Highway agency has continuing contract problems, auditors find

Cars travel near interstate highway construction.By Sam Smith

The Maryland State Highway Administration wrongfully authorized modifications and extensions to architectural and engineering contracts without the approval of the Board of Public Works, auditors have found. They also found that the highway agency is not providing proper justification for the board to approve maximum contract awards.

These findings are similar to findings in a previous report on SHA contracts.

In addition, the Office of Legislative Audits report released Tuesday said that required contractor performance benchmarks were not established for the Maryland SafeZones pilot program for highway work zone speed enforcement. Auditors say that the contractors’ speed monitoring system is not adequately collecting readable photographs as actual citation revenue is $850,000 below the contractors’ original estimate.

The SHA used unexpended funds from numerous architectural and engineering  contracts to fund projects that were not within the capacities of the individual contracts. Using the contract funds for outside projects without approval from the Board of Public Works violates state regulations.

Due to a similar finding in a special review a year ago, the SHA conducted a survey and found that $21.7 million was charged to 105 contracts for projects that were beyond the scope of the individual agreements

The SHA’s response to the finding states: “The Administration issued a memorandum on March 9, 2011 to all senior managers directing that all tasks issued under A&E contracts be evaluated to determine that all work performed under the contract is authorized as work contemplated by the contract.”

Administration authorized contract extensions without BPW approval

The administration also kept unspent contract authorizations by extending contract expiration dates without the board’s required approval. From August 2008 to June 2011, the SHA granted 291 extensions totalling $449 million. Auditors examined 10 extensions and found they ranged from one year to 18 months past the board approved expiration date.

“During our audit period we were advised by SHA management personnel that it was not SHA’s practice to submit A&E contract period extensions to the BPW for approval, as required by state regulations,” the audit report stated.
The highway administration responded by stating that due to the 2011 special review, additional approval paths were implemented in the department’s financial management system. A review process has been established ensuring that modifications will be submitted to the board.

No benchmarks established for work zone speed enforcement program

Although the administration’s contract for the Maryland SafeZone Program called for the establishment of benchmarks to evaluate the contractor’s performance, none were established. Auditors claim the benchmarks are a vital aspect in assessing the success of the program.

The success of the program is largely dependent on the system’s ability to accurately measure speed and collect identifiable license plate images regardless of the weather or operational conditions.

The program’s contract requires for 90% of violations to be captured and processed. According to SHA records, 133,620 violations were captured between October of 2009 and June of 2010, but 56% of those citations were not issued because they were labeled unacceptable due to “reliability and readability issues.”

The SHA said that that during the pilot phase of the program they became aware that the radar-based technology that is used on single lane roads was not suited for major highways. SHA claims that the finding doesn’t reflect the nature of rapidly changing technology and the fact that there are no national programs to compare to. The switch to laser-based technology has coincided with a rise in the capture rate in recent years.

“The pilot program allowed us to learn how this type of program worked and determine the most
appropriate performance specifications to be included in the RFP,” the agency response stated.

About The Author

Len Lazarick


Len Lazarick was the founding editor and publisher of MarylandReporter.com and is currently the president of its nonprofit corporation and chairman of its board He was formerly the State House bureau chief of the daily Baltimore Examiner from its start in April 2006 to its demise in February 2009. He was a copy editor on the national desk of the Washington Post for eight years before that, and has spent decades covering Maryland politics and government.


  1. Maryland Esquire

    There used to be a time that the public, media, elected officials, and appointed officials actually cared and did something when a highly critical legislative audit was issued. People scrambled to correct things; people were held accountable. That doesn’t seem to hold true anymore.

    • abby_adams

      Why should they care? The sheeple keep voting for the same political critters again & again that refuse to clean up the corruption. I know it’s difficult to stomach but until the heavy yoke of gov regs & taxes becomes intolerable, nothing will change in navy blue MD.

  2. Dale McNamee

    This is not surprising to me…It’s just another example of the corrupting rot that pervades the State government, along with the previous agency audits and investigations reported by Maryland Reporter…

    These stories should be of paramount importance and be reported by our local ” news outlets “, but they’re not…

    More sports reports, crime reports, & “happy puppy stories”. please !

  3. hungrypirana

    The audit report reveals several deficiencies that may cast reasonable doubt on the validity of certain LIDAR-based traffic tickets issued beginning July 2010 and continuing through the present.

    According to the auditors, the State issued speeding tickets using LIDAR equipment that did not conform with International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) guidelines, contrary to requirements for meeting those guidelines specified in the contract. Acceptance testing of the LIDAR equipment required prior to the contract’s award was not performed as enumerated in the solicitation documents. Lastly, independent calibrations were not done until 9 months after the LIDAR equipment was put into service.

    The report does not mention whether the auditors communicated the findings to the AGs office to assess the propriety of speeding tickets issued. It seems the State may have a problem not cited in the audit report.

  4. Bruce Robinson

    In 2005-07 I was a Division Manager at MVA during an audit. In May, I was told the Administrator was no longer pleased with my services. The audit results were released shortly thereafter. Every division except one, mine, was re-cited. It was noted that my division was the only one that had corrected it’s previous citations. I had my eye on the ball and my staff did a super job of resolving long standing problems. Same administration, same results.

Support Our Work!

We depend on your support. A generous gift in any amount helps us continue to bring you this service.