Inspector General to issue investigatory letter after committee probes failed MassDOT service plaza procurement

The Commonwealth’s Inspector General told a legislative Post Audit Committee on Monday that his office will issue an investigatory letter within weeks examining the canceled MassDOT service plaza procurement.

Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro told the committee he has reviewed the procurement process and ‘‘the OIG will be issuing an investigatory letter on the service plaza procurement within the coming weeks.’’ He said the office is exercising discretion to disclose limited information because of the matter’s public nature and the timing of the OIG’s work.

The announcement came during a hearing convened by the Post Audit Committee, whose chair said the panel opened its inquiry after concerns from committee members and outside sources and after Freedom of Information Act requests produced evidence the chair described as ‘‘pretty significant ex party communications.’’ The chair reminded the room that ‘‘we have subpoena powers of committee, the only committee in the legislature with subpoena power,’’ and said the committee would use its tools if it did not receive needed information.

Why it matters: Shapiro described the procurement as large and long-term: it involved 18 service plaza locations, ‘‘with a potential value of nearly $1,000,000,000 and was to last for a duration of 35 years,’’ making contract terms and enforceability central questions for the committee and for taxpayers.

What the OIG said: Shapiro outlined the elements his office examines in large procurements—planning and need, solicitation clarity, selection committee composition and conflicts, and contract terms and contract-management practices. He emphasized that agencies should: publish clear evaluation criteria and weights before bids open; require written questions and answers to ensure comparability; disclose selection-committee members and conflicts of interest; and build enforceable contract terms and explicit reporting and audit clauses.

Committee questions focused on how subjective policy goals were weighted in the evaluation. The chair recited the procurement’s stated weights for evaluation elements (program understanding 5%, transition plan 15%, operations and maintenance 10%, master revitalization 25%, additional services 10%, supplier diversity 10%, revenue terms 25%) and said those allocations made it difficult to compare objective rent and revenue proposals. Shapiro said the office looks for clarity about where weight is placed and for solicitation forms that allow ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparisons among bidders.

Contract management and enforcement: The IG repeated past OIG concerns about leases and contract enforcement, saying prior reviews found leases with unpaid balances and weak enforcement practices. He urged agencies to consider enforcement and long-term management at the start of a procurement and to develop resilient contract-management teams that endure through a long-term agreement.

Next steps: Shapiro said the investigatory letter will contain the OIG’s findings and recommendations and that the committee will also hear from MassDOT leadership; Chair Montigny said Secretary Ng has agreed to appear before the committee (the chair noted a scheduled appearance on March 2). The hearing concluded without a formal vote; the committee will use the OIG’s letter and further testimony to decide on follow-up actions.

"It won't surprise anyone for me to say that there are plenty of lessons to be learned on how this procurement should be handled and how it can be done better next time," Shapiro told the committee. "Many factors likely contributed to the apparent successful bidder walking away before the contract was negotiated and executed, resulting in MassDOT's decision to cancel the procurement."

The committee adjourned at 04:12.