Since the state of Connecticut owns part of Colt along with the unions, I'm sure that any decision to move Colt to LA, OK, or another state will be met with huge cries of "union busting" along with CT refusing to allow it to happen. On the other hand, licensing the Colt guns to another manufacturer might work if they structured the deal right. I see 4 ways this could work;
1. License w/royalties
Another maker produces Colt-pattern guns of high quality and pays Colt some dollars for each one produced/sold.
2. Manufactured for Colt
Another maker produces the Colt guns and they are shipped to Colt for final roll-marking and finishing whereupon Colt sells them. Colt pays lower labor costs for manufacture (and the unions scream like hell).
3. Colt engineers, other company produces parts stocks, Colt assembles.
Similar to Springfield, another company makes the frames, barrels, etc and sends rough completed guns to Colt for final fitting & finishing.
4. Colt divests itself of the handgun manufacturing.
Colt sells the patents, names, rights to manufacture, jigs, plans, etc. outright to another company who produces high quality guns then imports them.
I'd place my bets on #1 and #2 actually. My belief is that if they tried #3 the union workers would sabotage Colt for moving some jobs off-site/off-shore in order to stay competitive. In reality, I think the state of CT is willing to let Colt die a slow agonizing death like the last 10 years have been.