Office of the Legislative Auditor - Financial Audit Division

Report Summary
Minnesota Department of Transportation

Special Review: Cultural Resource Program

The Office of the Legislative Auditor has conducted a special review of the selection and utilization process for archaeological contractors used by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. We focused on a potential conflict of interest regarding Mr. G. Joseph Hudak, an employee of the department. We conducted the review at the request of a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Our objectives were to answer the following questions:

• Did the Department of Transportation properly resolve the potential conflict of interest between Mr. G. Joseph Hudak and certain contractors?
• Is there evidence that some T-contract vendors benefited from their relationships with Mr. Hudak in regard to work received through Mn/DOT's selection process?
• Is there evidence that Mr. Hudak received a financial gain or benefit from his involvement with certain T-contractors used for cultural resources?

Conclusions:

We conclude that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) did not properly document the resolution of Mr. Hudak's potential conflict of interest with certain T-contract vendors. We believe that Mr. Hudak had a potential conflict of interest with the firms that subcontracted with Foth &Van Dyke, a firm that employs Mr. Hudak's brother. Although various meeting notes indicate that Mr. Hudak provided proper notification, Mn/DOT did not remove him from the selection committee for the T-contract vendors. In addition, Mn/DOT did not maintain documentation showing the criteria or rationale for selecting certain vendors.

We did not arrive at a definitive conclusion on whether any T-contract vendors benefited from Mn/DOT's decision not to remove Mr. Hudak from the contract selection involving firms with which he had an acknowledged association. We found no direct evidence to indicate that Mr. Hudak was able to extend any advantage to those firms that subcontracted with Foth & Van Dyke. However, our analysis showed mixed indications as to whether the T-contractors with connections to Mr. Hudak have acquired more favorable status with the department.

We found no evidence that Mr. Hudak received any benefits or financial gain from the cultural resource vendors. Based on the evidence obtained, we found no financial relationship between Mr. Hudak and Foth & Van Dyke or with those vendors that subcontracted with Foth & Van Dyke.