I hope you enjoy Presidents’ Day weekend, marking the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We are grateful to Washington for establishing the norms of restraint that keep our Presidency from becoming a monarchy, and to Lincoln for uniting the country behind the values of the Declaration of Independence. It is only fitting that I discuss in this week’s letter the recent oversight hearing concerning the Washington Bridge.
A. The Limits Of The Oversight Hearing
Last Thursday, the House and Senate Oversight Committees held a joint hearing to receive an update on the Washington Bridge. Because of the pending lawsuit, we were not allowed to inquire about the causes of the bridge’s failure. This left two important questions, namely: (1) When will the new bridge be completed? and (2) How much will it cost? Unfortunately, we could not get answers to these questions; instead, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) Director informed us that we will have to wait until the Department selects a contractor. The Director was unwilling to discuss possible estimates or ranges. With the most important backward-looking and forward-looking questions off the table, the hearing provided only incremental additions to our factual knowledge.
B. Bringing Transparency To The Bidding And Procurement
Process
Given these constraints, I used my question time to explore another aspect of the Department’s need for transparency and public trust, namely its bidding and procurement process.
1. The Vendor Affidavit Law’s Provisions
I focused on the State’s vendor affidavit law, which 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.
2. AECOM and Aetna Bridge’s Contracts, Campaign Contributions and Noncompliance
For Thursday’s hearing, I chose to review two major RIDOT 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.
3. DOT’s Record In Ensuring Compliance With Its Contracts And With State Law
I asked the Director about the Department’s record in monitoring its vendors and ensuring that they comply with this condition of the Department’s contracts, which in turn is based on State law. The Director said he was unaware of this issue, and that it was instead the responsibility of the Department of Administration. I suggested that the public’s confidence in RIDOT’s transparency in bidding and procurement was not improved when its vendors failed to comply with RIDOT contracts, especially when RIDOT was neither aware nor concerned about that fact. The Director agreed to share this concern with the Department of Administration.
4. A Broader Perspective
I have been concerned for a while about the failure of the great majority of State vendors to comply with this requirement. You can view the database (organized by year of filing) on this Board of Elections web page. The list typically contains around a dozen entries per year, the bulk of which are submitted by law firms, only a mere fraction of the hundreds of state vendors who sign big State contracts every year. AECOM and Aetna Bridge are just examples of probably dozens, and possibly hundreds of State contractors across many State agencies every year who should be filing these affidavits but are not.
This failure deprives the public of valuable information, while also providing at least in theory a way to reduce conduct that the public may perceive (rightly or wrongly in any particular case) as “pay to play.” I hope Thursday’s hearing will encourage RIDOT and all other State agencies to treat this provision of State law, and its underlying policy of governmental transparency, more seriously.
The General Assembly is out of session this week.