During this audit, we faced delays in the MBTA’s identification of the appropriate officials responsible for the programs under review, prolonged waits for requested information, and instances of inconsistent and inaccurate data provided by the MBTA.
During our planning process, we asked the MBTA to identify the individuals responsible for monitoring Keolis’s performance in the areas we were auditing so that we could schedule interviews to gain an understanding of these processes. Throughout this process, which spanned several months, the MBTA directed us to meet with certain employees. These meetings took time to schedule, and after conducting them, we found that, in some cases, the employees were unable to provide the necessary information. These employees lacked the required understanding of the process, forcing us to spend additional time identifying the correct sources. In other cases, the information provided to us in these meetings did not align with what was documented in the contract and the MBTA’s internal procedure documents, which led to further delays as we worked to understand what was occurring during the audit period. As a result, meetings needed to be rescheduled with different employees, significantly delaying the overall audit process.
Additionally, the MBTA provided us with incorrect escalation factors used to calculate Keolis’s performance incentives and penalties. We relied on these factors throughout our audit work, and it was not until after our testing was completed and the MBTA saw our results that it identified and corrected the error. This error forced us to redo our testing, update our workpapers, and re-review the results with the MBTA, causing significant delays in the audit process and a $829,454 error in our initial calculations, which relied on data that was provided to us and stipulated as correct by the MBTA.
These issues demonstrate weaknesses in accountability and oversight within the MBTA, inefficiencies in internal processes, poor coordination and communication among departments, and potential gaps in employee subject-matter knowledge. These issues wasted significant time for both the MBTA and the Office of the State Auditor—and therefore public dollars—and raise questions about the MBTA’s prioritization and commitment to this particular audit.
| Date published: | March 4, 2025 |
|---|