A Review of the MBTA’s
Police Dispatch Services
Contract with IXP
Corporation
Supplemental Report
December 27, 2023
Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Esq., CIG
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
 December 27, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
The Hon. Monica Tibbits-Nutt Phillip Eng, General Manager
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3830
Boston, MA 02116 Boston, MA 02116
Secretary.Tibbits-Nutt@dot.state.ma.us Secretary.TibbiPeng@mbta.com
The Hon. Brendan P. Crighton, Senate Chair The Hon. William M. Straus, House Chair
Joint Committee on Transportation Joint Committee on Transportation
State House, Room 109-C State House, Room 134
Boston, MA 02113 Boston, MA 02113
Brendan.Crighton@masenate.gov William.Straus@mahouse.gov
Brendan.Crighton@masenate.gov William.Straus@mahouse.gov
Re: A Review of the MBTA’s Police Dispatch Services Contract with IXP Corporation,
Supplemental Report
Dear Secretary Tibbits-Nutt, General Manager Eng, Senator Crighton and Representative Straus:
Pursuant to Section 196 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2015 (Chapter 46), enclosed please find a
report that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued today entitled A Review of the MBTA’s Police
Dispatch Services Contract with IXP Corporation, Supplemental Report.
Under Chapter 46, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA or authority) was
exempted for a three-year period from the provisions of the Taxpayer Protection Act when contracting
with private companies to perform services “similar to or in lieu of” their own employees. The general
goal of such privatization contracts is to provide better services at a lower cost.
Chapter 46 also specifies that within 90 days after the complete performance of any contract the
MBTA executed under the exemption, the OIG must analyze and report on the fairness and
competitiveness of the procurement process, the quality of the services provided by the contract, the
expected and actual cost of the contract, and the costs/benefits.
In 2017, the MBTA contracted with IXP Corporation (IXP) to provide police dispatch services for
the authority’s Transit Police Department. The OIG’s Internal Special Audit Unit (ISAU) released its first
report regarding the IXP contract on December 23, 2022. At that time, the ISAU determined that it needed
additional information from both the MBTA and IXP to properly evaluate one aspect of its Chapter 46
review: the fairness and competitiveness of the MBTA’s procurement process. This supplemental report
presents that analysis.
The MBTA is not required to follow the state’s procurement law (Chapter 30B of the
Massachusetts General Laws). As such, the ISAU used the MBTA’s own procurement procedures, per its
own procurement manual, to evaluate the fairness and competitiveness of its solicitation of bids for
dispatch services. The ISAU found that the MBTA completed some, but not all, of its own internal
Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2|Page
procedures for advertising and soliciting responses to the 2017 RFP. The MBTA could not demonstrate
that its solicitation and advertising process was fair and competitive.
Further, the MBTA did not complete or maintain records related to its evaluation of IXP’s response
to the 2017 RFP and therefore could not demonstrate that the evaluation process was fair. Furthermore,
communications between the Transit Police and IXP during the evaluation process raise significant
concerns of a potential bias in favor of IXP. This raises troubling questions on two fronts – records
management and impartiality.
Recordkeeping and records retention are basic functions of any business or organization. It is
essential for a public entity to properly record and retain information concerning its decision-making on
spending public funds (among other things). This has been a chronic problem at the MBTA and has been
documented at length in the OIG’s previous reports. The OIG is pleased to have learned that concerted
efforts are underway at the authority to address these issues. Nonetheless, the test will be how the MBTA
conducts itself during future procurements and with future contract administration and how its actions
align with the results from future oversight reviews.
More concerning is the possibility that favoritism influenced the MBTA’s selection of IXP to
provide police dispatch services. I cannot emphasize enough the need for clear, transparent and fair
procedures for the selection of contractors by public entities. It is essential that the public have confidence
in government when it conducts public procurements and expends the public’s money. In fact, the
creation of the OIG resulted from an investigation of government corruption in awarding contracts for
public building construction. Based upon the ISAU’s investigation, significant concerns were raised
regarding whether or not the selection process was fair; furthering that concern, the MBTA’s poor
recordkeeping and records retention practices meant that the authority could not conclusively
demonstrate that its selection of IXP was free from favoritism. That is not acceptable.
In closing, I respectfully request that the recommendations in this review, as well as those in the
three previous Chapter 46 reviews, be closely scrutinized by MBTA senior management. As I mentioned
in a recent conversation with MassDOT and MBTA leadership, I am encouraged by the action the MBTA’s
Procurement and Logistics Department is undertaking to review our current and prior recommendations
and update internal procurement and recordkeeping procedures. Whether or not my optimism is short
lived will be determined by the future actions of the MBTA. The ISAU team looks forward to meeting with
the MBTA’s procurement and contract administrative teams in the near future to understand the progress
and improvements the MBTA has made.
I believe that Secretary Tibbits-Nutt and General Manager Eng will be able to effectively lead their
teams in correcting and addressing these issues. The Office of the Inspector General, the ISAU team and I
are available to answer any questions that you may have.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Esq., CIG
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 3|Page
cc (via email):
The Hon. Michael J. Rodrigues, Chair, Senate Ways and Means Committee
The Hon. Aaron M. Michlewitz, Chair, House Ways and Means Committee
Douglas McGarrah, General Counsel, Department of Transportation
Hayes Morrison, Undersecretary, Department of Transportation
The Hon. Thomas Koch, Chair, MBTA Advisory Board
Brian Kane, Executive Director, MBTA Advisory Board
Jeff Gonneville, Deputy General Manager, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Kevin Scanlon, Chief Counsel, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Katie Choe, Chief of Staff, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Thomas P. Glynn, Chair, MBTA Board of Directors
Kenneth Green, Chief of Police, MBTA Transit Police
Richard Sullivan, Superintendent, MBTA Transit Police
Michael D. Hurley, Clerk of the Senate
Steven T. James, Clerk of the House
State Library of Massachusetts
Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 4|Page
 INSPECTOR GENERAL’S COUNCIL
Chair Susan Terrey – By designation of Secretary of Public Safety and Security
Vice Chair Michael Leung-Tat – By designation of State Auditor
Amy Crafts – By designation of Attorney General
Comptroller William McNamara – By statute
Michael Caira – By Governor’s appointment
Rachel Ciocci – By State Auditor’s appointment
James Morris – By Attorney General’s appointment
Christopher Walsh – By Governor’s appointment
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ’S LEADERSHIP
Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Esq., CIG, Inspector General
Natalie S. Monroe, First Assistant Inspector General
Susanne M. O’Neil, General Counsel
Emily Pedersen, Director (appointed by the Inspector General)
Kimberly Stanley, Deputy Director
Matthew Boyle, Investigator
James Devoe, Lead Investigator
Rachel Hale, Investigator
Marisa Janeczek, Compliance Specialist
Jesmeen Khan, Investigator
Colin Long, Policy Analyst
Nicholas O'Neill, Lead Counsel
Harley Songin, Investigator
Jarrett Taylor, Coordinator/Investigator
Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 5|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation of the MBTA’s Procurement Process ........................................................................................ 10
I. Police Dispatch Services Procurement Process .................................................................................... 11
A. February 2016 Procurement .......................................................................................................... 11
B. June 2017 Procurement ................................................................................................................. 13
II. Finding 1: The MBTA completed some, but not all, of its internal procedures for advertising and
soliciting responses to the 2017 RFP. The MBTA could not demonstrate that its solicitation and
advertising process was fair and competitive ...................................................................................... 15
A. Independent Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................... 15
B. Adequate Competition................................................................................................................... 16
C. Clear, Accurate and Complete Specifications ................................................................................ 16
D. Experience, Bonding and Qualification Requirements .................................................................. 17
E. Advertising and Publicizing ............................................................................................................ 17
F. Adequate Number of Sources Solicited ......................................................................................... 18
G. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 19
III. Finding 2: The MBTA did not complete or could not provide relevant records related to its
evaluation of IXP’s response to the 2017 RFP. Communications between the Transit Police and
IXP raise significant concerns of potential bias in favor of IXP in the evaluation process. .................. 20
A. Technical Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 20
B. Price Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 25
C. Final Selection ................................................................................................................................ 26
D. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 6|Page
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA or authority) issued a request for
proposals (RFP) in 2017 that resulted in a contract with IXP Corporation (IXP) to provide police dispatch
services for the MBTA Transit Police Department (Transit Police). The procurement was pursuant to a
three-year “privatization waiver” that the Legislature enacted through Section 196 of Chapter 46 of the
Acts of 2015 (Chapter 46). That legislation exempted the authority from the requirements of the Taxpayer
Protection Act (TPA) from July 1, 2015 through July 1, 2018. The TPA, passed in 1993, established a process
that state agencies must follow in hiring a private company to perform services previously provided by
agency employees.
The 2015 privatization waiver requires the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), within 90 days
after the complete performance of any contract the MBTA executed pursuant to Chapter 46’s exemption,
to report on (1) the competitiveness and fairness of the procurement process resulting in the contract;
(2) the quality of services provided by the contract; (3) the expected and actual cost of the contract; and
(4) whether the cost of the contract exceeded the benefits derived from the contract.
On December 23, 2022, the OIG’s Internal Special Audit Unit (ISAU) released its first report
regarding the MBTA’s contract with IXP. That report, A Review of the MBTA’s Police Dispatch Services
Contract with IXP Corporation, focused on three of the four areas that the OIG is required to review under
Chapter 46: quality of services, expected and actual costs, and costs and benefits. The ISAU determined
that it needed additional information from both the MBTA and IXP to properly evaluate the fairness and
competitiveness of the MBTA’s procurement process and deemed a more in-depth analysis of records to
be in the public’s best interest.
At the OIG’s request, the MBTA and IXP provided additional materials and correspondence
created during the procurement process for the ISAU’s review.1 The present report supplements the
original report and focuses exclusively on Chapter 46’s dictate that the OIG evaluate the fairness and
competitiveness of the MBTA’s procurement of police dispatch services.2 The ISAU’s findings and
recommendations resulting from its analysis of the police dispatch procurement process are as follows:
1To complete its review of the competitiveness and fairness of the MBTA’s procurement for police dispatch services, the ISAU
evaluated relevant MBTA and IXP documents, including requests for proposals; proposals submitted; proposal evaluation records;
presentations, minutes and other materials from Fiscal and Management Control Board meetings; contract documents and
amendments; and emails and other correspondence. The ISAU also reviewed the MBTA’s annual reports to the Legislature for
2016 through 2018, as well as the MBTA procurement manual and available documents the MBTA developed during the
procurement process. Lastly, the ISAU interviewed current and former MBTA employees, including employees from the MBTA
Procurement Department and the Transit Police. The ISAU also met with IXP senior management regarding the procurement, the
contract and the services the company provided.
2The ISAU’s December 2022 report presents additional background information related to the OIG, the MBTA, the MBTA Transit
Police, the TPA, the history of the Transit Police’s dispatch functions, and the MBTA’s decision to privatize dispatch services and
contract with IXP.
Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 7|Page
 Finding 1. The MBTA completed some, but not all, of its internal procedures for advertising and
soliciting responses to the 2017 RFP. The MBTA could not demonstrate that its solicitation and
advertising process was fair and competitive.
The MBTA has wide latitude to determine its procurement process and is not required to follow
Chapter 30B of the Massachusetts General Laws. For this review, the ISAU used the MBTA’s procurement
manual criteria as the applicable measure of fair and competitive procurements. Based on its investigation
and analysis under the MBTA’s own manual, the ISAU found that the MBTA completed some, but not all,
of its internal procedures for advertising and soliciting responses to the 2017 RFP for police dispatch
services. The procurement fell short in several key elements. The MBTA could not demonstrate that its
solicitation and advertising process was fair and competitive.
Finding 2: The MBTA did not complete or could not provide relevant records related to its
evaluation of IXP’s response to the 2017 RFP. Communications between the Transit Police and IXP raise
significant concerns of potential bias in favor of IXP in the evaluation process.
The MBTA could not show that its evaluation process was fair and competitive since the authority
did not complete or maintain relevant records. Moreover, communications between Transit Police and
IXP employees raise significant concerns of potential bias in favor of IXP in the evaluation process.
Recommendations: In reviewing the MBTA’s procurement for police dispatch services, the ISAU
identified necessary measures for the MBTA to strengthen its procurement processes.
The ISAU recomm