELIABLE operator who puts SUSTAINABILITY first.
Vision
Applegreen’s commitment begins with a $1.1 billion investment, not just in rebuilding or renovating all 18 Plazas along Massachusetts highways, but elevating them into destinations that set new benchmarks for traveler hospitality.
Global
Global’s revitalization proposal was subpar – with just six plazas rebuilt, seven ‘remodelled’ and five given a ‘refresh’ using a generic “kit of parts” approach. (23)
Applegreen
Applegreen’s proposal included a transformative, hospitality driven vision that meets the goals of the traveling public. (27)
Global gave limited attention to design. (24)
Applegreen offered a comprehensive proposal with three fully formed unique designs for rebuilding or updating all 18 Service Plazas. Applegreen invested 12 months developing detailed designs with MA-based architects, Upland, and MA-based contractors, Suffolk, before the bid submission. (28)
Global did not include a construction partner with its bid. (25)
Applegreen partnered with Suffolk from the outset of the project and has worked with them for over a year. Together they have developed a detailed construction schedule enabling work to begin in 2026, creating 750 local construction jobs in Massachusetts. (29)
Global plans to maintain existing tenants on the Service Plazas when they take over the Plazas. (26)
Applegreen will be introducing new brands, providing a new and improved experience for the travelers. (30)
And the inaccuracies continue…
Global said Applegreen can’t start construction by January 2026 and won’t finish construction on the plazas until Q2 2029. (31)
The Truth… Applegreen will start construction in January 2026 and will complete construction by December 2028. Global’s own bid didn’t complete construction until 2031. (33)
Global said Applegreen would renovate all 18 Plazas at once. (32)
The Truth… Applegreen will begin the three-phase construction project in January 2026, always keeping some service plazas open to the public. (34)
Capability
Matters
Experience
When asked by MassDOT to provide details on similar contracts valued over $10 million, Global answered ‘none’. Global does not have any experience revitalizing Service Plazas. The facts are clear: one company is ready to transform the Service Plazas immediately for the benefit of the Commonwealth. The other isn’t.
Global
Global said their plan was ‘equally robust’ despite lower capital investment. (37)
Applegreen
Global had no detailed design completed, no construction partner and a much longer rebuild timeline. (43)
Global has little to no history or experience in revitalizing Service Plazas. (35)
Applegreen has successfully renovated all 27 New York State Thruway locations to a high standard, completed an extensive redevelopment project in New Jersey and is due to invest over $1bn in our Service Plazas network in the next 5 years. (41)
Global said only they have operated Plazas in the Commonwealth. (36)
Global operate the gas and C-Store operations 15 of the 18 sites, and sublet the food and beverage operations to third parties on a further four sites. (42)
As an experienced operator, Applegreen understands federal highway regulations which restricts commercialization of rest stops. (44)
Global said Applegreen is unfunded… (40)
The Truth… Global fails to appreciate that the funding structure proposed by Applegreen is the same structure used for all Public Private Partnership projects in the US, including the New York Service Plaza redevelopment project. (45)
Sustainability
Sustainability is not lip service to Applegreen. The award-winning EV charging operator offered a detailed action and roll out plan.
Global did not.
Global
Global is planning for an 8% increase in fuel sales over the life of the contract and is a fossil fuel dependent bid. (46)
Applegreen
Applegreen projects a 65% decrease in fuel sales over the life of the contract, as we embrace the energy transition to electric vehicles, completely consistent with the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan. Global’s reliance on fossil fuel is in complete contradiction to the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan. (50)
Global’s bid meets the bare minimum bid requirements for EV charging (with no track record) or sustainable business practices. No specific details on EV rollout or plan provided in its bid beyond its initial roll-out. (47)
Applegreen’s proposal includes over 750 fast-charging EV ports, plus a commitment to a detailed roll out plan for each site, with significant investment in EV charging, in line with the Commonwealth goal of banning the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2035. (51)
Global is a fossil fuel company deriving 97% of revenue from distributing fuel and less than 3% from food & beverage & C Store sales. (48)
Applegreen is a hospitality business deriving 95% of it’s revenue across its 113 plazas from Food & Beverage & C Store Sales. (52)
Global have little to no history in supporting EV’s or the charging needs of the future. They only have 3 sites in MA & 6 in North East US that support EV charging. (49)
Applegreen owns and operates an EV charging company with over 1,350 fast ports across its network, operates an EV app and a full suite of back office facilities providing roaming, auto charge and universal charging. (53)
Reliability
The right partner for this transformative project needs a proven track record, financial strength, and real-world capability. But Global has repeatedly overstated its own operations and financial standing.
Global
Global claimed they are the stronger company,
with no material financial changes in their position
over the past 3 years. (54)
Applegreen
The Truth… There were significant undisclosed changes in Global’s financial position during the bid process. (59)
Global said that there were multiple “last minute” changes in RFP requirements and that the process for making those changes was not transparent. (55)
The Truth… All RFP updates were shared transparently with all bidders and and all bidders made submissions on the same terms. (60)
The Truth… The process relied on the same transparency standards as required by all public procurement regulations. (61)
Global said it made a request for a shorter 25-year lease term. (57)
The Truth… There is no public record of this change being requested. (62)
Global said that they reinvest profits back into the local community. (58)
The Truth… Global is a limited partnership, who distributes its profits to investors, the majority of whom are faceless funds, who are unlikely to be taxpayers in Massachusetts. (63)
Click here for a link to all of the claims and sources above.
Don’t believe us, read MassDOT’s own analysis and side by side comparison of the two bids. To view, click here.
What the MassDOT Selection Committee said about the bids. There is absolutely no doubt that the Applegreen bid was far superior.
For a quick summary click here
“The goal of this procurement was to identify the Proposal that reflected the most advantageous Proposal for the Commonwealth. It weighed revenue terms alongside technical quality, schedule, and predicted long-term performance to ensure the best public outcome. MassDOT’s balancing of priorities was reflected in the weighting assigned to the relevant scoring criteria before any of the Proposals were submitted.
In terms of revenue generation, MassDOT determined Applegreen’s cost proposal was based on conservative, data-driven revenue projections from comparable service plazas nationwide, while Global’s Proposal relied on highly optimistic fuel sales assumptions, which posed a risk of future underperformance, renegotiation, and potentially higher costs for consumers.
Based on these considerations, MassDOT does not agree with Global Partners’ characterizations of the revenue projections associated with selecting Global Partners versus selecting Applegreen. Applegreen’s Proposal also presented greater operational efficiencies, improved facilities and an opportunity for the Commonwealth to make a fresh and positive impression on travelers. Consequently, the Selection Committee determined Applegreen’s Proposal to be more advantageous to the Commonwealth than Global’s Proposal.” MassDOT
MassDOT’s feedback on the GLOBAL bid.
A Strategy Built on the Status Quo
Notably, Global’s Proposal often defaulted to a “status quo” approach in both its strategic vision and execution plans. Overall, the Selection Committee believed Applegreen’s Proposal presented a more attractive vision and a better opportunity for MassDOT to give travelers a fresher, more state-of-the art experience at service plazas in the Commonwealth.
The Selection Committee believed the Global transition plan felt like a “status quo” strategy with no meaningful innovation or modernization, particularly for food service transitions.
Global’s Proposal did not have the same level of distinctive features and detailed planning as Applegreen’s approach. Rather, Global’s ideas were ultimately viewed as maintaining the “status quo.”
Global’s Proposal did not convince MassDOT that Global would “vastly enhance existing offerings and choices, and ultimately provide a best-in class operation for the next generation of highway travelers.
Lacking Vision and Innovation
Global’s Proposal leaned heavily on being an incumbent, rather than articulating a clear vision for the future. In terms of demonstrating an understanding of the program in the RFP, Global’s Proposal was viewed as relying on the status quo and lacking innovation in the convenience store or service offerings. The Selection Committee did not believe Global’s Proposal provided a strong response to MassDOT’s goal of developing a “future-proofed, and re-imagined Service Plaza network across the Commonwealth”
Applegreen presented a more comprehensive and future-focused approach, which aligned with the RFP seeking “transformational improvements to existing Service Plazas” and its emphasis on “reimagining the Service Plaza experience,” whereas Global’s proposal was perceived as less innovative and overly reliant on its experience as the incumbent operator at four Service Plaza locations.
A Selection Committee Member echoed these concerns describing Global’s Proposal as “uninspiring” and noting “no organization chart – very basic description of leadership team.”
The Global proposal was more conventional and lacking the same transformational vision reflected in Applegreen’s proposal.
Applegreen’s distinctive regional designs, innovative amenities, robust financing and integration of EV and sustainability goals led evaluators to view its Proposal as better. Global Partners, while presenting solid sequencing and financial resources, was seen as more conservative with less innovative elements and greater risk in revenue assumptions.
The Global management structure set forth a vague delineation of responsibilities and a plan that focused on convenience store operations to the exclusion of other operational aspects of the services to be provided.
Generic Responses & Lack of Preparation
The Selection Committee also observed that Global provided “generic” responses to key risks, such as, “revitalization, transition, operations, and EV infrastructure.”
Global identified risks such as transition, revitalization, and EV infrastructure, but was viewed as offering “high-level generic responses” without clear strategies to address them.
A Selection Committee Member stated that “Global’s EV response didn’t feel complete” during their oral presentation. This lack of depth – especially on future-oriented elements – contributed to Global Partners receiving a lower score.
MassDOT also observed an apparent lack of due diligence in the Global submission.
Optimistic Visitation and Revenue Projections
The Selection Committee had concerns that Global’s visitation and revenue projections were based on assumptions in its Revitalization Plan (such as expecting more customers to stop and spend more money at the service plazas), which evaluators viewed as overly optimistic.
The Subject Matter Experts also expressed concern that Global’s revenue projections relied heavily on market conditions.
The Selection Committee Member mentioned that the “increase in fuel gallonage is counter to market trend and projections.
For Global to be able to make the capital expenditures required for revitalization and keep Minimum Annual Guaranteed Rent flat at $25M, Global would have to achieve its optimistic, market-dependent, revenue assumptions for the Project to be financially viable.
As MassDOT’s Subject Matter Experts noted, if Global’s optimistic assumptions were not to materialize, Global could experience cash flow strain, which would undermine the long-term financial stability of the Proposal.
The Selection Committee was concerned that Global’s revenue model assumed optimistic growth in site visitation and fuel sales, which diverges from current market trends. KPMG also noted Global’s sub-investment grade credit rating and high leverage could affect borrowing costs and financial flexibility.
Poorly Structured Revitalization Plan
Global’s construction schedule for revitalizing the plazas was viewed as “lengthy” and lacked detail on when key work would be completed. Evaluators noted the Proposal did not specify timelines for securing contractor bids or vendor pricing.
MassDOT’s Subject Matter Experts expressed concerns that managing multiple revitalization projects at the same time could create logistical challenges affecting the overall construction project schedule and controlling construction costs.
Several Selection Committee Members and Subject Matter Experts flagged issues around overreliance on assumptions and lack of confirmed agreements. One of the Subject Matter Experts noted that Global does not have formal agreements in place with existing tenants or vendors.
MassDOT’s feedback on the APPLEGREEN bid
Experience
Applegreen’s prior experience with such transitions for its other clients was reassuring for MassDOT.
MassDOT’s Subject Matter Experts and the Selection Committee highlighted Applegreen’s robust quality assurance systems, cleanliness programs, and innovative asset management practices as evidence of Applegreen’s commitment to long-term service quality.
Applegreen’s commitment to a transformative approach was evident. It was regarded as the “more transformative and safest selection for the Commonwealth”. One Subject Matter Expert praised its multiple transition examples and ability to execute large-scale rebuilds.
Applegreen’s Proposal was the most advantageous submission across the qualitative criteria. Selection Committee Members and Subject Matter Experts consistently highlighted Applegreen’s depth of experience, strong operational planning, and clear commitment to customer satisfaction and innovation. While both finalists proposed credible solutions, Applegreen’s approach was viewed as more transformative and forward-looking. Of note, Applegreen’s Proposal met MassDOT’s stated goals around electric vehicles, revitalization and long-term sustainability. As one Selection Committee Member put it, “weighing all options, Applegreen is the more transformative and safest selection for the Commonwealth”.
Reviewers consistently highlighted Applegreen’s strong emphasis on customer satisfaction.
Inspired Design
Applegreen proposed regionally inspired design with extensive amenities, improved commercial vehicle services, and a financing structure aligned with market standards.
The Selection Committee viewed the Applegreen amenities as creative and well-integrated with the overall design.
Applegreen presented three regionally inspired revitalization concepts that transform Service Plazas into distinct symbols of their local communities with “unique” designs and “creative amenities to promote Massachusetts.”
Applegreen’s distinctive regional designs, innovative amenities, robust financing and integration of EV and sustainability goals led evaluators to view its Proposal as better. Global Partners, while presenting solid sequencing and financial resources, was seen as more conservative with less innovative elements and greater risk in revenue assumptions.
Realistic Assumptions
Applegreen’s strong capital commitment and realistic assumptions about electrification and fuel trends gave MassDOT confidence.
Applegreen demonstrated strong financial backing supported by “letters of support from seven financial institutions”.
Applegreen’s projections were based on a more diversified revenue mix, including an EV charging program that aligns with MassDOT’s clean energy policy goals. Subject Matter Experts highlighted Applegreen’s plan to install 736 charging stations by 2055 as part of its revenue model, which was viewed as consistent with the state’s EV transition goals.
Applegreen’s revenue model was considered more “transformative” and “financially advantageous” because it incorporates EV infrastructure and expanded concessions to sustain and grow revenue beyond traditional fuel sales. This approach contributed to Applegreen receiving a higher score in this section.
Forward-Looking Investment
A Selection Committee Member also pointed out Applegreen’s forward-looking investment, calling out that “in a scenario where Massachusetts meets its electric conversion goals … the investment and demonstrated success as a concessionaire [in other markets] is more financially advantageous.”
A Selection Committee Member mentioned that Applegreen’s final presentation was “more thoughtful about the EV build out” and uniquely positioned for the “EV future Massachusetts has committed” to accomplishing.
Applegreen presented a more comprehensive and future-focused approach, which aligned with the RFP seeking “transformational improvements to existing Service Plazas” and its emphasis on “reimagining the Service Plaza experience,” whereas Global’s proposal was perceived as less innovative and overly reliant on its experience as the incumbent operator at four Service Plaza locations.
Selection Committee Members appreciated Applegreen’s proactive stance.
Detailed Strategy
Applegreen distinguished itself with a clear articulation of roles and responsibilities, thoughtful risk mitigation strategies, and demonstrated experience with large-scale service plaza transitions
Applegreen’s Proposal provided detailed deliverables and efficient team workload structures that reflected a strong grasp of the program’s complexity.
Applegreen was commended for its comprehensive, well-phased transition strategy.
Applegreen scored higher because Selection Committee Members and Subject Matter Experts recognized its detailed planning, clear organizational structure and forward-looking EV and revitalization strategy, themes that were reinforced during oral presentations. In contrast, Global, while strong in continuity as a Service Plaza Operator, was perceived as generic in risk responses, unclear in organizational execution, and less transformational.
Applegreen’s Proposal clearly addressed risks related to construction phasing, service continuity during revitalization, and electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, which was paired with aggressive but detailed mitigation strategies. A Member highlighted that Applegreen “very clearly described risks for the Program and plan to aggressively begin revitalization”. Applegreen’s oral presentation feedback underscored that Applegreen was “more thoughtful about the EV build out” and that Applegreen “accounted for the EV future Massachusetts has committed to for its customers.”
Click here for a link to all of the claims and sources above.
Don’t believe us, read MassDOT’s own analysis and side by side comparison of the two bids. To view, click here.