As we learned Friday night, a portion of a Route 10 bridge fell onto train tracks underneath, blocking Amtrak and MBTA service. While this disrupted travel for hundreds of passengers, we are grateful that the failure did not occur while a train was passing through or was too close to stop. As noted in the above WPRI report, inspectors rated the bridge’s condition as “poor” the previous year. While it is not clear whether or how this “near miss” could have been avoided, this week’s letter will discuss a related issue, namely our need to improve enforcement of the State’s laws to increase transparency of political contributions made by RIDOT’s and other State vendors.
1. The Vendor Affidavit Law’s Provisions
The State’s vendor affidavit law requires companies receiving a State contract of $5,000 or more to submit, within 60 days of signing the contract, an affidavit to the Board of Elections with a copy of the contract and a list of political contributions during the previous 24 months of $250 or greater made by owners and key employees to State candidates. As noted in my February 11, 2024 letter, only five vendors filed this affidavit in 2023, most of which were law firms. At a February 6, 2024 Finance Committee hearing, I asked the Department of Administration (DOA) Director what his office could do to increase compliance. He offered to begin sharing contract information with the Board of Elections, which administers the program.
2. AECOM and Aetna Bridge’s Contracts, Campaign Contributions and Noncompliance
At a February 13, 2025 Joint Oversight Committee hearing, I asked the RIDOT director about campaign contributions made by two major contractors, AECOM (which has entered into seven multimillion dollar contracts since 2014 and which the State is currently suing), and Aetna Bridge (which has entered into 27 multimillion dollar contracts since 2012, including the bridge demolition contract). Over the years, AECOM’s key employees have made a total of $37,000 of campaign contributions of $250 or higher, while Aetna Bridge’s key employees have made more than $20,000. To my knowledge, neither of these firms has ever filed any required vendor affidavits, even though this requirement is plainly stated in RIDOT contracts they signed, such as this 2018 contract with AECOM (at page 5 of 6) and this 2024 contract with Aetna Bridge (page 4 of 6) as well as State law. The RIDOT Director denied any knowledge or responsibility for this issue or these contractors’ contract violations, but offered discuss the issue with the DOA Director.
3. Further Dialogue With DOA
a. 2025
When DOA appeared before the Finance Committee on March 6, 2025, I asked the Director if he had spoken RIDOT’s Director about this issue. The DOA Director said not yet. DOA did, however, document a new policy of sharing with the Board of Elections information about recently executed contracts, which could allow the Board to monitor compliance with the vendor affidavit requirement.
b. 2026
DOA returned to the Finance Committee on March 16 of this year. Compliance with the vendor affidavit requirement has increased incrementally, but again nowhere near what one would expect. The interim DOA Director (who was only at work for a couple of weeks at the time) offered to look into the matter further. DOA informed the Committee that it was providing quarterly reports of new contracts to the Board of Elections, but was not taking any action regarding possible prior violations, such as the examples of AECOM and Aetna Bridge I had brought to RIDOT’s attention. Also, it is not clear what actions (if any) the Board of Elections has taken with the information DOA provided them about new contracts.
4. Next Steps
Despite these four discussions with DOA and RIDOT over the past two-plus years, we have seen little, if any, improvement in vendor compliance and no enforcement of documented past violations. I would the Board of Elections to assign a higher priority to enforcing this law. We also may need additional legislation. The current penalties for violations (up to $1,000) are modest when compared to the millions of dollars of contracts companies seek to obtain. The City of Providence Code of Ordinances offers, at Article XXVII, an example of a more rigorous program under which vendors (and their key employees) are prohibited from making large campaign contributions for the year preceding a contract award, with a duty to report contributions after the award. Violations under the Providence ordinance can be enforced through a mandated ineligibility for future contracts. I would like to continue working on this project (among others) next year if given the opportunity.