Rail authority slammed for lax contract oversight

State Auditor's review finds agency broke law in procuring IT services, struggles to manage its contractors

The agency charged with building a high-speed rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles violated state law when it awarded contracts for information-technology services without going through the mandatory bidding process, according to a report released Tuesday by State Auditor Elaine Howle.

The audit is a follow-up to the Bureau of State Audits' April 2010 report, a scathing survey titled "High-Speed Rail Authority: It Risks Delays or an Incomplete System Because of Inadequate Planning, Weak Oversight, and Lax Contract Management." The new audit offers a mixed picture of the $98.5 billion project. While it credits the California High-Speed Rail Authority with implementing four of the previous audit's nine recommendations from last year, it also faults the agency for lax contract management and a flawed business plan.

Among the report's most damning findings is its conclusion that the authority engaged in "inappropriate contracting practices" involving information-technology services. The agency split its $3.1 million IT contract into 13 individual contracts with one vendor, the company Paperless Knowledge, and awarded these contracts to the vendor without obtaining proper bids, the audit found. The State Contract Manual, the report notes, "expressly forbids agencies from splitting contracts to avoid competitive bidding requirements and purchasing thresholds for any series of related services that would normally be combined and bid as one job."

"As a result of the Authority's actions, we believe that it violated the prohibitions set forth in the 'State Contracting Manual.' Further, the nature of the problems we discovered suggests that the Authority needs to significantly improve its internal controls to ensure that it effectively manages its contracts," the report states.

In its response to the audit, the authority stated that it will develop procedures to detect and prevent contract splitting and that it has already "significantly revised the contract administration manual to ensure more effective management of the contract management process." It is also holding discussions with California Technology Agency (as the office of the state's Chief Information Officer is called) about possible service options.

"To the extent that services cannot be obtained through the California Technology Agency the Authority will obtain needed services through the appropriate procurement process," the authority's response states. "In addition, the Authority is reviewing current IT agreements to determine what if any can be canceled immediately."

The auditor's findings have prompted the state's Department of General Services to take a fresh look at the authority's IT contracts. The department, which oversees information-technology procurements, had approved the authority's proposal to noncompetitively award six of its IT contracts to the same provider. Even so, the report notes, the authority entered into these contracts before it had received the approval and it allegedly agreed to terms that were longer than what was approved by General Services.

Fred Klass, director of the Department of General Services (DGS), wrote in a letter to Howle that his department would conduct its audit of the rail authority's procurement process by Jan. 1, 2013.

"The DGS will contact the Authority to confirm that appropriate actions are being taken to competitively bid the services," Klass wrote. "As part of this process, the DGS will ensure that all services that cannot be fully justified as separate and distinct will be combined into one contract."

The authority's failure to follow state regulations about bidding is one of many deficiencies the audit uncovered in its survey of the agency's contract management. The audit paints a picture of a severely understaffed state agency that is struggling to keep track of its contractors, who outnumber the rail authority's staff by a factor of about 25 to 1. As of last August, the authority had only 21.5 filled positions and more than 500 contractors.

The agency's reliance on contractors, some of whom may have conflicts of interest in this project, further compromise its ability to effectively oversee the project, the report found. It particularly hinders the authority's ability to be involved in the project's risk-management process, a problem that the auditor had also identified in her 2010 report.

"The Authority's current organizational structure places the largest portion of the program's planning, construction, and most importantly, oversight in the hands of contractors who may not have the best interests of the State as their primary motivation," the report states. "As a result, the Authority lacks assurance that the program is implemented in a way that best serves the public."

For example, the audit found more than 50 errors or inconsistencies in the progress reports submitted by the agency's contracted program manager, the firm Parsons Brinckerhoff. The firm has more than 100 full-time-equivalent employees working on the project and is charged with providing day-to-day management for the project and overseeing subcontracts managing regional segments of the proposed line, according to the audit. But the audit found that the reports from the program manager "were often inaccurate and that at times the Program Manager misinformed the Authority about the speed with which contractors for each region -- called regional contractors -- performed tasks."

In some cases, the program manager "altered dates to make it appear that the regional contractors would perform work either more or less quickly than they estimated they could in their progress reports," the audit states. The lack of accurate reports "has compromised the quality of the information the Authority relies on."

The audit also reaffirms some of the scathing findings from other nonpartisan agencies, including the Legislative Analyst's Office and the rail authority's Peer Review Committee. All three agencies found major flaws in the rail authority's business plan, including questionable ridership projections and a reliance on federal funds that may never show up. It concludes that the "program's funding situation has become increasingly risky."

On the question of ridership, the audit gives the rail authority some credit for including more information about its methodology in the latest business plan than in the prior version. But the audit also states that "the Authority's process for overseeing the development of the model lacked transparency, which may raise concern about the model's credibility." For example, the peer-review group charged with reviewing the authority's ridership projections was selected by the agency's CEO Roelof van Ark -- a fact that undermined the panel's independent status.

"By handpicking the ridership review group, the chief executive officer may have inadvertently raised concerns about the objectivity of the members," the report states.

The audit's findings echo similar concerns from a growing number of critics of the increasingly controversial project. The Palo Alto City Council has consistently disputed the rail authority's financial and ridership figures, as has the local rail-watchdog group, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design.

The Palo Alto council also took the dramatic step last December of adopting as the city's official position a call for legislators to terminate the project.


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 24, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Is ANYONE not surprised?


Like this comment
Posted by Stan
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 24, 2012 at 7:47 pm

Any surprises here? No. I believe that CA HSR has essentially been run and operated by the engineering/building firm Parsons Brinckerhoff. If there was ever a conflict of interest in regards to transparency of business practices, or any semblance of fiduciary responsibility concerning the tax dollars they use like toilet paper, The CA HSR / Parsons Brinckerhoff partnership is a poster-child for this sort of insider graft. Recall that Parsons Brinckerhoff contributed significantly regarding the Yes on 1a HSR ballot initiative, and stands to benefit potentially hundreds of billion dollars more in the future if this Jerry Brown, et al, greasy pork boondoggle proceeds. The sooner Brown, Simitian, Gordon, and all the politicians who supports this disaster on rails is out of office, the better.

I'll add that Obama made no mention of high speed rail in his state of the union address. So much for the billions and billions of federal tax dollars the CA HSR is counting on.

Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2012 at 4:51 am

In my opinion, the fact that the HSR management subdivided the contract to avoid competitive bidding means they wanted deliberately award the contracts to their supporters - potential graft.

Yet Governor Brown, State Senator Joe Simitian, and Assemblyman Gordon continue to support the HSR, and do nothing to remove their funding and kill the project.

Governor Brown wants to raise everyone's taxes; he says if taxes aren't raised he'll cut education; but he supports HSR. The amount of HSR's budget for the 2009 - 2010 fiscal year would cover the proposed cut back in school year for 200,000 kids.

Joe Simitian hsd spent 12 years representing us in Sacramento; the majority of his district is against HSR, yet he sits on the transportation committee, and refuses to introduce a bill to kill HSR; he refuses to support the Republican introduced bill to kill HSR.

Gordon held a hearing on HSR, where mostly union supporters of HSR spoke, and all we get is more "Simitian-like" drivel.

With all the reports done by neutral analysts over the past 2 years on HSR, the case to kill HSR has never been more clear cut; it just really emphasizes how much our politicians are controlled by special interests.

This is at least the 2nd time that the HSR has been called out for mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.

We need politicians who will represent their districts, not the special interests. Vote for anyone else besides Simitian & Gordon and help send a message.

Like this comment
Posted by If-It-Walks-Like-A-Duck
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 25, 2012 at 9:33 am

> potential graft.


Seems like the textbook definition of how graft works.

Like this comment
Posted by psa188
a resident of Los Altos
on Jan 25, 2012 at 9:49 am

The reports of deceptive and dishonest behavior from CHSRA keep coming yet still Governor "More Taxes" Moonbeam refuses to kill this turkey. How can he say, with a straight face, that we need to raise taxes but not kill this costly boondoggle is beyond me. Even Kevin Drum at the far-left Mother Jones correctly sees this project for what it is:
Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Arch Conservative
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:46 am

CHSRA can teach Chicago about a few things in the political graft arena.
But will anyone be punished or fired? Will the sun come up tomorrow morning over the Golden Gate Bridge?

Like this comment
Posted by Dan
a resident of Southgate
on Jan 25, 2012 at 3:00 pm

$3.1M for IT services for 21.5 filled positions? That's $144k/person for IT services Awarded through a deliberate attempt to circumvent the competitive bidding process. No wonder the CEO decided to "spend more time with his family".

Like this comment
Posted by Chance
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm

500 contracts administered by less than 21 employees? This is an embarrassment. Nice to have a HSR, but bad to have the rails made out of aluminum foil.

Like this comment
Posted by Stan
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:41 pm

Coming soon to a ballot box near you, hopefully: Web Link

The proposed initiative reads: ELIMINATION OF CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Eliminates High Speed Rail Authority. Bars the State of California from paying for high speed rail unless the people pass a new constitutional amendment specifically altering this prohibition. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State debt service savings of up to $650 million annually from not using state bond funds to support high speed rail. A one-time loss of $3.3 billion in federal funds would reduce somewhat the level of economic activity in the state over the next several years, resulting in some reduction in state and local revenues.

Peter Seidel, the initiative author, has until June 21, 2012, to collect 807,615 signatures from registered voters to submit it to be qualified for the Nov. 6, 2012 General Election ballot.

Like this comment
Posted by love Evergreen Park by Park Boulevard
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Feb 20, 2012 at 7:38 am

I am on Evergreen park bordering the tracks, and I am in great support of HSR. It is the NIMBY again but no me. I hope that China or other Country would help finance the HSR and therefore shut the mouth of the many people against the project.

Like this comment
Posted by Renea
a resident of College Terrace
on May 21, 2013 at 9:43 am

And to boot (no pun intended) this guy claims to be a veteran when in fact he never even finished boot camp or served anywhere!!!!

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Coffeebar opens in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 5,068 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 756 views

Spring College Fairs
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 742 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 117 views