Team 5 Investigates: Many Bridge Projects Cost Double
Private Consultants Replace State Engineers, Millions of Dollars Wasted
POSTED: 3:00 pm EDT May 8,
2008
UPDATED: 8:20 am EDT May 9,
2008
Email
Print
BOSTON -- Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed a nearly $4 billion plan to fix hundreds of decaying bridges statewide. But Team 5 Investigates' Janet Wu reported Thursday that unless the state dramatically changes how those bridges are repaired, taxpayers will end up spending millions of dollars unnecessarily.
Watch VideoNo matter where we go, it isn't hard to find bridges with cracking concrete, gaping holes, rusted metal and crumbling supports. And those in charge of fixing the state's bridges admit the system is broken."Do you think taxpayers got the best bang for their buck over the last 10-15 years," asked Wu."No, I don't," said Richard Sullivan, Commissioner of the state Department of Conservation and Recreation.But how quickly our bridges get fixed isn't as important as how the state spends the money. For example, taxpayers are paying almost twice as much to design and inspect the bridge over Lake Quinsigamond in Shrewsbury because the state hired private consultants to do the work instead of its own engineers."Have taxpayers been snookered?" asked Wu. "The answer is yes," said Alan Macdonald, member of the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission.Team 5 Investigates found the Quinsigamond bridge is only one example of how taxpayers are paying nearly double for bridge work because consultants are thriving under a system that's been in place for over a decade."It was just a consultant culture that invaded state government," said Joe Dorant, President of Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists. An analysis by MOSES found the Massachusetts Highway Department and the Department of Conservation and Recreation could save millions of dollars if they cut their use of consultants in half. In the past three years, bridge consultants for both agencies have cost taxpayers more than $48 million."And what's been the end result for the taxpayer?" asked Wu. "We've seen it on the Big Dig, we've seen accountability problems and we've seen a lack of oversight," said Dorant.If state engineers had inspected the Gilmore bridge in Cambridge, it would cost about $18,000. Private consultants doing the same work: $42,000. Another example: Boston's Neponset River Bridge. Taxpayers shelled out more than a million dollars for work performed by private consultants. It would have only been half a million if state engineers had been on the job. "You get more for your dollar if you have a staff built up to handle the day to day inspection and maintenance of a number of projects," said Macdonald.Since 1990, the number of state engineers has been cut nearly in half. 75-percent of those working on state bridges are now private contractors, allowing governors, beginning with William Weld, to brag about how they've shrunk the size of government.In 2003, the Federal Highway Administration cited the state for staffing levels that were below minimum standards. "There is no excuse for the shrinkage in the workforce. It's about as smart as losing weight by amputating your leg because you've ended up with a very damaged capacity to do the engineering that's necessary to fix bridges," said Fred Salvucci, former Transportation Secretary during the Dukakis administration.And the cost to taxpayers has been astronomical. A fact Beacon Hill hid by borrowing the money, passing on the cost to the next generation of taxpayers."It's over a billion dollar expense on top of everything else we need to do in order to do it with consultants rather than our own employees," said Macdonald."Is it a bad idea to have so many consultants doing so much work?" asked Wu."Obviously it would be more cost effective if we had more staff in house to cover more of the projects. The fact of the matter is we don't have the capacity to do it in house," said Frank Tramontozzi, Chief Engineer of the Massachusetts Highway Department.No one suggests getting rid of all consultants. They are more cost effective for some projects. But if, a bridge collapses, "It is absolutely also appropriate for the in-house engineers to have enough staff to be able to hold the outside consultants and engineers accountable," said Sullivan.What's worse, the state's over-reliance on consultants has driven up their rates, allowing them to pay engineers higher salaries and making it more difficult for the state to compete for their services. It's a vicious cycle the Patrick administration claims it will try to break.
Watch VideoNo matter where we go, it isn't hard to find bridges with cracking concrete, gaping holes, rusted metal and crumbling supports. And those in charge of fixing the state's bridges admit the system is broken."Do you think taxpayers got the best bang for their buck over the last 10-15 years," asked Wu."No, I don't," said Richard Sullivan, Commissioner of the state Department of Conservation and Recreation.But how quickly our bridges get fixed isn't as important as how the state spends the money. For example, taxpayers are paying almost twice as much to design and inspect the bridge over Lake Quinsigamond in Shrewsbury because the state hired private consultants to do the work instead of its own engineers."Have taxpayers been snookered?" asked Wu. "The answer is yes," said Alan Macdonald, member of the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission.Team 5 Investigates found the Quinsigamond bridge is only one example of how taxpayers are paying nearly double for bridge work because consultants are thriving under a system that's been in place for over a decade."It was just a consultant culture that invaded state government," said Joe Dorant, President of Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists. An analysis by MOSES found the Massachusetts Highway Department and the Department of Conservation and Recreation could save millions of dollars if they cut their use of consultants in half. In the past three years, bridge consultants for both agencies have cost taxpayers more than $48 million."And what's been the end result for the taxpayer?" asked Wu. "We've seen it on the Big Dig, we've seen accountability problems and we've seen a lack of oversight," said Dorant.If state engineers had inspected the Gilmore bridge in Cambridge, it would cost about $18,000. Private consultants doing the same work: $42,000. Another example: Boston's Neponset River Bridge. Taxpayers shelled out more than a million dollars for work performed by private consultants. It would have only been half a million if state engineers had been on the job. "You get more for your dollar if you have a staff built up to handle the day to day inspection and maintenance of a number of projects," said Macdonald.Since 1990, the number of state engineers has been cut nearly in half. 75-percent of those working on state bridges are now private contractors, allowing governors, beginning with William Weld, to brag about how they've shrunk the size of government.In 2003, the Federal Highway Administration cited the state for staffing levels that were below minimum standards. "There is no excuse for the shrinkage in the workforce. It's about as smart as losing weight by amputating your leg because you've ended up with a very damaged capacity to do the engineering that's necessary to fix bridges," said Fred Salvucci, former Transportation Secretary during the Dukakis administration.And the cost to taxpayers has been astronomical. A fact Beacon Hill hid by borrowing the money, passing on the cost to the next generation of taxpayers."It's over a billion dollar expense on top of everything else we need to do in order to do it with consultants rather than our own employees," said Macdonald."Is it a bad idea to have so many consultants doing so much work?" asked Wu."Obviously it would be more cost effective if we had more staff in house to cover more of the projects. The fact of the matter is we don't have the capacity to do it in house," said Frank Tramontozzi, Chief Engineer of the Massachusetts Highway Department.No one suggests getting rid of all consultants. They are more cost effective for some projects. But if, a bridge collapses, "It is absolutely also appropriate for the in-house engineers to have enough staff to be able to hold the outside consultants and engineers accountable," said Sullivan.What's worse, the state's over-reliance on consultants has driven up their rates, allowing them to pay engineers higher salaries and making it more difficult for the state to compete for their services. It's a vicious cycle the Patrick administration claims it will try to break.Copyright 2008 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
