WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HD 6097

A communication from the Office of the Inspector General (see Section 12 of Chapter 12A of the General Laws) submitting an Investigatory Review of Failed 2025 Service Plaza Procurement

194th Legislature (2025-2026)

The bill publishes the OIG’s findings on MassDOT’s failed service plaza procurement and requires reforms to ensure fair, transparent, and accountable future procurements.

Placed on file
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HD 6097

Overview

HD 6097 (Session 194th) from Massachusetts presents an Investigatory Review by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding MassDOT’s failed 2025 procurement for a single operator to revitalize, operate, and maintain 18 service plazas along the Massachusetts Turnpike and other state highways. The bill transmits the OIG’s findings and recommendations to improve future procurements and prevent similar issues. It documents that MassDOT will need to restart the procurement and reissue a solicitation, after extending current leases through June 30, 2027.

Main purpose and intent

  • To communicate the OIG’s evaluative findings from the failed 2025 service plaza procurement.
  • To provide concrete recommendations intended to strengthen MassDOT’s future procurement processes, ensuring fairness, transparency, and integrity.
  • To acknowledge MassDOT’s current transition to reprocure the service plazas and to encourage adoption of the OIG’s recommendations prior to the next procurement.

Key provisions and changes the bill would make

Note: The bill text constitutes the OIG’s investigatory report and its recommended prescriptions rather than traditional statutory amendments. The notable provisions and recommendations include:

  • Findings on procedural flaws:

    • Inadequate conflict of interest disclosures by evaluation team members.
    • Appearance of conflict arising from communication between a key figure (Scott Bosworth) and Applegreen affiliates.
    • Violations of Rules of Contact by Applegreen affiliates engaging with a selection committee member during and after procurement phases.
    • Lack of weights for subfactors in evaluative criteria, contributing to inconsistent scoring.
    • Failure by some selection committee members to document scoring justifications as required.
    • Inadequate controls on outreach to internal MassDOT divisions and subject matter experts.
    • Use of live, in-person scoring increasing perceived bias.
    • Insufficient information provided to the Capital Programs Committee (CPC) and MassDOT Board for timely approval.

  • Recommendations (summarized):

    1. Revise Conflict of Interest Disclosure forms to include space for identifying real/apparent conflicts and designate sign-offs by the chair/facilitators.
    2. Strengthen conflict-of-interest training to address personal relationships, financial interests, and reputational risks.
    3. Reinforce ongoing duty to comply with RFP rules; require disclosure of communications with proposers/affiliates and provide robust procedures to address violations.
    4. Require explicit weighting of subfactors within qualitative criteria (per ABA guidance) to ensure consistent evaluation.
    5. Mandate complete documentation of scoring rationales by all selection committee members; improve facilitator enforcement.
    6. Clarify and formalize procedures for outreach to subject matter experts and other MassDOT divisions; ensure documentation of all information requests.
    7. Move from live/open scoring to a closed/sealed scoring process to reduce bias.
    8. Present major procurements publicly and early to CPC and the full Board with sufficient information, avoiding reliance on private briefings.
    9. Additional administrative recommendations:
      • Establish a formal RFP change log for amendments.
      • Improve meeting minutes to reflect discussions and questions accurately under Open Meeting Law.

  • Administrative context and lessons:

    • MassDOT’s first procurement process for service plazas did not yield a signed agreement; current operators’ leases extended to mid-2027.
    • The report emphasizes building a solid, transparent foundation for the next 35-year lease and related megaproject procurements.

Who or what would be affected

  • Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT): Required to implement the OIG’s recommendations to rebalance and reform the service plaza procurement process.
  • MassDOT Board of Directors and its Capital Programs Committee (CPC): Guided to receive timely, full public information and to approve procurements with clearer documentation and oversight.
  • Service plaza operators and bidders: Future proposers would benefit from clarified rules, weights, and disclosure requirements, and from reduced risk of conflicts and procedural irregularities.
  • Public: Travelers and stakeholders relying on service plazas would gain from a more transparent, competitive, and accountable procurement process and better-maintained facilities over the next 35 years.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The OIG’s review covers MassDOT’s procurement timeline from the RFI (April 2024) through the failed May–September 2025 finalization with Applegreen, including:
    • Shortlist (Dec 2024) and final proposals (Mar–Apr 2025).
    • Final presentations (May 2025) and scoring (May–June 2025).
    • Board approval (June 18, 2025) followed by a six-month transition, which was disrupted when Applegreen withdrew in September 2025.
    • Result: procurement canceled; existing operators extended to June 30, 2027.
  • The report calls for immediate procedural reforms before any new procurement is issued and stresses public, not private, board engagement for major procurements.

Note: The bill functions as the publication of an OIG Investigatory Review and its recommendations rather than enacting new statutory provisions; its impact rests on MassDOT policy and process reforms for future procurements.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.