Turnpike_Grand_Jury_Presentment

Recommendations

Info

facilitated the meetings of the full Committee. Most often, just one vendor was sent to the Turnpike Commission for approval. The evaluations prepared by the committee before the formal meeting of the Procurement Technical Review Committee went to the Commissioners in advance of the meeting. It was clear to those involved in the process that there were also discussions in advance of the formal meeting as to which vendor should be selected to do the work. This conclusion is based in part upon the apparent consensus established prior to the meeting. A Contract Supervisor, explained in greater detail before the Grand Jury: Q: Are you suggesting then there is conversations going on, whether it be at the Commission level or the Executive staff level, about the selection, who’s going to get selected, who is most qualified? A: Yes. Q: Do you know that those conversations took place? A: No. Q: Why do you believe those conversations took place? A: Because they were very adamant about them - - them going out two weeks priors. And I know that there was discussion with the Commission because if the Commissioners didn’t have - - if by chance I didn’t get the information out in the - - before the two-week time period or in that two-week time period, George would get very upset with me because the Commission didn’t have enough time to review the evaluations. Q: So when you just said they would get very upset with me if they didn’t have it in two weeks in advance, the “they” - - who is the “they” that you’re referring to? A: George. Q: So George is getting mad at you? A: Right. And I assume the Commission was complaining to him that they did not get the narrative evaluations in enough time to review them. Q: Did George ever indicate to you that it was the Commissioners themselves? 50
A: Yes. A former Turnpike Director of Government Affairs explained that Turnpike employees, specifically those referenced above, were placed on the PTRC to do the work of the Commissioners who appointed them. He explained further that he represented the interests of the Republican appointed Commissioners on the Personnel Committee, and the former Director of the Western Regional Office represented their interests on the PTRC. Despite the procedures and policies in place, the Grand Jury finds that many of the selections were pre-determined. A former Turnpike Director and member of the Procurement Technical Review Committee described George Hatalowich, in his capacity as Contracts Administrator, as calling the shots and making the selections on behalf of then Turnpike Chairman Mitchell Rubin. The Turnpike’s former director testified as follows: “I would say it was more Rubin and stuff like that and I’m - - you know, Rubin would meet with different contractors or something like that and, you know, a lot of it was based on campaign contributions.” When asked for specifics, the Turnpike’s Director recalled that the contract awarded to Ciber for computer services was influenced by Chairman Rubin and Hatalowich. The Director went on to estimate that “90 percent of the contracts at the Turnpike was based on - - under these guys, based on campaign contributions.” During Brimmeier’s tenure as Chief Executive Officer, the campaign contributions were largely split between then Senator #6 and the then Governor. According to the Director, “[Senator #6] had his Harry S. Truman dinner a lot of times and that’s where a lot of the campaign contributions went to. . . They were the key guys. I mean, you know, Rubin was a representative for [Senator #6] and Brimmeier was a representative of [the Governor].” Eventually, the Director stopped attending the meeting of the 51
Page 1 and 2: INTRODUCTION We, the members of the
Page 3 and 4: state officials. In addition, Rubin
Page 5 and 6: History of the Pennsylvania Turnpik
Page 7 and 8: day-to-day operations are also mana
Page 9 and 10: opportunity to be an underwriter or
Page 11 and 12: did.” Lepore regularly called Bri
Page 13 and 14: Date Amount Recipient 6/4/2001 $500
Page 15 and 16: told the Turnpike consultants “th
Page 17 and 18: campaign contributions made by the
Page 19 and 20: Prior to the official meeting of th
Page 21 and 22: He further described Hatalowich’s
Page 23 and 24: Administrator and the Turnpike Comm
Page 25 and 26: He said, listen, we want to get pai
Page 27 and 28: Rodgers by $700,000.00. The Commiss
Page 29 and 30: those things happen all the time, a
Page 31 and 32: Duration (minutes) of calls made on
Page 33 and 34: Date Amount Recipient 8/7/2006 $200
Page 35 and 36: As Commissioner Rubin promised, the
Page 37 and 38: McTish, Kunkle & Associates (“MKA
Page 39 and 40: Lastly, MKA was selected to provide
Page 41 and 42: Sucevic, Piccolomini & Kuchar Engin
Page 43 and 44: TPD’s President also explained hi
Page 45 and 46: pressure exerted by Turnpike offici
Page 47 and 48: Date Gift/Event Description Amount
Page 49: The Grand Jury finds a prima facie
Page 53 and 54: Ciber’s $82 million contracts for
Page 55 and 56: Commonwealth. BearingPoint raised t
Page 57 and 58: very important to winning the propo
Page 59 and 60: the Information Technology area of
Page 61 and 62: with them and answer their question
Page 63 and 64: Dennis Miller also secured work for
Page 65 and 66: International Bridge, Tunnel and Tu
Page 67 and 68: Shortly thereafter, Brimmeier calle
Page 69 and 70: As Director of Toll Revenue Audit,
Page 71 and 72: elationship with Turnpike CEO Brimm
Page 73 and 74: Lepore knew Suzenski and was also a
Page 75 and 76: Date Gift/Expense Description Amoun
Page 77 and 78: The Grand Jury finds a prima facie
Page 79 and 80: contacting Lepore directly. When ex
Page 81 and 82: Date Description of Event Attendees
Page 83 and 84: instructed by his Chief Counsel to
Page 85: . . [F]ollow the money and you will

Turnpike_Grand_Jury_Presentment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?