OIG Finds MassDOT Service Plaza Procurement Not a Model

• offered by

- Office of the Inspector General

Press Release

OIG: Service Plazas Procurement “Not a Model”

The OIG found too many flaws in this procurement to say with confidence that the procurement, had it been fully executed, was based on a solid foundation.

For immediate release: 2/27/2026
- Office of the Inspector General

Boston, MA — The Office of the Inspector General stated that Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s (MassDOT) initial procurement for the service plaza operator was “not a model procurement,” in a letter sent today to MassDOT Interim Secretary Philip Eng. Among the key findings were issues with inadequate conflict disclosures, violations of the rules of contact during the procurement, use of live, in-person scoring and not providing the MassDOT Board subcommittee members with enough time or information during the approval process.

“The OIG found that the combined effect of the flaws undermined the integrity of the procurement process. The OIG cannot say that the flaws in MassDOT’s execution of the process were ultimately fatal to reaching a signed agreement with the apparent successful bidder,” Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro said in the letter.  “Nonetheless, the OIG firmly posits that no procurement of this size, scope, and significance should rest on a weakened foundation. While no one finding was likely the fatal blow to this procurement, the OIG’s eight findings in what would have been a 35-year lease should give pause and demonstrate that this was not a model procurement.”

The investigatory review included examination of MassDOT’s procurement procedures, solicitation documents, internal communications, and evaluation documents as well as interviews with MassDOT staff involved in the procurement. Its purpose was not to exclusively look for fraud but to review the entire process to ensure it was done properly.

“As Inspector General, I have an obligation not only to identify wrongdoing but to also to proactively seek to mitigate risk to avoid waste and abuse from happening in the first place,” IG Shapiro said. “Ensuring that large-scale public procurements and the resulting contracts are well managed and conducted with transparency and fairness is critical to maintaining the public’s confidence in government.”

The OIG found that MassDOT did not follow all of its own procedures and in some instances could have had more robust procedures.  For example, MassDOT’s Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement did not contain space to disclose relationships that could pose a real or apparent conflict of interest. The OIG further found that a member of the procurement team had frequent contact with individuals affiliated with a proposer throughout the procurement process. While the OIG was unable to determine if the communications specifically related to the procurement, the sheer volume of the communication is concerning.

The evaluation process required selection committee members to “independently review the proposals” and record their “impressions and observations.” The OIG found that not all members recorded comments or justifications for the scores. “Without backup documentation how would a selection committee member recall why a criterion was scored seven versus a six or an eight,” IG Shapiro said.  In addition, the final scoring was done by roll call in which each members announced their scores. The lack of notes as well as the live scoring undermined the integrity of the selection process.

Finally, the OIG found that members of the Capital Programs subcommittee of MassDOT’s Board, expressed frustration at not receiving sufficient information and time to review the apparent successful bidder’s proposal prior to voting on whether to approve it. Instead they voted to allow the procurement team to present to the full Board on the condition that the team provide the Board with sufficient information prior to the meeting. Ultimately, 8 of the Board members were briefed prior to the meeting.

“MassDOT – and each of its employees – has an obligation to uphold the highest standards in all of its procurements. The OIG found too many flaws in this procurement to say with confidence that the procurement, had it been fully executed, was based on a solid foundation,” IG Shapiro said. “I am hopeful that our recommendations will assist MassDOT in approaching this and other large-scale procurements, such as Cape Cod bridges, the Allston Multimodal Project, the MBTA North Station Draw Bridge and the commuter rail operator, with greater diligence.”

Media Contact

Carrie Kimball, Communications Officer

+

Phone

617-722-8894

Online

carrie.c.kimball@mass.gov

Office of the Inspector General

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is an independent, non-partisan oversight agency mandated to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse of public resources at the state and municipal level across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We serve the residents of Massachusetts, state and local governments, and those who work with the government.

Media Contact

Carrie Kimball, Communications Officer

Phone

617-722-8894

Online

carrie.c.kimball@mass.gov

Help Us Improve Mass.gov

Did you find what you were looking for on this webpage? Yes No