Table Of Contentn
Office of the Inspector General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
UMASS AMHCRST
in
31E0bb 0270 3S3&
fi
i
Central Artery/ Tunnel Project
Management Issues and
Recommendations
V|
BJ
1993-2000
Robert A. Cerasoli
Mi
Inspector General
December 2000
(Dtp Commonfuealth of iflassadrjusetts
(©fficc of the ^Inspector (general
ROBERT A CERASOLI JOHNW MCCORMACK
STATE OFFICE BUILDING
INSPECTOR GENERAL «OOM 1311
TEL (617) 727-9140
December 2000 FAX. (617) 723-2334
MAILING ADDRESS
STATE HOUSE STATION
P.O. BOX 270
BOSTON. MA02133
His Excellency the Governor
The Honorable President of the Senate
The Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee
The Honorable Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
The Honorable Chairman of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee
"R ? Honorable Chairman of the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee
Tr Directors of the Legislative Post Audit and Oversight Bureaus
The Secretary of Administration and Finance
Members of the General Court
Omnibus ad quos praesentes literae pervenerint, salutem.
This report contains correspondence about management issues and
recommendations identified by this Office in 22 technical assistance reviews conducted
since 1993 at the request of senior management officials at the Central Artery/Tunnel
(CA/T) Project. The work of this Office in response to these requests ranges from
examining complex design and construction management problems, to critiquing
procurement processes, to clarifying legal compliance requirements. Regardless of the
topic, the purpose of the reviews has been to identify systemic vulnerabilities to waste
and abuse, point out opportunities for savings and cost control, and assist Project
leaders to better oversee and manage their own operations.
have encouraged the Project leadership to call on this Office when an
I
independent, tough, constructive assessment from an impartial third party is needed. An
interdisciplinary team within the Office monitors the design and construction of the CA/T
Project, scheduled for substantial completion in 2004 at a current estimated cost of
$14.1 billion. The team is funded in part by an interdepartmental services agreement
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2014
in
https://archive.org/details/centralarterytunOOcera_0
between the Office and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MassPike). The team
focuses its efforts on reviews originating primarily from three sources: staff
assessments of management systems that are particularly vulnerable to waste and
abuse, legislative directives, and the Project's requests for technical assistance. The 22
reviews included in this report reflect the Office's work in that third, very important
category.
The recurring themes of this Office's work, including technical assistance, are
probably best summarized in a letter wrote to MassPike Chairman Andrew Natsios
I
earlier this year. have, therefore, included a copy of that letter and the Chairman's
I
response as the introduction to this report.
Throughout the 22 reviews undertaken at the Project's request, this Office has
consistently offered the advice and urged the actions summarized in the list below:
• Develop the internal organizational capacity to monitor and control costs on
management consultant, design, and construction contracts.
• Define performance standards and work products to be delivered under contract;
hold vendors accountable for performance, including cost and schedule.
• Guard against conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety in the hiring of
staff and the assignment of functions among employees and private consultant staff.
• Avoid sole source procurements, which may increase 3 oject costs and unfairly favor
one vendor over others. Justify any sole source proc. rement in writing and obtain
the requisite review and approval.
• Develop clear Project procedures and guidelines. Ensure compliance with all
applicable statutory requirements, procedures, guidelines, and management
mandates. (Failure to comply with key directives can increase the Commonwealth's
vulnerability to cost overruns and future litigation.)
• Use open and competitive professional services evaluation and selection processes.
Define clearly all evaluation criteria, disclose the criteria and evaluation process to
all participants, apply criteria consistently, and document the reasons for ranking the
proposers and selecting the winning firm.
Based on the written responses to the reviews documented in this report, the
Project's track record for decisive action on technical assistance recommendations has
been mixed. The Project leadership has been most responsive to this Office's
recommendations concerning ways to improve proposed systems for procuring
management consultant and design-related services.
As can be seen in some of the correspondence, this Office and the Project are
not in accord on all matters. For instance, at the Project's request staff of this Office
reviewed the Project's incentive fee program. Project managers disagreed with most of
the findings and recommendations and, despite this Office's concerns about the legality
of the approach, moved ahead with the program.
While this Office was working on the incentive fee program review, the Project
also requested technical assistance in developing a fair and open process for evaluating
proposals and selecting a firm to develop a master plan for the Central Artery Corridor.
As requested, this Office recommended ways to create a fair and competitive process
that would yield the best deal for the Commonwealth. The Project incorporated most of
the recommendations and improved the selection process as a result of that exchange
of ideas.
This Office will continue to respond to Project management's requests for
assistance and look forward to MassPike's cooperation in these and other matters
I
currently under review.
Mr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter to Chairman Natsios to assist in his re.view.of ma.nage.ment.systems
and practices of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project under the
.....
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority 1
IG Letter: May 3, 2000 3
Project Response: May 31, 2000 19
.........
Section One: Technical Assistance Review o.f I-93.Temp.orar.y Ram.p
Procurement 21
......
Project Request: January 29, 1993 23
......
IG Letter: March 23, 1993 25
.....
Project Letter: April 14, 1994 27
IG Response: August 10, 1994 ... 31
Project Response: August 11, 1994 ..... 33
......
Technical Assistance Letter: December 16, 1994 35
Project Response: January 12, 1995 ..... 39
IG Response: March 1, 1995 41
Project Response: March 16, 1995 43
.....
Section Two: Technical Assistance Review o.f a Re.ques.t for .Propo.sals (RFP)
for Management Consulting Services .... 45
Project Request: February 18, 1993 .... 47
Technical Assistance Letter: March 1, .1993.... 49
......
Technical Assistance Letter: May 6, 1993 59
Project Response: July 26, 1993 65
IG Response: August 4, 1993 67
........
Section Three: Technical Assistance Review.of th.e Pla.nned.Alter.native Dispute
Resolution Process .... 75
Project Request: March 31, 1993 ..... 77
Technical Assistance Letter: May 18, 1993 79
Project Response: August 25, 1993 87
..........
Section Four: Technical Assistance Review o.f the.Repr.ocur.ement.Waiver
Process ..... 89
......
Project Request: October 26, 1993 91
Project Letter: November 23, 1993 ..... 93
IG Letter: August 5, 1994. ..... 95
Project Response: August 30, 1994 .... 97
Project Letter: December 30, 1994 99
Technical Assistance Letter: May 17, 1995 101
i
